yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Apr 15, 2008 22:47:12 GMT -5
i think the original Pannons from where the name Pannonia comes lived in southern Pannonia todays Croatia, in the northern areas there were mostly Celts. But yeah i'm also a Pannonian, i live only a few kilometers from the site of a Roman camp, though it was abandoned some 1600 years ago. Did the Serbian Banat also belong to Pannonia or are you from the Barbaricum? i haven't heard about any known cemetery or settlement in modern Hungary which has a continouity from the antiquity to the 9-10th century. a few isolated places maybe survived 1-200 years after the Romans abandoned Pannonia, but where are the remains of the Romanized Pannonian population in the 8th century or the 9th century? why should we differ so much? we mixed with locals just like our migrating Magyar ancestors mixed with other ppl, then also new settlers came and assimilated (i wouldn't surprise if every Hungarian have at least one German ancestor who came with the 18th century colonization), no surprise. this guy is from one of the few old families who can actually trace back their ancestry to the land conquesting Magyar chieftains (his ancestors mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum) but i think he doesn't look too different from ppl of neighboring countries: www.mkogy.hu/kepviselo/kep/m247.jpg (he is an ashole btw, stupid politician).
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 16, 2008 2:16:43 GMT -5
This is something Rhezus likes to repeat for every nation on the Balkans and which is a product of his wishful thinking and lively imagination. I have no idea how he manages to find those millions of locals when Huns, Bulgars, Magyars, etc settled here since there is not a single source that supports his claim. Not to mention that millions is absolutely unbelievable number for those times but let us leave the man live his dreams.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Apr 16, 2008 4:12:21 GMT -5
AHA! So now Gesta Hungarorum is a reliable source. When it speaks about the "pastores romanorum" from Transsylvania, it isn`t reliable anymore. Nem szabad, kicsi Yeni. Olah vagy, Yeni. You just don`t want to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 16, 2008 6:44:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Apr 16, 2008 7:12:05 GMT -5
i haven't heard about any known cemetery or settlement in modern Hungary which has a continouity from the antiquity to the 9-10th century. a few isolated places maybe survived 1-200 years after the Romans abandoned Pannonia, but where are the remains of the Romanized Pannonian population in the 8th century or the 9th century? The absence of cemeteries or Roman style settlements doesn't mean that there were no people. It does suggest that Christian practices had ceased. None of the migrating peoples were Christian, and the survivors of the fall of the Roman empire reverted to pagan customs, including cremation. Christianity as a state-supported religion had been around for only a century before the arrival of the Huns. Christianity was reintroduced to the region by Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century. The Romans had brought the custom of stone grave markers and sarcophagi in the first century, but the easy availability of such material in the puszta ended with the collapse of long-range commerce in the fifth.
|
|
yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Apr 16, 2008 8:53:47 GMT -5
Well the Gesta is still a historical source but yeah, you are right we have to read it with criticism. So i revise what i wrote: thats sure that the ancestors of the guy whose photo i linked already lived in Hungary during the time of Anonymous and in that period his ancestors were considered to be descendants of the first Hungarian tribes. and no I'm not olah sorry, i have many foreigner ancestors, but vlachs are not likely among them. Cognate: ok but where were those Romanized Pannonians? because we can identify the Slavic cemeteries and settlements. We can also identify the Germanics. Also the Avars and a Slavizied Avars and so. so where were the Romanized Pannonians? every century they changed their burial customs and pagan religion so those can't be differentiated from the migration ppl's burial sites? with the puszta u mean the Great Hungarian plain? there weren't Roman settlements but barbarians during the Roman time. In Pannonia there were many many stone material thanks to the migration ppl. Those Roman ruins meant many many stones for free.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Apr 16, 2008 10:25:48 GMT -5
I read words here, like "we mixed " and remixed... Yes, you mixed and Magyras were absorbed into the domestic population. You say Magyars outnumbered ca. 200.000 ppl. I belive at least 2 million local ppl were dwelling the areas when Magyars arrived from east. Sush was the case in Thrace too. The lands of today Hungary were always populated. Nobody left the areas, except the Roman troops. Yes they look Turanid, in some extent with semi-mogolid features. If Magyars were not absorbed by the locals, then you should still look like them. The fact is modern Hungarians look as the rest of the central European population. So, Magyars, giving their genes to rest of Europe is simply nonsense. Follow the logic and stop telling us nomadic fairytales. Well said, Cognate.. That's correct too. Minority were capable to impose their languige and even change the names of previous known provinces and territories. Nothing strange, taking into account that they came with a purpose - establishing a state.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Apr 16, 2008 12:15:05 GMT -5
Cognate: ok but where were those Romanized Pannonians? because we can identify the Slavic cemeteries and settlements. We can also identify the Germanics. Also the Avars and a Slavizied Avars and so. so where were the Romanized Pannonians? every century they changed their burial customs and pagan religion so those can't be differentiated from the migration ppl's burial sites? It's interesting that the Germanic, Avar and Slavic burials can be identified correctly, but those of the descendants of the Romanized Pannonians cannot. Is it because the tombstones didn't have SPQR chiseled in?
|
|
yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Apr 16, 2008 14:20:31 GMT -5
if they survived they didn't left anything in their fictionary tombs which connect them to the Roman Pannonian population. it don't have to be SPQR inscription, simply the continous using of a Roman cemetery by the same population during the migration period would be a good start...
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 17, 2008 6:17:09 GMT -5
Its hard to believe there were 2 million domestic and only 200,000 Magyars at least if this were the ratio one would expect accounts of great battles in that region but there is no such accounts but there are accounts of great battles in other places. There are estimates regarding amount of locals vs Magyars but I have never seen estimates as yours. Various scholars estimate the Hungarians were as low as 25,000 and as high as 250,000 to 300,000 with some estimates as high as 500,000. I think the general estimates for local population is between 200,000 to 300,000.
To give some idea about the amount of Magyars in Hungary in the first few hundred years after the conquest lets consider these points.
During the first hundred years many raids were made into Western Europe as far as France and Spain by some of the Hungarian tribes. Eventually these raids ceased after the battle of Lechfield where Hungarian tribes were defeated and the tribal leader executed. Now that particuliar battle was conducted by only by a few Tribes from Western Hungary yet still it features as major landmark in history. Despite this there were still plenty of Hungarians remaining in Hungary I dont think its coincidence that the Germans didnt dare to follow up the defeat of those few tribes by attacking Hungary why because Hungary was adequatly populkated anmd defended by remaining Hungarians. Additionally other eastern Hungarian tribes had the numbers to move further east and south inhabiting Transylvania. The Arpad Kings ruled Hungary for 300 years and during this time sevral wars were fought for example Hungary defeated and conquered Croatia all of this was done in first few hundred years after the conquest so really I dont think it sounds like the Magyars were in small numbers.
The 13th century with the attack of the Mongols destroyed a lot of the population so besides all those Magyars that lost their lives during the 100 years of raiding Western Europe and in other local battles many others were killed during the Mongol invasion.
Even still the language and identity and culture was so strong that even though much immigration was required to repopulate many places after Mongol invasion and later after the black death and later after the Ottomans the language and identity still survived.
I really believe that this shows the Magyar population was quite significant and did mix in with local population and really the nation of Hungary was formed through the first 1or 2 hundred years after the Magyar conquest.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Apr 17, 2008 7:14:46 GMT -5
To give some idea about the amount of Magyars in Hungary in the first few hundred years after the conquest lets consider these points. During the first hundred years many raids were made into Western Europe as far as France and Spain by some of the Hungarian tribes. Eventually these raids ceased after the battle of Lechfield where Hungarian tribes were defeated and the tribal leader executed. Now that particuliar battle was conducted by only by a few Tribes from Western Hungary yet still it features as major landmark in history. Despite this there were still plenty of Hungarians remaining in Hungary I dont think its coincidence that the Germans didnt dare to follow up the defeat of those few tribes by attacking Hungary why because Hungary was adequatly populkated anmd defended by remaining Hungarians. Additionally other eastern Hungarian tribes had the numbers to move further east and south inhabiting Transylvania. The Arpad Kings ruled Hungary for 300 years and during this time sevral wars were fought for example Hungary defeated and conquered Croatia all of this was done in first few hundred years after the conquest so really I dont think it sounds like the Magyars were in small numbers. Have you heard of the Spaniard Hernan Cortez' conquest of Mexico in the sixteenth century? He departed from Cuba on ships with six hundred (600) men and landed in Mexico, at the time ruled by the Maya in the Yucatan Peninsula and the Aztecs in the central part. In two years Cortez had full control of the Aztec empire, with a total population numbering several million. Within a century or two Spanish was the language of the country and Catholicism the religion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_Mexico
|
|
yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Apr 17, 2008 8:29:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 17, 2008 8:32:01 GMT -5
Its a different comparison for example the Spanish brought with them a type of warfare technology of the time that the aboriginal populations despite bigger numbers could not match this is same thing with Indians in America and South America and Aborigines of Australia etc.
On the contrary Russia was established by Scandinavian Vikings but they didnt impart their Nordic language on the majority population rather they were Slavicised and same thing with the Bulgars who gave the name of the Bulgarian nation but left very little in way of langugae again they were Slavicised and same story for the Sarmatian/Iranian tribes that supposedly gave origins to Croats and Serbs they were Slavicised and even the majority of the Avars who held Carpathian Basin for 200 years were eventually Slavicised but the Hungarians were not at least not linguistically or by identity to certain degree genetically yes.
If one looks at the success and the number of military campaigns the Magyars were involved in in the first 2 to 300 years of their presence in Carpathian Basin it suggests they must have had reasonably significant numbers.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Apr 17, 2008 8:54:43 GMT -5
The relative genetic contribution of the Spanish and other people is small - much less than half. Moreover the non-natives arrived during the centuries following the complete takeover by the Spanish, who were very few, of the Aztec empire. My point is that taking over a people - or groups of people - does not require a numerical advantage.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Apr 17, 2008 9:48:31 GMT -5
Its a different comparison for example the Spanish brought with them a type of warfare technology of the time that the aboriginal populations despite bigger numbers could not match this is same thing with Indians in America and South America and Aborigines of Australia etc. Yes, they had a technological advantage. But Cortez, with 600 men, didn't defeat millions of Aztecs on his own. From the very beginning he enlisted the aid of locals that were willing to fight for him against the central power. These natives participated in several battles in the tens of thousands. The same methodology of convincing one large group of natives to fight against the empire happened during Pizarro's conquest of the Inca empire a few years later. It's obvious on the face of it that the Turanic (non white) contribution to the genetic makeup of modern Magyars is very small (a few percent). Those who believe that the original Magyars came into the Carpathian basin in large numbers (say 200 000 or more) are forced to account for this by invoking a pre-invasion mixing with large numbers of Caucasians. Battles in antiquity and the middle ages were fought by usually less than fifty thousand men - frequently less than 10 000 - on either side. The soldiers who didn't do anything other than fight or train for it required an enormous population to feed them. The technology was so primitive that farmers (with the help of their wives and children) could barely feed themselves to survive. It took twenty non soldiers (male and female) to supply one professional soldier with sustenance, clothing and weapons. The so-called barbarians (Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, etc.) that penetrated inside the territories of the Roman empire and the subsequent states or lands were like gangster armies that took food (and any riches available) from a farming population. In essence they competed with the central authority (emperor, king, pope, the nobility and the priests-monks) in dispossessing the (already enslaved) farmers. To succeed the invaders didn't have to be in the hundreds of thousands, but just numerous enough to defeat the soldiers of the empire / states, one battle at a time. Thus even fifty thousand permanently armed fighters would be sufficient.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Apr 17, 2008 14:39:28 GMT -5
Rhezus that exactle right, but it wasnt the magyars who were outnumbered, it was those stinky asian invaders from the east that outnumbers the magyars in Pannonia. Magyars were Pannonians (actually rather Pannonians were the earliest Magyars) that inhabited Pannonia. Look up on one of the Illyrian-Pannonian tribes = Maezaei, they survived till now Magyars. exactly see how u trying to prove ur point, Magyars always inhabited Pannonia, and we kicked those warmongering Romans out of Pannonia, cause sick of Roman civilisation so we adopted stinky disease-producing asian civilisation.
|
|
storm
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by storm on Apr 17, 2008 15:17:30 GMT -5
My point is that taking over a people - or groups of people - does not require a numerical advantage. that is true. Aculturalization has occured across the world where small numbers of conquerors managed to enforce their own culture/language /religion etc onto the peoples they conquered. for example look at the way Spaniards, French etc speak a Latin tongue which was introduced into their countries by the Romans but that doesnt mean they are descended from the Romans
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Apr 17, 2008 15:29:35 GMT -5
Hey dude, don't make me laugh.. I told you locals were much more than "some scholars" say. Otherwise you should still look like "The Jackson 5" today. Exactly what I mean! The food was not falling from the sky, for Magyars. If the areas were unpopulated, others should come earlier than Magyars to settle there. There were no such "unpopulated" places in Europe. Such theories are so obviously unlogical..
|
|
storm
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by storm on Apr 17, 2008 15:33:36 GMT -5
what do you mean by they would look like the Jackson Five
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Apr 17, 2008 16:30:16 GMT -5
I promise you, they did not look exactly centeral European.
|
|