Hunas

Also called: White Huns, Hephthalites, Hun · Topic: Gupta Empire and the Classical Age · NCERT: Class 7, Ch 7 "The Gupta Era: An Age of Tireless Creativity"; Class 7, Ch 3 "Empires and Kingdoms: 6th to 10th Centuries"

Meaning

The Hunas were a branch of the Hephthalites (also called the "White Huns"), a nomadic people from Central Asia who attacked north India again and again from the late 5th century CE. [2][10] Their attacks cost the Gupta empire men, money and land. Their kings Toramana and Mihirakula took large parts of north and central India, and this helped bring the Gupta Age to an end.

Explanation

Who they were and why they came

• The Hunas were not Indians. They came from Central Asia, where the Hephthalites had built a strong state. [2][10]
• They were nomads (people who move with their herds and do not settle in one place) and fought mainly on horseback.
• They reached India through the north-west, by way of Panjab. [4]
• Indian writers called them Hunas. Historians link them to the wider family of "Hun" peoples, but the branch that attacked India was the Hephthalite one.

Sequence of the invasions

• c. 455–467 CE: Skandagupta. He faced the first full Huna invasion and pushed them back. For a time the empire held together. [2][3]
• After Skandagupta died, the Gupta position grew weaker. [2][3]
• Early 6th century: Toramana. He was the first Huna king in India. He attacked from Panjab and took western India. His inscription has been found as far south as Eran (Madhya Pradesh), which shows how deep he got. [2][4]
• Mihirakula, Toramana's son, was the second and last Huna king in India. He kept up his father's push into north India and won a lot of ground. [2][5]
• How Huna rule ended: according to the standard textbook account, Mihirakula was later defeated by Indian rulers, mainly Yashodharman of Malwa. After that, Huna power in India died away and the Hunas gradually became part of Indian society.

What the invasions did to the Guptas

• Loss of land: by the mid-6th century, when the dynasty ended, the Gupta kingdom had become small. North and parts of central India were in Huna hands. [2]
• Drain on resources: every attack cost men, money and prestige.
• Loss of trade income: [2]
• The invasions cut the Central Asian trade routes.

• North India lost the money it used to earn from this trade.

• Revolts from inside:

• The Guptas ruled through samantas (local lords who kept their own lands and armies as long as they stayed loyal).
• When Huna attacks weakened the centre, these lords stopped obeying.

Results: the bigger picture

• Inside or outside causes? Historians say the fall may owe more to internal factors than to the Hunas alone. The invasions shook the empire, but the cracks were already there. [2]
• New regional states rose in the gap the Guptas left:
• Maitrakas of Valabhi (475–776 CE), in Gujarat [7][11]
• Maukharis (510–606 CE), at Kanauj [8]

• Chalukyas of Karnataka and Pallavas of Tamil Nadu further south [6][9]

• Power did not disappear. It moved from one large north Indian empire to many regional kingdoms.

Time, place and evidence

• Period: late 5th to mid-6th century CE, during the later Gupta period.
• Region: they came in through the north-west (Panjab), took western India, and pushed into north and central India as far as Eran in Madhya Pradesh. [2][4]
• Key people:
• Skandagupta (c. 455–467 CE), the Gupta ruler who drove back the first invasion [3]
• Toramana, the first Huna king in India [4]

• Mihirakula, Toramana's son and the last Huna king in India [5]

• How we know:

• Inscriptions: Toramana's inscription at Eran shows how far south Huna power reached. [4]
• Central Asian sources: studies of the Hephthalite empire show that the Hunas were a branch of this people. [10]
• Coins and cities: Gupta gold coin finds become rare from about the 6th century CE. When Xuanzang visited in the 7th century, he found Pataliputra in ruins. Both are signs of the troubled period that followed. But historians still argue about what the drop in gold coins means.

Don't confuse with

• Huns of Europe (Attila): they were a related "Hun" people who attacked the Roman Empire. The Hunas of Indian history were the Hephthalite branch that attacked Gupta India. [10]
• Shakas and Kushanas: these were earlier Central Asian groups who ruled parts of India before the Guptas. The Hunas came later, in the late 5th and 6th centuries CE.
• Toramana and Mihirakula: Toramana was the father and the first Huna king in India (Eran inscription). Mihirakula was the son and the last one. [4][5]
• Skandagupta and Samudragupta: Skandagupta (c. 455–467 CE) drove back the Hunas. Samudragupta was the earlier conqueror who expanded the empire and never fought the Hunas. [3]

Prelims Hooks

• The Hunas were a branch of the Central Asian Hephthalites, the "White Huns". [2][10]
• Skandagupta (c. 455–467 CE) drove back the first major Huna invasion. [3]
• Toramana was the first Huna king in India. His inscription was found at Eran, Madhya Pradesh. [4]
• Mihirakula was the son of Toramana and the last Huna king in India. [5]
• Order of events: Skandagupta repels the Hunas, then Toramana, then Mihirakula, then the Gupta dynasty ends in the mid-6th century. [2]
• Trap: the Huna invasions cut the Central Asian trade routes. They did not open them up. [2]

Mains Points

• Outside shock, inside weakness: the Huna invasions were the visible blow. They took land, drained money and cut Central Asian trade. But the empire depended on samantas who could break away, and historians give much of the blame for the decline to internal factors. [2] A strong answer: the outside shock exposed a weakness that was already inside.
• End or turning point? The Huna period brought one big empire to an end. But it also opened space for regional states such as the Maitrakas, Maukharis, Chalukyas and Pallavas, which spread land grants, temples and regional art. This marks the start of the early-medieval order. [6][7][8][9]
• Economic effects and how to read the evidence: the loss of Central Asian trade income is one reason given for the drop in Gupta gold coin finds. [2] But fewer coin hoards could also mean that coins were being used, not buried. Use this to show that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Related concepts

• Skandagupta
• Bhitari pillar inscription
• Eran inscription of Bhanugupta
• Mihirakula
• Song Yun
• Yashodharman
• Aulikara dynasty
• Decline of the Guptas
• Valabhi

Read more

• Decline and the debate on what followed