|
|
Post by Temüjin on Aug 23, 2006 0:22:17 GMT 3
but Avars completely dissapeared after Charlemagnes invasion and even chroniclers of Charlemagne claimed that he destroyed the whole nation and razed their captial to the grounds.
i only found out about those Iazyges lately, i will try to find out more about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Aug 23, 2006 0:29:08 GMT 3
I might be wrong, but I have heard that Croats are partly-Avars...
|
|
|
|
Post by horka on Sept 4, 2006 17:50:52 GMT 3
This thread is full of misconceptions regarding Hungarians. The genetic studies have showed that the present day hungarians and their ancestors are not related to finno-ugrians. The conqueror hungarians were a turkic race. The genetic studies also showed the fact that in the case of present day hungarians the genetic relation with turkic people is highly probable. For God sake we speak Hungarian which is an Ural-Altaic language, it is not Germanic,not Slavic. If you want to read in detail on hungarian anthropology follow to: The hungarian man - A magyar ember |
|
|
|
Post by horka on Sept 4, 2006 18:12:47 GMT 3
even up to 19th Century there where 3 minorites called Iazyges (Sarmatians), Kumans (Kypchak) ,Szekely My friend Yazig is a term used for Iasians (in hungarian Jász) who were settled down in Hungary with Cumans in the XIII. century. These people became Hungarians. Székely were Hungarians back then and also they are hungarians now. In the 19th century these were not minorites because they were also Hungarians. A good book on them is: András Paloczi-Horváth, Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians: Steppe People in Medieval Hungary. Budapest: Corvina/Kultura, 1989 |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 4, 2006 20:16:10 GMT 3
Hi horka, welcome to SHF!  I will disagree with you, however. The Magyars were and are an Ugric people, not Turkic; but they were under heavy Turkic influence in means of ethnicity and culture. |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Sept 4, 2006 22:17:11 GMT 3
This thread is full of misconceptions regarding Hungarians. The genetic studies have showed that the present day hungarians and their ancestors are not related to finno-ugrians. The conqueror hungarians were a turkic race. The genetic studies also showed the fact that in the case of present day hungarians the genetic relation with turkic people is highly probable. For God sake we speak Hungarian which is an Ural-Altaic language, it is not Germanic,not Slavic. If you want to read in detail on hungarian anthropology follow to: The hungarian man - A magyar emberStill genetically you are mostly Germanic or Slavic, no matter what language you use. Only less than 20% of Hungarians are original-Magyars, but Csangos and Székelys have saved their original blood better. |
|
|
|
Post by horka on Sept 5, 2006 16:30:15 GMT 3
Hi horka, welcome to SHF! I will disagree with you, however. The Magyars were and are an Ugric people, not Turkic; but they were under heavy Turkic influence in means of ethnicity and culture. Hi! Ugrism is a linguistic theory. Therefore by that theory you can relate only languages,not people. Anthropology closed out the possibbility that the Hungarians and the Obi-ugrics (hansi and mansi) could have a common ancestor. The differences are too great. Genetics also reached the same conclusion for the present day Hungarians but also for our ancestors. |
|
|
|
Post by horka on Sept 5, 2006 18:11:10 GMT 3
Still genetically you are mostly Germanic or Slavic, no matter what language you use. Only less than 20% of Hungarians are original-Magyars, but Csangos and Székelys have saved their original blood better. On what do you build that nonsence? With what studies can you prove it? You just write statements with no backup at all. Let me my dear friend to eliminate that misconception. Székelys (Szeklers) have a presumed turkic origin. Histography presumes that they joined later the tribal union. As a fact in middle ages they and the petchenegs were sent first in the battle and had the right to retreat between the last ones. This fact shows their status Some consider that their ancestor were the kabar tribes of khazar origin who joined the alliance. After the conquest the tribes have parted up the conquered led, those less important got the borderlands.
The Szekely live in the East of Transylvania,a land which was
part of Hungary. Across the mountains live the Csangos
Csangos live in Moldva,part of present day Romania.
So Csangos live on a teritory which never was part of Hungary.
Indeed Csangos are closer to the finno-ugrics than other Hungarians. Probably they are of Petcheneg origin
Csangos must have had lesser fortunate status than the Szekelys
of kabar origin.
The leading tribes got the central play, the auxilliaries or those
less important in the allience the borderlands.You see the kabars joined the hungarian tribal allience. They were khazarian, so turkic. Genetics studies have proved that Hungarians are not related
to Finno-Ugric people. But also showed that the genetics
relations with Turkic people are highly probable.Volt egyszer egy finnugor� The Hungarians are noted for the unique phenomenon of "Eastern vitalization" because Hungarians have incorporated people like cumans, volga-bulgars, petchenegs, jazigz, huns, avars, turkic people. Then how can you say that we are mostly German or Slavic? |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Sept 5, 2006 21:03:00 GMT 3
Because youassimiliated many slavs, and later germans arrived from Saxonia and Habsburgs moved there alot of Slavs. You are mostly not different than slovaks or austrians.
Minority of your nation is pure still, but most part of Hungarians are germanic/slavic-mixtures.
|
|
|
|
Post by horka on Sept 6, 2006 12:24:25 GMT 3
Because youassimiliated many slavs, and later germans arrived from Saxonia and Habsburgs moved there alot of Slavs. You are mostly not different than slovaks or austrians. Minority of your nation is pure still, but most part of Hungarians are germanic/slavic-mixtures. Again you are daydreaming. Just read my post carefully. I showed you that Szekelys and Csangos did not represented the core population of Hungarians. Their ancestors probably were auxilliary people of turkic origin. On the other hand if slavs or german would have been in majority we would now speak a slavic or german language. See the case of Bulgarians. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people were the turkic bulgars, but now they speak a slavic language because the slavs were in majority. They became slavic. In the case of Hungarians that is not a case. Hungarians were allways hungarian speakers. Those who joined the nation were allways in minority. The Cumans, Petchenegs,Yazigs who joined Hungary became Hungarians. You elude the fact that we have a strong eastern origin. We are Hungarians due to that eastern origin. Hungarian kings allways preferred to colonize people with simmilar origin like Cumans , Petchenegs or other turkics. The good example is the case of Cumans. You do not argument. You know little about Hungary or Hungarians |
|
|
|
Post by horka on Sept 6, 2006 12:39:38 GMT 3
..germans arrived from Saxonia and Habsburgs moved there alot of Slavs... The territories where Habsburgs colonized many slavs (as an example North of present day Serbia :Vajdaság) hungarians became a minority. Vajdaság is no more part of Hungary. The western part of the Hungarian Kingdom, Burgenland after Trianon became part of Austria. Burgenland has a minority population of Hungarians but also Croats.
On the territory of the present day Hungary ,Hungarians always were in majority.
Transylvania,Croatia,Slovakia,Transcarpatia,Burgenland, Eastern part of Slovenia, Vajdaság are no more part of Hungary. These territories have hungarian minorities. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 6, 2006 22:12:27 GMT 3
Please, horka, do not use any rude language such as "On what do you build that nonsence?", "Again you are daydreaming" and "You do not argument. You know little about Hungary or Hungarians". Please argue in a more civilised manner.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by horka on Sept 7, 2006 14:28:48 GMT 3
Please, horka, do not use any rude language such as "On what do you build that nonsence?", "Again you are daydreaming" and "You do not argument. You know little about Hungary or Hungarians". Please argue in a more civilised manner. Thank you. I would rather call it a mild intervention. Having in mind that you so freely allow the manifastation of Nazi propaganda- on whatever level that is-, examplified here in this forum by the person of the finn verinenparoni, see the source of his avatar or his witty posts. The same way please tolarate my 'so extreme' hungarian behaviour. Shouldn't we call things by their proper name? |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 7, 2006 20:20:37 GMT 3
There is nothing wrong with verinenparoni as long as he does not post any direct political things. I am also having a close watch on him, as much as I have a close watch on my entire forum.
I would have wanted you to use a better tone when talking. Please try to disproove his theories in a scientific and non-rude way.
Same goes for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 7, 2006 22:35:28 GMT 3
My friend Yazig is a term used for Iasians (in hungarian Jász) who were settled down in Hungary with Cumans in the XIII. century. These people became Hungarians. Székely were Hungarians back then and also they are hungarians now. In the 19th century these were not minorites because they were also Hungarians. A good book on them is: András Paloczi-Horváth, Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians: Steppe People in Medieval Hungary. Budapest: Corvina/Kultura, 1989 what exactly is the origin of those Iasians then? |
|
