|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 8, 2011 11:00:42 GMT 3
Tmutorakan is thought to be related with the title Taman Tarqan found in the Orkhon Inscriptions, and Osman Fikri Sertkaya has suggested that it should be read Ataman Tarqan - Ataman being a common title in the Steppes, especially among the Cossacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Oct 8, 2011 13:33:35 GMT 3
Asparuh : mate, this is a 1000 years old book I cited from, I didnt mean to insult neither you or your country. I know the former greatness of the Bulgars more than most people in europe. I thought you will be interested in a source probably not commonly known among bulgars. Its natural in old codexes that their authors are not nice with the current "enemy", like for example if you read Jordanes' writings about the Huns.
On the contrary Id be interested in any bolgarian source mentions hungarians, I dont know about any. What makes you say we could be related any way ?
|
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Oct 8, 2011 13:47:27 GMT 3
Its very interesting also what you write in your comment 297. For me it doesnt matter who fought more or who was the largest, what is interesting is from word to word we used to say the same thing about us, about the 3 seas washed our shores, the hard history, the endless battles we had against many many nations. For example in the 13th century Hungary was the largest kingdom of europe, from Naples to north Poland we controlled almost half of europe. Until 1920 the trianon peace treaty Hungary was always among the 5 largest countries of europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 9, 2011 1:42:42 GMT 3
Ok,Its fine,So its like the letter the Cossack written to the Turkish Sultan in 1615 A.C
Ummm,What do you mean by Jordanes ? The country Jordania or Jordanes as a writer ?
I see,I will post some information for the Hungarians if i have some.
I am mostly interested what happened in their war with the Bulgars in 895 A.C.
This was a turning point for the Magyars.i will describe it here for you :
During the reign of King Simeon I There was a war between the Vyzantine Empire and Bulgaria.So the Vyzantines sobourned the Magyars with big gifts and gold and atracted them on their side as an allies.It is written about two leaders - Arpad and Kushan.So the Magyars were transfered to the lower flank of Danube river with the purpose to attack the Bulgarians from the norht.The plan was like this : The Magyars attack from the north , and the Greeks from the south.But this plan didn´t succeed.
What happened is the following :
The Magyars were dropped in Bulgaria in 895 A.C crossing the Danube river with Vyzantinian ships.Then they started to pillage,burn and devastating all the area in the Norhtside of Bulgaria.They had the Kabars and the Sabirs on their side too.
King Simeon stayed closed in the Castle of Drastar on the Danube shore and menawhile took the Pechenegs on his side sending them large amount of gifts and gold,etc.
So in the current situation Simeon with the Royal army and his Pechenegs cavalry attacked the Magyars and pushed them away from their settlements around Dnepr and Dnestr rivers.Once Simeon done that then he faced against the Vyzantine army and had his final defeat over the Vyzantium killing over 60 000 Greeks in the Battle of Anhialo in 917 A.C. Then He start preparing his troops to conquer Constantinople,but he died from Heart attack.
The Bulgars used to call the Magyars in middle age times- Ugri ( Like Finno-Ugric )
They had similar semi-nomadic way f life as the earlier Bulgars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Oct 9, 2011 4:35:03 GMT 3
Tmutorakan is thought to be related with the title Taman Tarqan found in the Orkhon Inscriptions, and Osman Fikri Sertkaya has suggested that it should be read Ataman Tarqan - Ataman being a common title in the Steppes, especially among the Cossacks. It is called Tamya-Tarkhan in "Jagfar Tarihï" where Tamya is the name of North-Western Caucasian region, thus meaning something like "Tamya Principality". But this title "Ataman Tarqan" is also interesting. According to "Jagfar Tarrihï" ataman has originally meant "priest" and only later "senior" - that was from the time of Attila who appointed priests to govern the subordinate tribes because of higher respect they had. Also the Armenian documents according to Detre Csaba give the Hunnic word athama to mean "forefather". V.A. Astvatzaturian writes that in Hunnic the suffix -r creates diminutive forms, thus from the word chun - "man, warrior" we get chunor - "little warrior" (cf. the name of Hunor - the brother of Magyar from Hungarian genealogical legend). I wonder whether we can explain the name "Magyar" in a similar way . According to those same Armenian sources mady (madü) was the word for "king" in Hunnic - I suppose it could derive from the name of the Scythian king Madyes (7th century B.C.E.) just as German word Kaiser comes from the name of Caesar or Slavic Kral - from that of Charlemagne. Thus Madyar (and hence Magyar) would mean "little king" ("prince"). Some similar form has the Bulgarian title kanar - "little kan" - applied to the prince ( tegin) who was the heir of the throne - kanar-tikeinos (in Greek rendering), attested also in Tocharian loanword " kanartike". |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 9, 2011 13:16:19 GMT 3
I see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Oct 10, 2011 14:58:37 GMT 3
Yes,thats true,Its Kanar-Tekin for us.
The Bulgar rulers used also the Kanas Ubigi . Its like the ¨Great Khan ¨
Its all derivations of the word - Khan.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 10, 2011 20:37:34 GMT 3
The Subigi particle of the Bulgarian title Kanasubigi has always reminded me of the Old Turkic title Sü Bägi ("Army Lord", literally meaning "Military Commander") which can also be seen among the later Naimans of the 12th-13th centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Oct 11, 2011 8:11:24 GMT 3
Yes, I also think that this interpretation of Beshevliev makes more sense because there were other Bulgarian titles which too contained the first part as kana (probably a Dative form of kan expressing possession - "to/of the kan", i.e. "royal") and not kanas, like kana [boila] kolobros ("royal [high] priest"), also canna taban (= kana tarkan - "royal governor", a.k.a. boilas trakan) and kana bagatour ("royal hero/noble") - titles of the princes coming after the heir to the throne (kanar-tikeinos).
I have wondered whether in Bulgarian state tradition existed such practice as the so-called "dual kingship" (Doppelkönigtum), i.e. division of temporal power and spiritual authority such as that attested amongst the Khazars and early Magyars. It seems the persons we know as rulers (archontes in Greek) of the Bulgars have had the title kana sybigi ("royal warlord"), then maybe kana kolobros (the "royal priest") was the spiritual lord (by analogy with the Khazar haqan-bäk and haqan and the Magyar gyula and kende respectively)? If so, then it was common to Bulgars and Magyars that the temporal lord became supreme ruler while among the Khazars the opposite took place.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 11, 2011 21:14:49 GMT 3
That might be possible too.
|
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 4, 2011 13:33:53 GMT 3
Constantine Byzantine emperor wrote the following about the Magyars in his work De Administrando Imperio (950 AD)
The Magyars (whom he calls Turqoi) after an attack of Kangar Pechenegs split up to 2 parts, the western part settled at the North - West black sea area in a territory called Etelkuzu wich means between major rivers.
The other part, who had the old name of Magyars : Sabartoi Asphaloi attacked on Persia and settled there.
The question is, who were the Sabartoi Asphaloi, is it the same tribe as we know as Sabirs, or a different one.
The byzantines used the term Sabiroi for the Sabirs, so its probably not a different form of this name, but then, who were they and where did they settle.
There is little we know about these Magyars, but there is some path we can search them.
There was 2 cities wich has the name Madjar in the Caucasus near the river Kuma, Kitchi-Madjar and Ulu-Madjar.
We know about them from vatican letters, wich mentions a magyar priest to be sent to Kitchi Madjar. (majoris ungariae)
Ibn Battuta also mentions these cities in his work, such as Marco Polo who call the tribe Menjar.
The emperor of this country according to John Pope the XXII. (1329) was called Jeretan. He was from present day Hungary and was christian himself.
Julius Klaproth a german traveller at caucasus found the ruins of Kitchi Madjar in the 19th century. We dont know where did the inhabitants left, did they mix up with local population, or they wandared elsewhere. Its also not sure that these cities was founded by the "Sabartoi Asphaloi" tribe, or other Madjar tribes.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 4, 2011 20:25:51 GMT 3
They went eastwards and settled in the region of Persia  "One part went eastwards and settled in the region of Persia, and to this day are called by the ancient denomination of the Turks 'Sabartoi asphaloi'; but the other part, together with their voivode and chief Lebedias, settled in the western region, in places called Atelkouzou, in which places the nation of the Pechenegs now lives." So, the region of Persia was east of the Magyar v. Pecheneg battle. Where were the borders of Persia at the time Porphyrogenitos wrote De Administrando? What did he mean by "Persia" at that time? |
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 5, 2011 14:32:58 GMT 3
The Sassanid empire reached until the north caucasus, but it was collapsed in 654AD. So if they attacked on persia, it had to be before this date.
The Derbendname codex tell us that Husrau Anusirvan Persian emperor founded the cities of Kitchi Madjar and Ulu Madjar amond 360 other forts and cities against the northern tribes. He ruled between 531-579AD.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 5, 2011 19:58:41 GMT 3
Your question about where the Savarti Asfali went to is one of the great mysteries.
The first Pecheneg v. Magyar battle that supposedly pushed Magyars from Levedia to Etelkoz and split them up into western and eastern factions (according to De Administrando) was around 850 AD. As you know, Magyars had a political relationship with the Khazars and no one is certain when that relationship began. There could have been Magyars settled on the southern border of Khazaria much earlier. I don't think there's any historic evidence that may support that idea though.
|
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 9, 2011 20:27:19 GMT 3
There are dozens of geogprahical names around the caspian sea with different forms of the name Madjar, but not sure if any of them belongs to the Magyars at all. Otherwise, who else may they refer to is unclear for me.
Most commonly they are prononunced something like Madzhar, for example Madzhar Qaraoglan village in Azerbaijan, 2 villages Madzhar in Uzbekistan, Madzhara in Georgia, etc.
Sadly at that region there is no chance for archeological excavations, I dont know about any historician who may have visited the ruins of the city Madjar, betwean the Kuma and the Kura rivers in present day Dagestan.
|
|
