This study provides a comprehensive examination of the military structure, tactical innovations, and historical legacy of the Hsiung-nu Empire, which served as the preeminent power in Inner Asia for over four centuries. Central to this analysis is the consideration that Hsiung-nu military prowess was not merely a product of numerical strength, but was deeply rooted in a nomadic lifestyle that functioned as an innate and continuous training ground for combat readiness. The research explores the sophisticated command-and-control systems established during the reign of Mao-tun Shan-yü, highlighting the transformation of the Hsiung-nu army into a disciplined and highly organized military force through innovations such as the decimal system and the use of whistling arrows for tactical signaling. The paper scrutinizes the diverse tactical repertoire of the Hsiung-nu, ranging from traditional feigned retreats and psychological warfare—exemplified by the Battle of Ping Cheng—to creative tactical engineering, such as the nighttime employment of trenches against the Han forces. Furthermore, the Battle of Zhizhi is analyzed as a critical strategic juncture where the departure from traditional mobility in favor of sedentary defensive structures resulted in strategic vulnerability. The material culture of the military is also evaluated through archaeological findings from the Hermitage and Kyakhta museums, focusing on the evolution of composite bows, iron weaponry, and specialized arrowheads. Ultimately, the study argues that the Hsiung-nu’s military success was predicated on a synergy between technological superiority, tactical flexibility, and charismatic leadership. The research concludes by emphasizing the enduring institutional legacy of the Hsiung-nu, noting that the official foundation of the modern Turkish Land Forces is traced back to Mao-tun’s accession in 209 BC. This continuity underscores that the Hsiung-nu military tradition persists not merely as a historical record, but as a living cornerstone of contemporary military identity.
Murat ÖZTÜRK1* (Mon,) studied this question.