That the political power of the descendants of Attila was broken is certain; and for that very reason, I believe that the ethnological influence of the Huns remained. The son of Attila was not the king of the _Huns_, because _Hun_ seems to have been a collective name, and, perhaps, was not a native one. But he was king of several of the populations in detail, of which, along with others, the Hun power was made. The tribes most ready to avail themselves of the death of Attila were the Goths of the Lower Danube--Bulgaria, and (perhaps) Servia. Now these first attacked the _Setagæ_ of Lower Pannonia; and when Dinzic, the son of Attila knew of it he opposed them with the few tribes that still acknowledged his dominion, the _Ultzinzures_, the _Angesuri_ the _Bitugures_, and the _Bardones_. All these were particular Hun populations, who, as long as the Hun power was at work on a large scale were merged in one general name, but who afterwards step forth as separate substantive members of that great confederacy, or empire. Still there was great encroachment; the invading populations of the Avars and the Bulgarians--so far as they were not Huns--being like the Ultzinzures, &c. of Turk blood. Before the remains of the Huns of Attila were extinguished--probably before they were notably diminished--the closely allied Avars (Huns, perhaps, under another name) conquered Pannonia, and held it from the end of the sixth to that of the eighth century. What with the remains of Attila’s army, and what with the Avars and the Bulgarians, I think that when the Majiars entered Hungary they found it, at least, as much Turk as aught else,--as much, but not more; for the history of Hungary between the Hun and the Majiar conquests seems to have been as follows:-- _a._ There was some reaction on the part of the Romans, assisted by-- _b._ The Goths, and perhaps by-- _c._ The remains of the native population of the frontiers. The _Gepidæ_, too, were amongst the subjects of Attila. After his death they rebelled against his son. Between the Danube, the Theiss, and the Carpathian Mountains, their power grew steadily until the rise of the Avars and Lombards; the union of which two nations was too strong for them. By the beginning of the eighth century their national existence had ceased. I cannot say to what stock the Gepidæ belonged. I _think_ they were Slavonians. Be this, however, as it may, their power seems to have been in the inverse ratio to that of the Avars, and they must be admitted as an element in the ethnology of Hungary, without being supposed to be a very important one. We may well, then, say that no European population is more heterogeneous than that of Hungary. _a._ In the countries of Saala and Eisenberg we have a simple extension of the Carinthians. _b._ In Upper Hungary the Slovaks. _c._ On the Croatian frontier, Croatians--to say nothing about the political union of the two kingdoms.