|
Post by ALTAR on Sept 21, 2011 22:03:39 GMT 3
A Turkish documentary about Cuman Turks in Hungary and their influence on Hungarians.
I
II
III
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Sept 21, 2011 22:04:14 GMT 3
IV
V
VI
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Oct 2, 2011 12:22:10 GMT 3
Hello everyone on this forum ! As a hungarian Im very interested in steppe history mainly the era of pre 800AD. Modu : I dont want to argue with you, if you are interested I can tell you why many hungarians think we are descendant of the Huns.
Here are the list of Hungarian sources mentions a Hunnic heritage : - Gesta Hungarorum : 1180's : "The first king of Scythia were Magog, his later descendant were Attila, the great king, whose later descendant were Ügyek whose son were Almos, the chief of the Magyars"
- Gesta Hunnorum by Simon Kezai : 1283 : Simon Kezai gave us a detailed description of Attila's wars in his work, and his descendant's, the Magyar chiefs (pre 1000) and kings (after 1000AD) also, until his age. He also writes about the shield of Attila wich as Kezai mentions that It had a crowned Turul bird on it and it was preserved until the late 10th century the age of chief Geza.
- Gaspar Heltai (1575) : "The huns, who we call now Magyars, when they lived in Scythia they were all hunters" At 373 they started to fled from Scythia and arrived to Pannonia where they settled near the river Tisza"
- Albert Molnar Szenci (1621) : "The glory of the Magyar's weapon handling ability can be dated back to Attila our great king, and will held that glory for ever."
The most interesting source about the Hunnic descendance of the Magyars is Mahmud Tercüman's codex. He wrote it to the turkish sultan Suleiman the first at 1543 AD. Tercüman gave us a very detailed history how the Huns became Magyars, how they invaded europe and how they settled to Pannonia later on in a second wave. He gave us direct continuity between Attila and later kings of Hungary, who he consider as one royal dinasty, and its exactly what the older codexes wrote about.
- Szekler's chronicles and folk tales : The strongest Hunnic heritage is undoubtedly among the Szekler population of Transylvania, who until nowadays consider themselves as direct descendants of the Huns without any question. (The Szekler's are a Magyar tribe both genetically and by language no difference can be found) The Szekler tribe was in the Carpathian basin already when the main force of the Magyars arrived in 895-896.
I dont think myself that we would be direct descendants of the Huns, but I understand those who feel offended about the denial of our Hunnic heritage. Its even mentioned in our national anthem, its in folk tales, its in every single written source about us. This is a very strong heritage here.
Until the 19 th century there were no other theories, most of our written historical records mentions the direct descendance from Attila, and everyone took it as a fact. The finno ugrian theory is a new thing, and it came up when Habsburg scholars tried to find a relation for Hungarians. Whether this theory true or not, our language is related to the finno ugrian languages by fact. Otherwise genetically the presence of Finno Ugrian typical Y gen allele (N) is only present in 3.5-4% of the population. The way of life of other Finn Ugrian tribes are pretty much different than early Magyar's. The early Magyar graves are very similar to the Hunnic graves and the mithology (at least what we know about : deer figures, tree of life, etc) is the same too.
Let me know why Turks says they are the direct descendant of the Huns, Ive never heard the facts of it before and Im curious.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 2, 2011 15:13:22 GMT 3
Hi massaget, welcome aboard.
All the Hungarian sources that link Magyars to Huns were written centuries later after the Hunnic Empire collapsed. And these sources talk mostly about how the Árpád Dynasty descended from them. This is why the Hunnic connection to the Magyars is now disregarded, which is natural. If we are to believe such genealogical myths, then we should also believe that the Asian Huns (Xiong-nu) were the descendents of the last Xia Dynasty ruler in China, that the Romans were descendents of the Trojan royal family, that Genghis Khan had Jewish heritage and his ancestors came from the Middle East.
I also oppose the view in Turkey that links modern Anatolian Turks with those European Huns of 4th-5th centuries. In fact, there are no direct connections - we can only say that they were distant relatives.
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 4, 2011 20:09:15 GMT 3
Hello to all the members .Well The thing with Atilla is not clear.Because in some chronicles is written that one of his sons is called : Irnik which is Proto - Bulgarian. Our scientist still look for facts that proove that somehow Bulgars and Magyars were related,lived next to another or had next of kin. So if the Magyars are descendants of the Huns,which i fully accept so are the Bulgars too. Funny theory Ihsan about the Romand coming from the Trojans Never thought about it. Sounds pretty incredible. Its many diferent theories about what happened after the defeat of the Huns from the Roman empire in 453 A.C.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Oct 4, 2011 20:42:25 GMT 3
Bulgars and Magyars would be related ? Never heard about it. About Irnik : we know him under the name Csaba (pronounce something like Tsaba), he is the smallest son of Attila, and the Szeklers consider him as an ancestor of all Szeklers. Its strange its not Attila but his youngest son.
Here is the myth of prince Csaba if anyone cares about legends not only pure history : (This myth with dates and exact place and personal names are in Mahmud Terdzuman's codex, Tarihi Üngürüs, so it may contain some historical elements too) : When the Hunnic empire fallen apart after the death of Attila, a war broke out between the sons. Tsaba who were the youngest had to run away, and he with 3000 Huns ran to greece (his wife were greek) After several years he and his men arrived back, and they saw that all the other Huns left to the east, so they stayed and they changed their name from Hun to Székely (Szekler) because of the disgrace they had to run away from the battle.
According to the codex the other Huns arrived back to here some centuries later under the leadership of Árpád. There is no evidence for that anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Oct 5, 2011 1:37:57 GMT 3
That is interesting. A very similar version is told in "Jagfar Tarihï" - here Irnik is called Kermek or Kernek (cf. Hernac from early medieval sources). According to this legend the Hunnic Empire broke up in three parts - Qara-Bershud, Aq-Bershud ("black" and "white", i.e. Western and Eastern Bershud) being Danube-Ukraininan and Volga-Uralian parts, and Eskel (Siberian part). Kermek recognized Akatzirs and Sarmatians on an equal level with the old Hun aristocracy and so ensured himself a broader support amongst the tribes. Thus he became ruler of Qara-Bershud, but nevertheless he left Wallachia to his elder brother Tengiz (Dengizih) who got killed by the Greeks soon after that. Kermek retained the imperial title kan/qaghan and even though he have dreamed of restoring his father's big empire, he never fought the other Huns from the eastern parts and that's why he was by-named Madjar - "making sacrifice". He brought up his nephew Chalap-Biy (or Challï-biy, son of Attila's eldest son Illak), but later send him to become ruler of those eastren Huns at the request of their nobles (is it possible that these two names have become confused later and so we have Csaba in the Hungarian legend?). It is told also that Kermek named his kingdom Bulgar which conforms with Bulgarian List of the Rulers where Irnik is given as one of the ancestors of the royal clan Dulo. If we can trust the Volga-Bolgarian dynastic lists, Arpad (Arbat) also descends from this clan through the lineage of Kubrat's eldest son Bat-Boyan and so the Magyar kings indeed are descendants of Irnik/Kermek too.
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 7, 2011 3:18:13 GMT 3
Hello,Yes In Jagfar Tarihi is well mentioned about the relation between the Huns and The Bulgars.I am not saying the Hungarians and The Bulgarians are related directly Massaget.But because there was a Bulgar tribe called - Onoghondurs gaved some influence on the Magyars.In this video : www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvNmaPuh3A0 is showed how Bulgars and Magyars used to live next to eachother in the Idel-Ural region and among Central Asia until they were eventually swept by the Huns of Atiila in 5 century.Which prooves what ? That they were existing before the Huns came to attack the European continent and The Roman Empire.The both nations were integrated into the Army of Atila and followed him in his conquest.That is why it is said that all the nations fighting on the side of the Huns are Huns in political sense. Irnik is indeed mentioned in the list of the Bulgarian rulers and he is from the Dulo royal dinasty. It is not clear how all the tribes divided and who fought who after Atila´s dead. I understand the Hungarians you are proud of your history,so are we,but you have to accept that somehow the name Hungarians is related to the Bulgar tribe - Onoghurs. You can check wikipedia : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_peopleActually the Magyars were confederate tribe in the Old Great Bulgaria of Khan Kubrat which was a military union which existed between 632 - 670 A.C. What happen was after the Old Great Bulgaria was conquered by the Khazars the Magyars stood on their border between the rivers Dnestr and Dnepr while the Asparuh and his Tribe Onoghurs migrated further southwest to the Dobrudja ( Lower Scythia region ). So the Magyars had to fight against the Khazars to keep their reign and territory.It is also said that The Vyzantines and the Khazars were allies which dificulted the Magyars and thats why they had to move westwards trought the Carpatian Basin to eventually reach Pannonia. This means that they were continiously pushed west by the Khazars and the Vyzantines. Eventually after the Braking of the Khan Kubrat and his sons in 670 A.C the Magyars and the Bulgars became practically enemies.But they both had a common enemy - The Khazars and their new established Khazar Khanate.So what are the conlcussions : The Magyars and the Bulgars had to form their countries in very dificult circumstances in this period describes as the Dark Ages in history. Arpad is a diferent story .But what i do know is that he was pushes west once and for all by the allied forces of Bulgars and Pechenegs of the ruler Khan Simeon in 896 A.C From this date on the Magyars had to move west to Pannonia. I saw the Picture : King Arpad and the Arrival of the Magyars in Pannonia when i was in Hungary.No offense ,but the reason for that was mainly to King Simeon I . Its written everywhere in history.Otherwise there would be still Magyars living in the Moldavia,West Ukraine ( Dnepr,Dnestr region ) And Northern Dobrudja ( Today´s Romania ). Another interesting fact is that actually the Bulgars had a reign over the lands of Pannonia before the Magyars arrived in 9 century .This was started by Khan Asparuh and later finished by Khan Krum.Because before the Magyars arrived there it was the Avars who were ruling this land.So as you can see guys the lands were constantly switching owners That´s all I can see to you. I respect the Hungarians deeply ! And i dont invent the history i just share these facts with you.Again i will say the Magyars and the Bulgars were extremely good Archers in those times and extremely good warriors.Its just that The Vizantine Empire was buying everyone in this medieval period and its a shame we had to face eachother as enemies .I believe we share lot of common traditions,folklore and habits with you mighty Hungarians.Later on the Bulgar Kings made marriages with their sons and daughters with the Hungarian ones,but for that another time.Here are some pictures for you. Also the Magyars are well influenced by the Khazars .
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 7, 2011 3:19:56 GMT 3
The Arrival of King Arpad and the Magyars in Pannonia . Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 7, 2011 3:35:45 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Oct 7, 2011 11:21:56 GMT 3
Hungarians and Bolgars lived side by side for a long time in history thats for sure. About the word Hungarian : the origin of the name is nothing to do with the onogurs, it came from the name of the river ung where Arpad and his men where settled for years before the conquest. The name of the tribe probably were Ungar, wich is still in use as family name until nowadays. The character H came from french language where its a silent H, and in english language our self name arrived with this french version with the additional H. The proof of that is all nations around call us without H. Italians : Ungheria, German : Ungarn, Poles : Wenger, Slavs : Uhorsko, Madarska, etc.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Oct 7, 2011 12:23:56 GMT 3
There is several mention of Bulgars in ancient hungarian codexes for example in Gesta Hungarorum (1183). As I know the Hungarians where fighting against the Bolgars around 894, and until the main force was away the Pechenegs attacked the camps left behind with women and children, and that made the Magyar people to invade the Carpathian Basin and to cross the mountains of the Carpaths.
The mention of the Bolgars in Gesta Hungarorum : When the incoming Magyars reached the river Ung they found local slovene (slavic) population there, who were under Bolgarian rule. The bolgarian ruler's name was Salan and he replaced the slovenes from their homeland to defend the russian border of the bolgarian state. These slovenes didnt like their bolgarian supressors and joined the incoming Magyars who invaded the castle of Ung and founded the city of Munkacs (present day Ukraine) Salan became very angry that he lost lands against a population formerly was unknown to him, he sent envoys to the castle of Ung where Arpad stayed, and the envoys told to Arpad the Magyars should leave, or a joint Bolgar-Greek army will crush them out of the land.
The answer of Arpad to the bolgarian envoy : "It was my grandfather's Attila's land between the Danube and the Tisza, and this land lays until the bolgarian border wich is now under control of your lord. Not because Id afraid of you, but for the sake of friendship with your lord Salan, I just ask the territory until the river Sajo, I ask also two cup of Danube water and one cup of the sand of Alpar. Id like to see if the water of Danube is any better than the Don's water, Id like to see that the sand of the Alpar is any better than the sand of Scythia does the grass grows on it is any better than it was at Dentu-Moger."
A few years of peace became between the bolgars and the Magyars, and until these years the Magyars invaded northern and eastern hungary. And when they occupied everything they went back to the bolgarian chief Salan, and asked for new lands, and he gave them everything they wanted.
After a while Salan became afraid that the large number of Magyars is a growing threat to his lands so he unite his forces with the byzantine's and this joint force attacked on the hungarians.
Before the battle Arpad made the following speach to his men according to the codex : Scythes ! The bolgars offend you with calling us on nicknames. Dont be afraid of the byzantine's (greek's in the codex) swords, dont lose your fame. Fight fiercily against the greeks and the bolgars who look just like our women. Care about the large number of the greeks, just like you would take care when a lot of women attacks you. Then Tas's son Lel blow his horn, and Bogat's son Bulcsu raised their flags and started the attack. Many greeks and bolgars fell in the battle and Salan started to run away and he didnt stop til he reached Bolgarfejervar (currently Belgrade) The greeks were fleeing in horror from the battle, and when they tried to swim across the river Tisza most of them died there. The place where they died in the river is called greeks's pass until nowadays.
After the big success the Magyar forces followed Salan and attack on Bolgarfejervar (Belgrade) They killed several men there, so the Bolgar king sent an envoy to Arpad and said the following : My uncle Salan is not behaving by my own will, I will give you a yearly tax and I will serve you as my leader if you dont keep on attacking us. Arpad let the bolgars alone, and attacked on serbia, later on they reached the adriatic see, attacked on Split, and then they attacked on Constantinaple, but they couldt take the castle, Botond crushed his axe into the gate of Constantinaple. On the way back the Magyars invaded Zagreb, Pozega and many other cities, killed thousands of men around the balkans.
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 7, 2011 19:41:10 GMT 3
Ok Massagets,Take it easy,You don´t have to be disrespectuful pointed out exactly what Arpad said.Look like women ! Haha ! No way,Hungary never has been streched on territories bigger than Bulgaria-we were on three seas and we had the Vyzantines paying us tributes annualy.Don´t go too far with this. Indeed after Arpad and their troops settled in Pannonia they organized several attacks against the Bulgaria,Serbia and Vyzantium.But this was right after they were pushed there by the same countries.So its like a turning point.The Bulgars start loosing territories after 896 A.C in the upper Danube river next to Tisza River.Its true ,I know these facts.I read all the material for Salan and Gesta Hungarorum. The lands of Pannonia passed from Avar to Bulgar and finally to Magyar hands.The problem with the Bulgars was that not every king who came on rule has the same war-spirit like his ancestor. For Example after the rule of King Simeon I Bulgaria start to decline in the times of King Peter I ,because of inapropriate strategy in battle and because the Vyzantines hired the Kievan Rus and send them upon us. You can read all the information in the world if you want ,but i guarantee you one thing : No Country has been inmplicted in more wars than Bulgaria. We fought in our entire history,We faced Empires and smaller countries.We survived the Vyzantine and The Ottoman Empires invasion.And we still exist today - And its the Oldest country in Europe to have to same name trough the years - Bulgaria - since 681 A.C. So don´t be rude and respect history. History is not written by me or you,but from other people which facts laying upon truth events happend in the past. Bulgaria was continiously attacked from every side,but we still survived.Our neibhours throwed so much power against us and that is why we were not easy to be conquered.
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 7, 2011 19:49:11 GMT 3
Another thing : Dont forget the Magyars had diferent allies in their was campaigns : The Sabirs And The Kabars for example.So they didn´t done all their raids on their own. I think the Magyars were more succesfull conquering territories and putting their rule in the west rather than in east Europe.Thats just my opinion.One think i consider is the great domination of the Archery in the Magyars and incredible horse riding mobility.
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Oct 8, 2011 4:32:45 GMT 3
It seems it is not quite clear how the name "Hungarians" have come to designate the Magyars.
There is something interesting about this name of the river Ung mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum. It could be related to the place Onglos (perhaps from ong-aul - "right-hand i.e. western settelment") where according to the Byzantine sources Bulgarian ruler Asparukh has lived before crossing Danube to Moesia ca. 678 - 681.
As for the name of the Onoghurs, it is also mentioned in different documents in several forms some of which appear to have had an initial aspirate sound. For instance Jordanes writes "Hunuguri", and in Syrian chronicles can be found the curious form "Pangur" (some people in North Causaisan area mentioned together with the Bulgars). Similar is the case with the name of the Huns (Khounoi, Ounnoi, Hunni etc.) which in some earlier sources was written even with initial ph or th. Given that it is possible that the name of the capital of Great Bulgaria and later Khazaria - Phanagoria - was also another form of the same ethnonym ("Onoguria" with initial ph, cf. Syrian Pangur). Curiously there is a settlement with similar name in modern Bulgaria - Panagyurishte (< Panagür with the Slavic suffix -ishte instead of Greek - ia). Phanagoria is sometimes confused with a nearby fortress called Tamatarcha (by Constantine Porphyrogenitus) or T'mutorakan' (in Russian chronicles) which also has a counterpart in Bulgaria - Tutrakan (both those names are unintelligible in modern Bulgarian language).
Thus it is difficult to say whether the initial aspiration of the name "Onoghur/Hunogur" was developed later or was a remnant of some earlier pronunciation.
|
|