|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 29, 2009 3:29:33 GMT 3
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. I know what you wrote, but as we discussed earlier the word Hunugor appears first at the Gothic Jordanes. but if this is the word on-ogur and can't be Hun-ugor, it can be Hun-g-ar, like in Magy-ar. what is without the initial h: Ungar. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 29, 2009 7:12:36 GMT 3
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. I encourage you to write about this here. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 29, 2009 7:57:04 GMT 3
I know what you wrote, but as we discussed earlier the word Hunugor appears first at the Gothic Jordanes. but if this is the word on-ogur and can't be Hun-ugor, it can be Hun-g-ar, like in Magy-ar. what is without the initial h: Ungar. I wanted to, but don't have the energy right now to delve into this. "Lost" is going to be on soon.  Hungar is Old High German for "hunger". One western story of Magyar origin is that they descend from people who survived a great famine by hunting in Maeotis and therefore they are called "Hungri". |
|
|
|
Post by Pedrito on Jan 29, 2009 10:53:52 GMT 3
For Maotun and hjernespiser: Well, I know the history of Hungarian and Czech relationships is very difficult and very problematic from already onset - as beating the Franks together in battle of Brezalauspurk in 907, to total opposite when Czech Boleslav I. with german Otto I. won the battle of Lech, etc. to the our last wars in 1919 and 1939. What I meant under the part of Czech Kingdom is the time, when Czech royal families (Premysl, Luxembourgh and Jagellonian) hold the Crown of Hungary. However to Czech Kingdom and Hungary - I will only include the periods which I perceive as clear and with facts: 1) In 1260 in the Battle of Kressenbrun the Czech King Premysl Otokar II. defeats the Bela IV. and till the 1278 (Battle of Moravian Field) the Hungary is a free confederate state of Czech lands - Czech King even married a granddaughter Kunhuta of Bela IV. 2) 1301 when Arpads died out and the Czech King (pure Slavic origin and historical nobility of Western Slavic - Premysl family) Wenceslav III. is a Hungarian King under the name of Ladislav V. The crown is given then to Otto at 1305. 3) Then as you said Sigimund (Luxembourgh & Premysl family), which was a son of king Charles IV. (and his Polish wife) and he was by blood also related to old historical Czech nobility, he was Slavic (like 75% of blood). After Sigimund as part of dynasty continuation the Albrecht the Habsburg (related to Luxembourghs) came to Hungary. Then his son Ladislav (Luxembourgh and Premysl family), he has the right for Czech throne after his father and mother, he became firstly King of Hungary and then of Czech Crown. 4) Jagellonian Dynasty (by blood related to Luxembourghs and Premysl - due to mother of Vladislav) What is important is that the Slavic people lived in Hungary before Hungarians and also moved there during the Premysl times and Luxembourgh times. But guys can you tell me, please, whether there are any serious genetic analysis of Hungarian blood (like the Czech researches about significance of Celtic genetics) ?? What is the current opinion about the Hungarian genetics?? I would be thinking that you might have very significant part of Slavic, Celtic and Germanic features (like 95%). Also the perception that Czech lands were part of Holy Roman Empire is a German historical manipulation, which appeared after German unification in 19th century as part of the desperate measures to establish the GERMAN nationality (just imagine lot of Slavic, Nordic, Roman/Latin and German people of different tribes, cultures, etc.). However the truth is that in initial stages of our states the Samo's empire was independent from Germans, since it beats Franks (king Dagobert) in battle of Wogattisbourgh, 631. Later on Great Moravia was still independent, since it beats Germans once again. During the early princedom stages of Czech state, however Czechs decided to pay tribute to Franks/Germans in order to prevent attacks, since we were under fight on eastern borders - Hungarians, Poles, etc. In later stages we were also supposed to send our small contingent to help Frank kings in war - as you can see the relation was very close. This changed with new Premyslid family on throne - they decide to break this tribute system, which resulted in several battles, which we won over Germans. They didn't intervene into Czech lands anymore and even more Czech Kings/Princes became the significant players in German lands - they belong with Saxon King, Bavarian King, etc. to those important man discussing the next successor for the German Emperor. BUT the German misconception is coming from the Charles IV. - German Emperor, Czech King. He was crowned firstly as German Emperor and later as Czech King! From this the Germans deduce that Czech Kingdom was a German vassal or colony. However the truth is that Charles IV. was of the slavic blood (Premyslid blood) and he always referred to himself as Premyslid (ignoring his father's blood), he regard himself as Czech as well as to the Czech patron St. Wenceslav - one of the funny details is that in most of the official document he was firstly Czech King and then he was German Emperor The fact he became Emperor earlier than Czech King is his father's great deal - some sources claims that he was paranoid about his son (it might be partially truth, since from the childhood he imprisoned his son as well as he sent him to Paris), but more logically it was the strategical ambition. From childhood he kept Charles IV. in the political play e.g. in Italy (but also as far as possible from Czech lands  , then in German lands when he managed to have significant role hence his son becoming the German Emperor. However John of Luxembourg remained Czech king till his death at Battle of Crecy, 1346! Therefore his son lived in Paris, Rome, Bonn, etc. but after being elected as Czech King he lived only in Prague, which became capital of Holy Empire! He was the founder of Roman Holy Empire from constitutional (he was the one creating Holy Empire Constitution in 1356 - the famous Golden Bula, which established the elite status of Czech lands within the Holy Empire as well as established that Czech King is the No. 1 and most important among the Kurfuerst - electors of German Emperor) and geographical area. Isn't it ironic - Czech half-Slavic king (and his son established the strength and prestige of a HOLY EMPIRE - I guess Hitler will be really crazy if he knew!! BTW his son Sigimund just continued what his father did, but although he was Czech and Polish, he hated Czech and Polish people (u know Hussite movement and reformation and Sigimund was strong catholic) and therefore he was always referring to his Luxembourgh blood - therefore German blood - in reality his blood was Luxembourg only from around 35% BTW Charles IV. is in Czech lands referred as "Father of the Homeland" - do really Germans think that we will refer to some German Emperor as "Father of the Homeland"  BTW to those Western Slavs I have a map of Czech Empire from german books and it is clearly visible that Czechs give the bad touch to Western Slavics - please refer to Luxembourgs (Charles IV.): upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/HRR_14Jh.jpgAlso from the title (Deutschen Reich) you can see that Germans have this manipulation very strongly in their brains |
|
|
|
Post by Pedrito on Jan 29, 2009 11:58:51 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. Hello, thanks for welcome actually I got to Steppe Nomads studies over political science and ideology of panturkism and panturanism. I firstly studied the strong forcing and imposing of the Turkish state policy of this panturkism during 1917 in Caucasus. From this point I needed to understand the history of this ideology so obviously I needed to study WHO ARE THE TURKIC OR TURAN PEOPLE and that's how I got to this Steppe History However to this sentence I have very strong reservations - Magyars might not be Turkic at all, but Ugro-Finns or Iran-Europeans as well, who knows. We will wait for the results of genetics - I totally agree here with both Hungarian friends on their data of Hungarian arrival (about mix of nationalities like Vikings, Russians, Pechenegs, Turkic, etc.), since even Czech Chronicles referred to Hungarians as nomad INDO-EUROPEANS! Given the fact that we fought extensively for 200 years with Hungarians - Czech people will definetly notice if they will fight against some Asian or Turkic looking people. The fact that Hungarian name might be coming from the Turkic language, is actually not supporting the idea of being it a Turkic but RATHER REJECTING the idea. In the world almost 99% majority of national and tribal names is given by the opponents, not by own people - e.g. Celtic (even the TRIBAL NAMES WERE GIVEN BY THE ROMANS like Frimmi, Boii, Britons, Piths, Gauls not by Celtic themselves), Germans (Franks, Marcomanns, etc.), Slavic, Skythes, Mongols, Finnish, etc. The names appeared in most cases by the interaction with them and are given how other people refer to them - e.g. Celtic were called Celtic by Romans. Given the fact that Hungarians never refer to themselves (in initial stages) as Hungarians shows they were not of Turkic origin from this language point of view. Personally I am very interested what in Turkey research will produce. Given the fact that I know some of the researches about Skythes, etc. I am really interested in to see the proof of Turkic origin. For example interesting researches were done by Ukrainians about Hungarians, however I have never seen any citation of them in any Western country, etc. BTW what does it mean for you Turkic origin and appearance?? This is already interesting question - you said when you visited people in Hungary you see lot of Turkic features there so what does it mean for you? Like they are DARK, DARK COMPLEXION, certain cheekbones, or what? Let me remind you that if you compare them to people from Turkey, that it is not appropriate. BTW how the people of Turkey look at the fact that they are not truly TURKIC themselves from the features, genetics, etc.?? Also for Bulgarians - with all respect to Turkey and their historical institute - I believe more Bulgarian historians and their proofs that the tribe was more Iranian (related to Skythes) then the Turkic. I have personally seen archeological evidences in Bulgaria (pottery, weaponry, dresses, hairstyles, etc.) and it was definitely more closer to Persia than e.g. to Kazakhs, etc. BUT NOONE REJECTED THE IDEA that there were accompanied by some Turkic or maybe Turkic might create part of nobility. In those times NATIONALITY DIDN'T MATTER, WHAT matter was the WARRIOR STATUS. What is concerning Huns - this question will be really hard to crack. In my opinion lot of people are prone to say that Huns are Turkic given the appearance of Attila - but his appearance was given by the fact that his mother might be a Chinese concubine. Also there is a clear distinction between various Huns - White Huns are perceived as Mongolic, whereas e.g. Red Huns might be Iranian. Once again it only shows that the Steppe nations intermingled and to claim that any nation was Germanic, Iranian, Slavic or Turkic or Mongolian is more a rethorical and political ethos. But really I would like to know more facts about them, as of now I don't have any opinion about the Huns and will wait for some other research. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 29, 2009 14:05:21 GMT 3
That is even more interesting ;D Uhm, I don't remember saying that the Magyars/Hungarians were a Turkic people  I just said that they were under heavy influence, that's all. Everyone knows that the Magyars were an Ugrian people (though there are scholars who object to that). My point is that, during their migration to Pannonia, they interacted with various Turkic peoples and got influenced from them in various ways, such as language; plus, we know that they mixed with them. It is even known that some Turkic tribes joined the Magyars on the whole, such as the Qabars. But this doesn't make the Magyars Turkic, right? Oh btw, the name Mongol (in Classical Mongolian, Mongqol or Mongġol) was actually the name used by themselves. It was the others who named them as Tatars. Now that's a broad question ;D Actually, I have never been to Hungary, but I want to go there one day ;D I just met Hungarians in several occasions and they had a different look from other Europeans of IE stock. For example, though they all were light skinned, blonde or light brunette, they also had slightly slanted eyes and high cheek bones. Regarding the Turkicness of Turks in Turkey, we had discussed this before, you can check here: steppes.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=board06&action=display&thread=507&page=2One thing I should note is that there aren't much scholars in Turkey who have studied the history of the Bulġars, so what I say is not Turkish propaganda Lingualwise, Talât Tekin (a prominent Old Turkic linguist who is also strictly leftist, and has always been in conflict with the nationalist-conservative linguists in Turkey) has prooved that the Bulġars spoke a Turkic dialect which was different from others in the East. We also have a lot of lingual examples showing us that most of the titles of Bulġars were from Turkic languages, or preserved the Turkic versions of IE (Sanskrit) loanwords. Peter Benjamin Golden also concludes that the Oġurs were indeed a Turkic people. This doesn't mean that they were purely Turkic as some think, because if you look at the area they lived (modern Ukraine), it was a land where Iranic nomads had lived until a very short time ago before the Oġurs came. It is very normal for the Oġurs to have mixed with the local Iranic nomads As for the Danubian or Balkan Bulġars, it was only the ruling class and probably a small part of the population which descended from the Turkic Oġurs - the rest were Slavs and Slavised-Latinised Thracians, who make up the modern Bulgarians. Where did you read that Attila's mother was a Chinese concubine? ;D ;D That's right. |
|
|
|
Post by Pedrito on Jan 29, 2009 16:08:20 GMT 3
OK, then actually I got slightly misunderstood what you mean - I guess it was a matter of words and intensity - for me Turkic features meant much more like also size, body constitution, etc. When you say influence it was having different connotations to me as well, also in regards to Bulgars, etc. So now it seems that we are not in disagreement, since some parts of Hungary really have Turkic features (as e.g. in comparison to your pictures of your friends). I totally agree with the rest, since now I get what you mean by Turkic features I looked at the pictures (in thread you posted), once again it was matter of intensity among the words of feature and influence. Also what is concerning the Mongols one question - Can you explain me how the word Mongol appeared? What I read in Asian archeological books that the name comes from the Chinese derogation of the Mongolians. BTW this theory was also confirmed by my friends who travelled to Mongolia, since the Mongolians were referring to themselves e.g. as Khalkha, not Tatarians or Mongols. Mongol was supposed to be a bad derogation coming from Chinese Muan Ghul or how it is written within 8th century records of the Chinese Tang dynasty and subsequently in 11th century. Later the Genghis Khan and Mongolians were supposed to use it for all the integrated tribes. I don't think that the word Mongol is coming from the tribe of Monguor as some scholars depicted, since in most cases this word is also coming from external party. About Attila - I just wrote "might", since about this person there is not so much evidence, however the Chinese concubine mother is written in either Goth Jordanes or Roman Ammianus Marcellinus chronicles of Huns. I am not sure which source was stating there, however I think it was the Roman one since Attila spend significant time in Rome and he shared some parts of his life. I don't know whether it was confirmed by modern genetic tests or sources |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 29, 2009 16:17:52 GMT 3
Where did you read that Attila's mother was a Chinese concubine? ;D ;D I also had thoughts about this. It is possible, if we take into account that Attila might be a descendant of Maotun, via a Han princess, who was given to him after the Battle of Baideng. This factor played an important role also in the Southern Xiongnu royal family's policies after the split, when they referred themselves as Han emperors in the time of Sixteen kingdoms. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 29, 2009 16:51:35 GMT 3
I know what you wrote, but as we discussed earlier the word Hunugor appears first at the Gothic Jordanes. but if this is the word on-ogur and can't be Hun-ugor, it can be Hun-g-ar, like in Magy-ar. what is without the initial h: Ungar. I wanted to, but don't have the energy right now to delve into this. "Lost" is going to be on soon. Ok, but I'm just speculating : O. Maenchen-Helfen "Getica 63. Hunuguri is not Hun-uguri, in which case Jordanes would have written Hunnuguri, but Un-Uguri." He might be wrong, as Jordanes also wrote about Hunwulf, which is not ten wolf, but Hun wolf and yet it is not in the form of Hunnwulf. And at other authors the name comes as Onoulphus. So Ono can be a form of Hun, thus the Onogur, can be not just On Oghur i.e. ten tribes, but Ono-gur, i.e. Hun-ugur or Hung-ar too. Also in the name of the Hyunos/Hunas, what was written with the also IE origin Bactrian writing as Oiono, and this has also nothing with ten, but Hun. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 29, 2009 17:32:23 GMT 3
If these are taught to you in Czech schools  , I suggest you should open a foreign, neutral history book . What I meant under the part of Czech Kingdom is the time, when Czech royal families (Premysl, Luxembourgh and Jagellonian) hold the Crown of Hungary. Luxembourgh was not a Czech family, but a Luxembourgian. Jagellonian was a Litvanian/Polish royal house. It's not, Bohemia was a part of the Holy Roman Empire. It started not long after the joint Austrian-Hungarian-Cuman army of Ladislaus, King of Hungary and Rudolf, Duke of Austria defeated the Czech king in the Battle of Dürnkrut on the Marchfeld. But it is true that this was a historical fault for both Czech and Hungarian royal houses, but Ottocar have should not made so much devastation in Hungary after the Mongol war in those hard times of King Bela. Great Moravia could become independent only after its ruler made an alliance with the Hungarians, and they've sent to him an army. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 29, 2009 19:50:37 GMT 3
Pedrito,
Without reviewing the history of those time periods you're referencing, you seem to be making a mistake in logic by claiming that because one person was of Slavic blood or Czech that it means that Hungary was part of a Czech kingdom. It is the equivalent of saying that Sweden is part of France because Swedish king Charles XIV John was French. Politics are different than that. Certainly no one today would make such silly claims and say that the US is part of Kenya because Obama's father was from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 29, 2009 20:30:42 GMT 3
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. I encourage you to write about this here. Ok, but I am only at the beginning of these researches as I have only limited source to the original chronicles. But my main thought line is that in the so called Hun-Avar-Hungarian continuity identification there are not centuries long missing links but it goes almost day by day in the sources, so I think these are accurate in almost everything. The Sabir question was already discussed before. After the collapse of the Hun Empire, the remained tribes migrated back to Scythia. They've split under Dengezich and Hernac. After 467 the Sabir confederation was the leader of the Hunnic tribes. The tribes in this were regarded and identified in all chronicles as Huns. Later these tribes were split to Kutrigur and Utigur. This went until around 567, when the Avars came and taken their lead, who were also a branch of Huns. As we can see in the chronicles, and moreover the Turk chagan himself also referred them as Huns. So this identification also stands. After the collapse of the Avar Khanate "the country of Huns", around 804, the remained Avars lived around Sabaria and Austria under Frankish rule and maybe in Transylvania or more eastern. They were also mentioned in 822 at the imperial council. And this time the Hungarians came forward. Not centuries later but right after the Avars so in this case we cannot regard this identification as a typology. But go to the sources (not all of them but some): The Byzantine author who continued Georgius Monachus' work mentions that around 837, the Bulgarian Empire sought the alliance of a pagan people called Ungri, Turc or Hun against the former inhabitants of Macedonia theme who rebelled against the Bulgarians. In the Treaty of Verdun of 843 the three surviving sons of Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's grandsons, divided his territories, the Carolingian Empire, into three kingdoms. In the yearbooks we read that Louis "had gotten also the country of the Avars, i.e. the Huns or Ungarorums". In 860 in Louis the German's charter: " Ungarorum marcha". In 862 Ungris devastate Louis the German's country. In 881 Ungaris and Cowari fought two battles at Wienna. In 894 "around this time the Avars, who are called Ungri were roaming in Transdanubia". At 896: “The Greeks made peace with the Avars, who are called Ungaris." St. Geminius bishop of Modena, 910: "he defended his people from the Ungarises, like in the times when his progenitor defended his Church from Attila, king of Ungarorums." at Widukind "they are the Ungarois, formerly Avars, the remains of Huns", "the Avars, presently called as Ungarios". Simeon Metaphrates: "the Huns are ravaging in Thracia". in a French note from around 980: "the Huns appeared in Italy in 924" Lietbertus 1054:"he went across the barbarian land where the Huns live, to the King of Pannonia". In 1254, Rubruk, the French king's ambassador at the Great Mongol Khan's court: "the Huns came out from Baschiria, they were called later as Hongrois, with the Vlachos, Bolgars and Vandals." But in DAI and in Leo's work and at the Arabs and Persians, the Hungarians were referred as Turkoi and the Khabars are of Turkic Khazari. So this is inconsistency. But if we look on the Byzantine Greek and Persian chronicler tradition we can resolve it: because Simocatta mentions that when the Turks became lords of the steppes of Asia, the Persians started to call the northern Huns as Turks too. And he wrote that this became the custom. Hence the Hungarians are mentioned as Turks in their time, what means in the case of them actually the Huns. And hence Constantine specified this with their former name as Sabiroi, because before this chronicler custom the remnanst of Huns were referred as Sabirs, Sabir-Huns. As Simocatta also write this: "the Barselt, Onogurs, tha Sabirs and other Hun nations in addition to these." But there are many more. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 29, 2009 22:52:15 GMT 3
The early references to "Ungri" is to On Oghurs, not Magyars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 29, 2009 23:27:37 GMT 3
The early references to "Ungri" is to On Oghurs, not Magyars. The first is not, this is the first reference to the Magyars which credibility has not been questioned by modern scholars. Anyway they cannot be the so called Onogurs, because when Krum defeated the Avars in east Hungary, the Onogurs as such ceased to exist, a number of them became part of the Bulgars, so with them no one, particularly not the Bulgars, could make an alliance against some rebellers. But not that is the point but that the sources did not differentiate the Hungarians from the Avars and Onogurs. The second is from 877, and the fourth from 862. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 29, 2009 23:33:14 GMT 3
But in your opinion what would prove the truth or falsity of the identification?
|
|
, then in German lands when he managed to have significant role hence his son becoming the German Emperor. However John of Luxembourg remained Czech king till his death at Battle of Crecy, 1346! Therefore his son lived in Paris, Rome, Bonn, etc. but after being elected as Czech King he lived only in Prague, which became capital of Holy Empire! He was the founder of Roman Holy Empire from constitutional (he was the one creating Holy Empire Constitution in 1356 - the famous Golden Bula, which established the elite status of Czech lands within the Holy Empire as well as established that Czech King is the No. 1 and most important among the Kurfuerst - electors of German Emperor) and geographical area. Isn't it ironic - Czech half-Slavic king (and his son 
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.
I just said that they were under heavy influence, that's all. Everyone knows that the Magyars were an Ugrian people (though there are scholars who object to that). My point is that, during their migration to Pannonia, they interacted with various Turkic peoples and got influenced from them in various ways, such as language; plus, we know that they mixed with them. It is even known that some Turkic tribes joined the Magyars on the whole, such as the Qabars. But this doesn't make the Magyars Turkic, right? 
, I suggest you should open a foreign, neutral history book