see, it's interesting to contrast the roman description of the huns - who they saw as utter barbarians, void of any redeeming qualities - with the roman description of the celts, who they saw as ignorant, noble savages. william  wallace aside,  their depiction of the celts in art and literature is of this brave and noble, if primitive, race. nor had that much time passed, either. so, there must be something to this vicious description, which i should point out is mirrored by the chinese sources, who, if anything, were even harder on them, and held them in even greater contempt, and with even greater derision. so, is this really so hard to take seriously, this idea that there could be a people so vicious, and so without redeeming value? and, you have to let evolution take over - and realize they thought the same thing about these effeminate, weak civilized tribes, with their magic and their learned knowledge, who hoarded all the food for themselves, but who couldn't survive for a week on the land. in writing the huns off as without redeeming value in the context of settled civilization, it's important to put the goalposts in perspective.

but, i'm going to agree with the analysis. as an anarchist of the left, i have a soft spot for german barbarism and realize my biases come from engels, in doing so - i like this idea of the egalitarian barbarian, who is loyal to their tribe and rejects empire and taxation. but, the huns had none of these qualities. they were an empire on wheels - they took in the most brutal aspects of imperialism, without bothering with the refinements of civilization, and designed their culture to ensure they'd never get drawn in.

for all my anti-imperialist rhetoric, there are no heroes in the ranks of the huns.

if you follow the hsiong-nu derivation, the story is that the han took control over the pass that we now call the silk road, which the huns previously raided, and the huns lost their source of income and had to flee west. the time frames add up reasonably well.