|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 22, 2009 21:05:41 GMT 3
Greetings Pedrito, welcome aboard  It's interesting to see a person from Czechia to be interested in Steppe history  One thing I would like to object is that the Magyars actually do have a strong Turkic influence, both genetical and cultural. Geneticalwise, during and after their migration, lots of Turkic peoples joined them, including the Onoghurs, Qabars (part of the Khazars), Pecheneks, Cumans and finally the Ottoman Turks  Though I am also aware of the fact that linking the Huns with Magyars is historically inaccurate and only serves as a political tool. The Magyars have almost %0 nothing to do with the Huns. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 24, 2009 2:48:05 GMT 3
Maybe they have some, at least their name . |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 24, 2009 21:58:13 GMT 3
That is a modern designation, not a historical one. You should not take that seriously.
The name Hungarian drives from Old Western Turkic On Oghur which means "Ten Tribes".
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 27, 2009 6:20:24 GMT 3
Ad. 5) Hungarians - based on the research which are available to me, then the Hungarians are a very STRONG mix of everything. We must realize that Hungary was almost for three hundred years (if I am not wrong) part of the Czech kingdom - lot of Czechs and Slovaks move on the land of Hungary, later when Hungary became part of Austria there were lot of Romanians, Jews as well as Saxons and Thuringen settling there. So to really say that Hungary has significant blood of any nation (especially Hun or Turkic) is more a political wish than reality. Had Hungary would been the part of the Czech kingdom? What period do you mean? As I know Hungary was never in such position. There was only a period when the king of Hungary, Sigismund gained the Chezh crown too, before he later became the Holy Roman Emperor. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 27, 2009 9:20:32 GMT 3
I think Pedrito is referring to "Royal Hungary" during the time of the Ottoman occupation of Hungary, although eastern Slovakia formed part of the Principality of Transylvania and most of Czechia was part of Holy Roman Empire, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 27, 2009 10:24:36 GMT 3
I think Pedrito is referring to "Royal Hungary" during the time of the Ottoman occupation of Hungary, although eastern Slovakia formed part of the Principality of Transylvania and most of Czechia was part of Holy Roman Empire, no? Perhaps. I just wondered on that is it taught that way in Czech schools as Pedrito wrote or it is just a personal view. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 27, 2009 22:35:04 GMT 3
It is clear that those chronicles contained phrasing originated from western sources, but the Hungarians had chronicles before 1000, in the 10th century. At least the first Christian laws of Saint Stephan mentioned that those should be destroyed. Hence we can not decide exactly what tradition originated from the west and what from the originate Hung trads. I think the main problem here that a comprehensive analysing essay of the Hungarian related data from the Western sources was not published in English yet. That may reveal some yet unknown information to the wide historical public. Maybe I'll write some in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jan 28, 2009 0:20:53 GMT 3
Had Hungary would been the part of the Czech kingdom? What period do you mean? As I know Hungary was never in such position. There was only a period when the king of Hungary, Sigismund gained the Chezh crown too, before he later became the Holy Roman Emperor. i also can only think of Sigismund but iirc Sigismund was first King of Bohemia before he became King of Hungary as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 28, 2009 1:23:21 GMT 3
Had Hungary would been the part of the Czech kingdom? What period do you mean? As I know Hungary was never in such position. There was only a period when the king of Hungary, Sigismund gained the Chezh crown too, before he later became the Holy Roman Emperor. i also can only think of Sigismund but iirc Sigismund was first King of Bohemia before he became King of Hungary as well. Sigismund was crowned as King of Hungary on 31 March 1387. The King of Bohemia was his brother, Wenceslaus IV from 1378. Sigismund inherited the crown in 1419. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 28, 2009 7:34:47 GMT 3
It is clear that those chronicles contained phrasing originated from western sources, but the Hungarians had chronicles before 1000, in the 10th century. Yes, that's true. Scholars believe Anonymous' Gesta is based upon 1) oral traditions told at court and 2) a lost chronicle written in the 11th century. I disagree. Traditions originating from the West would be repeated in other Western sources. As you wrote yourself, "those chronicles contained phrasing originated from western sources". (Have you had a chance to find Geza Roheim's book yet?) |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 28, 2009 18:45:47 GMT 3
It is clear that those chronicles contained phrasing originated from western sources, but the Hungarians had chronicles before 1000, in the 10th century. Yes, that's true. Scholars believe Anonymous' Gesta is based upon 1) oral traditions told at court and 2) a lost chronicle written in the 11th century. I disagree. Traditions originating from the West would be repeated in other Western sources. As you wrote yourself, "those chronicles contained phrasing originated from western sources". (Have you had a chance to find Geza Roheim's book yet?) unfortunately not yet. Not myself, I just repeated Ihsan's sentence from the Huns topic, but I meaned not that lost chronicle of 11th century, but the older writings of 10th and earlier centuries which were written in Hungarian runescript. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 28, 2009 18:58:20 GMT 3
That is a modern designation, not a historical one. You should not take that seriously. The name Hungarian drives from Old Western Turkic On Oghur which means "Ten Tribes". Yes it is used to said, but not sure at all, because it can be also Hun - ugor, Hun-o-gur, or Hun-g-ar, like Mag-ar, Bol-g-ar, or uj-g-ur, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 28, 2009 19:17:43 GMT 3
Oh well, these are the among the hardest issues in Central Asian and Steppe history to be solved, because of the lack of written evidences. I am personally not an expert on these peoples and I haven't studied them in detail because my main area and period of study is more eastwards. The link between Avars, Ephtalites and Rouran 柔然 had been proposed and thought of before but there is hardly any evidence to either accept or reject these theories, so I also tend to not accept any theories at this time. But what we know of the Rouran is that they were ruled by Mongols of Serbet (Xianbei 鮮卑) origin. Their folk must have included both Mongols and Turks though, and we know that some of their subjects (such as the Gaoche 高車 or Chile 敕勒, who later became called as Tiele 鐵勒) were Turkic. I am sure they included elements from the Serbets too. As for the Ephtalites, my personal opinion is that they probably were Turkic, but there must be more evidences to proove this. Ihsan, don't you know by chance, what is the origin (and meaning) of the Avar khagan's name's Bayan word? |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 29, 2009 1:27:07 GMT 3
Nope, not at all.
It comes from the Old Turkic root word Bay which means "Rich".
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 29, 2009 1:55:09 GMT 3
That is a modern designation, not a historical one. You should not take that seriously. The name Hungarian drives from Old Western Turkic On Oghur which means "Ten Tribes". Yes it is used to said, but not sure at all, because it can be also Hun - ugor, Hun-o-gur, or Hun-g-ar, like Mag-ar, Bol-g-ar, or uj-g-ur, etc. Not exactly. There are linguistic rules that must be followed in order to arrive at the different forms. These rules are discovered by analysis of the phonetics of the languages using the word. For example, the H at the beginning of "Hungarian" is a later European addition. Compare with German, which doesn't even spell Ungarn with an H or French, which doesn't pronounce the H. So you can't just say that it can also be Hun-ugor when no one at the time the word was introduced into Europe pronounced the H. The name "Hungary" is derived via Russian "Ungri" (note that Russian doesn't have an H sound), which was a word the Russians used for the On Oghurs. Today Russians call Hungarians "Vengri", which came from Polish if I recall correctly. |
|
It's interesting to see a person from Czechia to be interested in Steppe history 
Though I am also aware of the fact that linking the Huns with Magyars is historically inaccurate and only serves as a political tool. The Magyars have almost %0 nothing to do with the Huns.
