absolvtely-barbaric

[absolvtely-barbaric]

“Brother, please! You can’t be saying such things! There’s hope, still!”

[absolvtely-barbaric]

The last thing that Xiongnu said to a defeated young Huns. 

[absolvtely-barbaric]

For more background information on the Xiongnu, head to my previous post about him and China. It’ll be necessary going forward! (Please note that this topic is highly debated within academic circles, and while a definitive link isn’t proven between the Huns and Xiongnu, I’ve read convincing arguments for both sides, and have chosen to make Huns’ origins lie with the Xiongnu for character purposes. Given that a lot of old steppe/barbarian history is obscure, I have to take some liberties with details here.)

As I mentioned in my previous post, it was split into four parts: north, south, east, west. These were represented by colors: black, green, red, and white, respectively. The Chanyu and his clan ruled over the entire realm. Much like my Scythians character, Xiongnu represents this ruling clan and the Xiongnu government (as well as aspects of Xiongnu culture, but these were mostly ubiquitous throughout the empire). Huns is the northern Huns, the Black Huns. 

In Hunnic culture, male succession is extremely important. The land of the Chanyu was divided amongst his sons (or nearest male relatives) upon his death. For Xiongnu, having sons would be a mark of prestige and power, and also ensure that his lineage would go on past his death. (And it did!) So in that way, he intentionally created his sons for the sole purpose of being wings of the Xiongnu state and continue on the legacy of Xiongnu culture. They weren’t born into the world as infants, rather, as young teenagers, given that the Xiongnu culture and state was already well-developed. (Of course, Xiongnu probably did have other descendants, but these would have been smaller and less-influential groups within the greater empire). 

And now, the relationship between (Black) Huns and his good ‘ole pops. It was almost entirely political. Papa Xiongnu wanted to create successors, not loving sons (ultimately, this would bite him in the ass). Although egotistical and humorous, he’s a very severe person. He tolerated absolutely nothing from them in the way of foolishness. He taught them what they needed to be great kings, including horsemanship, archery, swordsmanship, and above all, tactics. He was also responsible for giving them cheek scars, to show them how important endurance is.

The east was the most important direction (which may be because it was oriented towards China, their greatest source of revenue), and so Papa Xiongnu was a hover dad in the east and south as he busied himself marauding China, actually lending those two even less power individually. Black Huns and White Huns were consequently extremely ambitious. Black Huns in particular. (White Huns is a little more… level-headed.) Nothing gets in the way of what Black Huns wants, not even dear-old dad. (Especially not dear-old dad.) 

He seized his chance in the mid 1st century BCE when Xiongnu had lost control during vassal rebellions. I explained this situation in the Xiongnu/China post. Xiongnu reined him in again, but Huns had tasted blood for the first time, and you know what they say, a tiger never forgets the taste of human blood. It’s difficult to tell which side the individual sub-kings/generals from each quadrant would have taken, so I can only speculate, but I’d imagine that the eastern and southern kings were united in the “southern” half while the western kings may have been aligned with the north. 

In the end of the 1st century CE, the two brothers White and Black Huns were defeated by the alliance of their dad and China. They split apart and went their separate ways. Both brothers headed westwards with their armies and peoples, but the White Huns soon split off and headed south towards India and the Middle East. 

So, what does Black Huns think of him? Well, he knows what he does about power thanks to him. He wanted to take what he was taught and live up to it even more than Xiongnu himself did. That’s about it. He doesn’t love his dad nor does he hate him, he’s just his father, and it doesn’t need to be more complicated than that.

[absolvtely-barbaric]

Thank you so, so much!! It makes me really happy to hear that you enjoy my posts despite not being active in the fandom. Admittedly, I used to be much more active in it too, although my passion for history keeps me coming back to these characters of mine... I’ve just been really involved with life and my studies. Thank you though! You’ve given me more motivation to keep going!

[absolvtely-barbaric]

Some rough concepts for a comic I'm considering doing.

[absolvtely-barbaric]

Scythian Gold Goryt Overlay, 4th Century BC

Found in the Chertomlyk Barrow near Nikopol, Dnieper Area, Russia. A goryt is a carrying case for both bow and arrows (diagram).

Ancient Scythia was centered on the Pontic-Caspian steppe and ranged from modern Kazakhstan to the Baltic coast of modern Poland and to Georgia. The identities of the nomadic peoples of the steppes is often uncertain, and the term “Scythian” should often be taken loosely. In the earlier period Scythian art included very vigorously modeled stylized animal figures, shown singly or in combat, that had a long-lasting and very wide influence on other Eurasian cultures as far apart as China and the European Celts. As the Scythians came in contact with the Greeks at the Western end of their area, their artwork influenced Greek art, and was influenced by it.

The Scythians were known for their horsemanship and the equipment of a Scythian warrior was minimal, limited to what could be carried while riding or in hand-to-hand combat. Their abilty to launch a sudden attack and withdraw quickly was their best defense, hence their light weapons, easy to handle (e.g. a bow and arrow, a sword, and possibly a shield).

[absolvtely-barbaric]

Yes, yes he does! (Yeugh.) Not habitually, just ritually. So he’s not like a vampire just chugging the blood of enemies. (Granted, he is kind of a crazy guy.) The rest of what Herodotus had to say about Scythians drinking blood is here: 

“As regards war, the Scythian custom is for every man to drink the blood of the first man he kills. ... They have a special way of dealing with the actual skulls - not with all of them, but only those of their worst enemies: they saw off the part below the eyebrows, and after cleaning out what remains, stretch a piece of rawhide round it on the outside. If a man is poor, he is content with that, but a rich man goes further and gilds the inside of the skull as well.” 

Of course, Herodotus wrote that the Scythians had a lot of bizarre customs (to Greeks). I don’t actually think that the blood drinking and skull cup thing is entirely untrue, though. Many cultures throughout history and across the world have made cups or decorative items out of real human skulls. And of course, blood has long been an important ritual aspect for many societies. Idanthrysus would only take a sippy sip from very important rivals that he’s defeated. He might lick a bloody sword just to scare someone else. Although he doesn’t do it very often, he doesn’t mind other people thinking he does it a lot, since it’s good PR if you want everyone to think you’re terrifying and badass. 

[absolvtely-barbaric]

For this ask, I drew them approximately what they looked like when they died. I think they would keep relatively the same appearance, except for major injuries healing and just generally looking less... dead-y. Anyway! Here goes! I just answered this for the major chars on my blog that have an Opinion™. 

Both Franks admire him a lot. The Franks really coveted the status and glory that Rome had, and wanted to replicate that in their own way. This of course peaked with Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire. Salian Franks admires Rome a bit more than his twin. The Salian Franks were highly involved with the Romans after all, and so Chlodio got to see him personally quite often. He doesn’t hold a grudge about the conflicts between them; he came out on top anyway. To both of them, it was just tit-for-tat. Ripuarian Franks likes him too, but has always done things a bit more his own style. 

The Hasding Vandals were one of Rome’s main antagonists in the 5th century. He picks on everyone, but especially liked picking on Rome since the reward (gold and also his ire) was a lot more enticing than a lot of the people he’s picked on. Even though Vandals is dead now, his view hasn’t changed much. He thinks Rome is entertaining, but doesn’t take him seriously. Mainly he’s just salty that East Rome came back years later to ruin his fun. He just doesn’t really care much for complicated relationship drama, hence the reluctance to give his opinion. Siling Vandals didn’t have much to do with west Rome, until he’d gotten his shit wrecked by Visigoths and had to join up with his stronger twin. So, he’d probably just repeat whatever Hasding has to say about Rome. 

Burgundians... well, it’s complicated. If asked, he’d just say that he likes Rome’s strength of character and his conviction. He couldn’t help but be drawn to him for the gravity he exudes. This ended up with Godomar getting a little bit greedy with him and competing with Franks and Visigoths for his slice of Rome’s pie. He genuinely enjoyed Rome’s attention, but Rome didn’t feel the same way, and ended up casting Burgundians to the wolves (Huns). Years and his death later, he’s still not certain whether he actually believes that Rome would do that to him. The whole issue has him conflicted, but he’d rather not think about it. 

Visigoths’ visceral reaction is anger, and after some placating by his older brother, detachment. Athaulf and Rome’s relationship was particularly tumultuous and disastrous. They used one another quite a lot. While he hasn’t entirely forgotten the tribulations he went through during life, the reassurance is reminding himself how he endured and succeeded in spite of both Romes constantly trying to undermine him. That helps him sleep peacefully. He does, however, admit that Rome has things to offer, despite how awful he is. 

Ostrogoths is more tempered. He acknowledges the struggle that Rome put his brother through, and will readily comfort him, but still is able to give Rome a lot more kudos than his brother can. This is because Athal mostly interacted with East Rome. He won’t bother praising Rome in front of Visigoths, though. Ostrogoths’ brief guardianship over Rome’s sons did help broaden his understanding of Rome. He respects his legacy but beyond that, doesn’t pay much thought to him in death. 

Huns doesn’t care much for sentimentality about other people. This just gives him an air of ambivalence. Although he’s deeply dissatisfied with how his imperial venture ended, he thinks of their interaction as a brief but thrilling little game. Rome surprised him in a lot of ways. What matters most is that he thinks he got even in the end, considering that Rome joined him in the afterlife very soon after he himself passed. All’s fair in love and war, after all. Everyone else’s mixed feelings on Lucius just make Mundzuk amused. 

[absolvtely-barbaric]

On the Use of Ancient Literature about Barbarians

Image from art by Angus McBride.

“When a Scythian overthrows his first enemy, he drinks his blood… He skins [the head] in the following manner. Having made a circular incision round the ears and taking hold of the skin, he shakes it from the skull… [Each] man hangs it on the bridle of the horse which he rides,” - Herodotus, from “History”

The apparent savagery of barbarians is nothing unknown. Aside from being mysterious, it’s the most pervasive theme among all Greco-Roman works regarding them. It makes one wonder how truly inhumane and grotesque the customs of the barbarians really were. And this question brings to mind another, more general inquiry: how useful are the Greco-Roman authors when it comes to understanding the ‘uncivilized’ peoples beyond their borders? 

To paint barbarians as the savage ones legitimizes the success of Greco-Roman culture in producing an enlightened society. This is nothing new, nor are Greco-Roman authors the only ones guilty of this. The Greco-Romans had no equivalent custom for the headhunting of Celts, or the mutilation of infants by the Huns, and thus by painting a bloody picture of outside societies, they give the impression that Greco-Romans weren’t barbaric (i.e. violent) at all. This is (if we are to judge based off of our current standards of barbarism) patently untrue. Greeks and Romans both had their fair share of barbaric customs. For example, Romans made a public ceremony of murdering slaves and animals (the more theatrical and brutal, the better), and the death toll of the games likely outweighed pretty much any other barbaric institution in the ancient world. The less-centralized barbarians beyond the border couldn’t possibly hope to even come to close to concocting such an effective killing machine. 

Other common themes in Roman writing of the barbarians include constant drunkenness and irrationality. Roman society was supposed to be a Stoic one, which aimed to have a constant grasp on one’s emotions and excess, and thus to frame Germanics or the Huns as hotheaded, brawling drunks is to give themselves a pat on the back for not being the same way. Accounts of barbarians often had an agenda behind it. Even descriptions of the Celts or Germanics as tall or gigantic hulks can be construed as a way for the Romans to feel more impressive for defeating them. 

So, then, what point is there in quoting them? Why should we read the accounts and opinions of people with obvious biases and outlandish exaggerations? For starters, just because there are common motifs in the ways Greco-Romans treated descriptions of outside people doesn’t mean every one of their claims should be discarded. Ammianus Marcellinus writes, after supposing that the Huns are barely human, “None of them plow, or even touch a plow handle, for they have no settled abode, but are homeless and lawless, perpetually wandering with their wagons, which they make their homes; in fact, they seem to be people always in flight….” This observation is impossible to dismiss. The Huns were indeed a nomadic steppe people, and a part of being a nomadic society means that settled agriculture is impossible. The Huns, like other nomad cultures, followed their herds and relied on trade with neighboring agriculturalists to sustain them. The ‘homelessness’ of the Huns began to change in the 5th century, but in the time of Ammianus’ authoring, this was the case. And even in a claim as dastardly as Herodotus’ (of the Scythians’ scalping enemies), the possibility cannot be ignored given the frequency of headhunting and scalping across world cultures.

The most important use of accounts from the ‘civilized’ about the ‘uncivilized’ is this: they are a means through which to understand Greco-Roman values, opinions, and perspective. Marcus Borealis, and other Roman authors, make note of the ferocity and apparent masculinity of Celtic women because, by comparison, Greco-Roman women were devoted to primarily domestic tasks. They were at-awe with the notion of women taking up arms to defend their villages, much less even having a physical role at all. Had the Sarmatians somehow been the ones writing about everyone else, they might not have remarked so often about these “teeth-gnashing” Celtic women, for Sarmatian women had a similar role. 

All this being considered, there are a few rules of thumb to follow whenever you see Greco-Roman accounts on the barbarians: 

Know the author. This is huge. Like authors today, some are more valid and even-handed than others. Tacitus and Priscus come to mind, and personally I would consider their opinions more readily than someone like Ammianus Marcellinus. Some authors gathered information firsthand (like Priscus or Herodotus) while others had it given to them (like Julius Caesar). 

Understand the trends. Be aware of popular motifs across Greco-Roman writing (e.g. alcohol abuse as a symbol of an inferior culture) and take those with a grain of salt. 

Know the time period. Firstly, something written by a contemporary is possibly more authentic than something written 100 years after the fact. It’s also important to know the context for the piece when it comes to understanding why they may have said what they said, and how the events of the era might have skewed what observers saw in barbarian societies. 

Compare with research. If you really want to know about barbarians, Greco-Roman authors are a good jumping-off point, but then use their claims to inspire you to research them yourself. Proof makes accurate quotes even more awesome. 

I reblog and post quite a few quotations from Greco-Roman authors on barbarians. Every time I do, I keep these things in mind, but don’t fear: you can still enjoy them! Even if I know there’s no way to prove it, imagining the Scythians throwing the severed arms of their sacrifice victims up in the air like a graduation party before galloping away (quote Herodotus) is still awesome. When I read someone like Priscus, coming from a wildly different society than the subjects of their writings, I connect with the awe and bewilderment they had towards the barbarians. 

[absolvtely-barbaric]

whenever u post things, just imagine a little firework shooting up into the sky that explodes into a heart bc god i love ur art

Haha thanks!! Be careful though, fireworks are dangerous.

[absolvtely-barbaric]

Decaying together

[absolvtely-barbaric]

[absolvtely-barbaric]

You literally mention my ass even tho I'm always dead?? I'm gonna cry, you're so sweet

Thanks for the props!!

Firat if all every time you post always drawn to your smile bc it's beautiful and your blog always makes my day, thank you for being so amazing! I love this blog and how you portray all the characters and just... it's so perfect. Thank you.

// waaahhh. I don't know what to say. Thank you! My char's have grown so much in interaction with others and not just cosplayers. People I've talked with, people I've rp-ed with, history enthusiasts, artists, people just sending me cool notes and info. To name a few: @hetaliaindie @aph-grandpa @aph--carthage @ask-aph-francis @nicolavargasofficial @asktheitalianempire @askthevaticancity @absolvtely-barbaric mobile sucks when you want to tag people. ( why do people even pop up i never heard off? ) if i find time to log on a real computer i should make a full list. There are so many cool blogs. And do check out the new ones cause they are so full of energy and have cool approuches! Just check your favorite tags (like hetalia art, carthage must be destroyed, cute cats, daniel ricciardo notice me) and select the RECENT search option!

Anyway thank you for the message.

[absolvtely-barbaric]

[absolvtely-barbaric]

Listen here okay, Spain and its treasures were procured with legal authority from Rome

(Also, this crown was made by the Visigoths as a gesture of good faith to the Roman Catholic Church! By the 7th century the Visigothic Kingdom was pretty well off and in this case he could afford to have such a pretty object made through... cough... legitimate means. Visigoths ain't no thief!)

Votive crown (gold, pearls, sapphire), Spain (Visigoths) before 672 AD[1122x2693]

[absolvtely-barbaric]

// i totally lost my shit with your mlp designs. I still got a shitload of them including some of the hairyfooted pony's. I was checking my phone on the toilet and i literally yelled for my partner to come and see what you posted. Yes i have no dignity left. My partner thinks i lost my mind now but he said he was happy for me. In my defense you dont want to know how much transformers and gi joe he got stored pfffffttt.

Haha this is great! Thank you! I’ve exposed myself now as a huge brony. I just really love the show for how cute it is. The art style is great, the characters are good, and the plot lines are pretty entertaining. 

[absolvtely-barbaric]

HARUMPH.