Turkish historians believed they European Huns were the Western tribes of Asian Huns better known as Hsung-Nu. It was one of the Steppe pushing west event. China had defeated Asian Huns and invaded some parts of the steppes. Those clans whose land has been invaded migrated west and pushed other clans more western. A domino effect resulted in some clans to enter Europe.

From what I understand of Central Asian nomads, which is not as much I would like; there is little research to go on as nomads left few chronicles beyond campfire tales and most information is from outside. is that there was no permanent local institution higher than the local band. Names were more given by their victims for convenience than expressing a unified culture. Greater organization was the result of a strong leader. The Mongols are better thought of as the follwers of Genghis Khan, and the Huns as the followers of Atilla. Unless a cheiftain settled himself in the cropland area(or as a merchant-king like the Khazar Turks) he had little chance of establishing a dynasty. His son would be ignored unless he had the same traits as his father. However nomads from one side of the steppe to the other had a resemblence. There was far less cultural variation. So the answer to your question is probably yes they were the same huns, and no they weren't. Also it might do well to remember that names like "Germanic" "Celtic" "Slavic" should not be taken to seriously even among settled people. While those divisions did exist, religion, kinship, dynastic relations, and class mattered far more.

Incidentally, while we are discussing the Romans and the Chinese, it should be interesting to note that there are Chinese records of a group(can't remember the size here) of defeated Roman legionaries who ended up selling themselves as mercenaries to the Chinese emperor of the time. In fact, the Romans knew vaguely of the Han Dynasty and their empire lying east of India (I think they called it Syrenica or sthg to that effect, memory's a little dull today).

It's true the nomadic peoples of the Steppes left little record of their culture. Inevitably, our most reliable sources are from those sedentary (i.e. settled + farming) cultures who dealt with them. The culture in Eurasia which had most dealings with the Nomads was of course China, namely Imperial settled China. They most influenced, and in turn most imbibed, nomad culture. This made assimilation of the nomads very easy indeed - think of Rome assimilating the German tribes so thoroughly such that it never fell, but was transformed from within. More physically and culturally distant, but still with significant dealings with nomads, were Imperial Rome, Persia and Byzantium. It's these civilizations' records we have to consult to get a clear picture of the Nomads.

BigR, Those "Roman mercenaries" were the last remains of Crassus' troops that survived Carrhae and were captured by the Parthians. The Parthians sold them to a nation (don't remember which) in central asia, as slave troops, they were in turn sold to another country further east bordering the Han.

There was a show on History Channel once talked about the nomads west of China. I don't remember exactly, but they compared bones features and wall paintings and try to figure out who they are. Aside from this, I do believe Hans were the ancient invader of China, so does Turks.

Oh,my God! You confuse them. Han is boong and Xiong nu(Hun) is invader.Han is resident culture. It is a civilization. Xiong nu(Hun) and Turki are nomad,they are savage invader.