|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 20, 2008 22:30:57 GMT -5
[
If they were materially better off due to their own hard work, efforts and abilities then they should not be targeted for that and nor should it make them superior or inferior.
Were they suppressed or not ?
My impression is as Non Muslim people they felt the laws and the system was in ways oppresive towards them. Hence again is the issue of safety and security. When any minority in any country feels that they have less rights or that law/political system of that country favours others over them then certainly it will be an issue.
[/quote]
Didnt they previously and historically have their own country and autonomous areas that they occupied with authority for long period of time? Didnt Armenia become part of Turkey in 15th century?
Are you saying that maybe a total of near 3 million Armenians women children included were threatening the survival of the then tens of millions pop of Turkey?
So the many Armenians whom were not combatants or not even in areas where there was fighting had to die why ? because they were 1: Christians and Christians were fighting Muslims in fringes of Ottoman empire and 2: because they were Armenians and some of the Armenian pop had fought on side of Russians?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2008 18:32:30 GMT -5
Saucy Stripper Stuns Romania Commuters Email a friend Save article Print article Increase text size Decrease text size Come face to flesh with Bucharest's mysterious metro stripper18 June 2008 Police in the Romanian capital are hunting a woman who’s taken to showcasing her sleazy stripshows on the city’s metro. Police in Bucharest say they have received reports of a woman stripping down to her underwear and performing a pole dance for cash in front of shocked metro passengers. One commuter even managed to record the sexy strip on a phone camera. The video shows the performer slipping out of a tiny dress and then her underwear to music from the popular British film The Full Monty, played on portable CD player. She then slides around a pole in the centre of the busy train in front of bemused commuters, before passing around a KFC container for passengers to show their appreciation. While some commuters happily paid for the entertainment, others condemned the stripping, describing the act as “not proper.” Authorities say the reason the woman has not been caught is because she performs the striptease on trains without guards, or closed-circuit television systems. Police say the woman – who has been described as an attractive, student-looking woman – could face charges of indecent exposure and public begging if she is caught in the act. She is probably only one of many models doing this its interesting she is the one getting so much attention. This is not new phenomenon as these days their are many porn sites from USA and throughout Europe and Eastern Europe and Russia who specialise in public nudity, or public sex etc, I would imagine there is someone filming her or photographing her for some porn site it would be more suprising if she was doing it for any other reason except money.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2008 18:22:24 GMT -5
I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors. Apparently. Apparently what ? are you saying they felt safe and secure in Turkey at end of 19th Century and early 20th century ?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2008 18:14:06 GMT -5
I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors. There were Turkish and Kurdish killings in 1890s, but even in early 1800s, there were forced emigration and population exchange amongst Turks/Tatars/Kurds and Armenians/Christians due to the Russian policies in Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia. For example, Armenians were a minority in Yerevan back in early 1800s, but now, there is not a single Turk/Tatar living there in that city. For such obvious reasons, even the "Eurocentric Genocide Scholars" can not omit the events that resulted in expulsion of Armenians from Anatolia. Here is some extract from a recent article: The Armenian genocide was one of the last, and probably the largest-scale, of the series of acts of mass murder and expulsion that accompanied first the contraction, then the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and its replacement by several nation-states in the Balkans and Anatolia. The emergence from the Ottoman Empire of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria as autonomous or independent nation-states during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries involved the extermination or expulsion of much of the Ottoman Muslim population that had inhabited the territories of these countries under the Ottomans. A related phenomenon was the southward expansion of Russia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, across the northern coast of the Black Sea and into the Caucasus and the Balkans, often in collusion with local Christian peoples and similarly involving the killing or expulsion of vast numbers of Muslims - indeed, of entire Muslim peoples such as the Crimean Nogai and the Caucasian Ubykhs.
These acts of killing and explusion culminated in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, when Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Montenegro finally destroyed the Ottoman Empire in Europe. According to Justin McCarthy (Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, Darwin Press, Princeton, 1996, p. 164), the Balkan Wars resulted in the death of 27% of the Muslim population of the Ottoman territories conquered by the Christian Balkan states - 632,408 people. This is a figure comparable to death-toll of the Armenian genocide from 1915, which Bloxham estimates as claiming the lives of one million Armenians or 50% of the pre-war Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, with another half million Armenians deported but surviving (Bloxham, p. 1).
These massacres and expulsions of Ottoman Muslims, and particularly the Balkan Wars, were both precursors and catalysts for the Armenian genocide, which was launched only a couple of years after the Balkan Wars ended. This was because a) Muslim Turkish nationalists copied the model of European-style nationalism already adopted by the Balkan Christian nationalists, involving the same principle of ethno-religious homogeneity; b) the decades of explusions of Ottoman and Caucasian Muslims to Anatolia, culminating in the Muslim exodus from the Balkans during and after the Balkan Wars, provided a constituency of embittered refugees and their descendants whom the Turkish nationalists could mobilise in the 1910s to attack Anatolian Christians; c) the settlement of these Muslim refugees in Anatolia began the process of Muslim colonisation of historically Armenian-inhabited lands that paved the way for the genocide; and d) the Turkish nationalists who ruled the Ottoman Empire in 1915 viewed the extermination of the Armenians as the necessary alternative to what they feared would be the establishment of an Armenian state in Anatolia under Russian protection, on the model of the Balkan Christian states and involving the same acts of killing and expulsion of Ottoman Muslims that the establishment of the latter had involved.For full article, please follow the link below:henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=691Certainly it seems it was a complex series of events that led to what occured in 1915, and paranoia from Turkish nationalists about Armenians as the article suggests was heightened by what had occured in other parts of former Ottoman empire. The article you posted gives reasons for how events were influenced but it does seem to suggest also something along the lines of*genocide ... Yes it also suggests an earlier genocide against Muslims in Caucasus and other places I take note of that but it was not exclusively at hands of Armenians even if some Armenians worked on side of Russians. When Armenians fought along side of Russians instead of for Ottoman empire what was reasons they did this, if they felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have done so or would they have been more loyal to Turkey.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2008 6:07:25 GMT -5
Russian archives refute Armenian “genocide” claimsA document in Russia's official archives has surfaced that shows Armenians carried out mass killings in 1915, and is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that reveals Yerevan's claims of "genocide" are nothing but a lie. (UPDATED)Russian archives refute Armenian “genocide” claimsTurkish academic, Mehmet Perincek, has uncovered a 65-page report while conducting research at the Russian State Military History Archives, Hurriyet daily reported on Monday. The report was written by Brigadier General Leonid Bolkhovinitov and sent to the Russian headquarters in Dec. 11, 1915. "Armenian voluntary units had started violent slaughters against the Muslim people with racist motives," the report was quoted as saying by Hurriyet. The Russian general also said in his report the information given by the Armenians "are politically-motivated" and did not reflect the actual situation in the region. He also named the incidents as, "The issue defined as the Armenian question." "We shall not believe in the death tolls that the Armenians give. The number of missing people has been exaggerated in the memos distributed by the Dashnak party and there is no doubt that they are politically-motivated. Those Armenian gangs, who triggered the slaughters, are the ones who should be blamed for those missing," Bolkhovinitov said in his report. He also accused England of provoking the Armenians to prevent a potential alliance between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. "Before that Turks, Armenians, and Kurds used to live in peace. Even the living conditions of Armenians were much better than Kurds' and Turks," he added. This report is likely to create a new perspective on the Armenian claims, given the fact that Russia and the Ottomans were enemies during the late 1910s, increasing the importance of the report. Turkey says parliaments and other political institutions are not the appropriate bodies to debate and pass judgment on disputed periods of history. Past events and controversial periods of history should be left to historians for their dispassionate study and evaluation. However Turkey's efforts to carry a deeper investigation have yet to have a positive outcome. In 2005, Turkey officially proposed to the Armenian government the establishment of a joint historical commission composed of historians and other experts from both sides to study together the events of 1915 and to open the archives of Turkey and Armenia, as well as the archives of all relevant third-party countries and share their findings publicly. Unfortunately, Armenia has not yet responded positively to this initiative and Turkey's proposal remains on the table. www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/turkey/9192242.asp?gid=231&sz=32455 I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 4, 2008 20:01:47 GMT -5
Slavs (including Serbs) settled today's Vojvodina in the 6th and 7th centuries. In the 9th century, Salan and Glad, Bulgarian dukes (voivods), ruled over the region. The residence of Salan was Titel. The important local voivods were also Ahtum and Sermon, who ruled over the region in the 11th century as vassals of the Bulgarian tzars. After the Bulgarian dukes were defeated, parts of the region (Bačka and Banat) were added to the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, while Syrmia was ruled by the Byzantine Empire until the 12th century, when it too was added to the Kingdom of Hungary.
Serbs were not Bulgar empire, you had wars with Bulgaria. You were not Byzantines either. As the above text shows Serbs had no rule of Vojvodina before Hungarians. The region was officially part of Nation of Hungary before it was considered part of Greater Serbia. Serbs population went in Vojvodina because Ottoman attacks that pushed Serbs north, majority Serb population was in south not Northern Serbia of today, and fact Hungarian King allowed Serbs refuge in Hungary. Later when Hungary was in weak moment Serbs turned on Hungary and try to take Vojvodina region by force.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 24, 2008 7:02:14 GMT -5
Byzantines didnt take care of it same as Romans nor Germans didnt took care of Pannonia hence it went to Hungary and Hungary was a recognised nation State and Kingdom befor Serbia and Vojvodina was part of our recognised borders before it was part of yours anyway you are not Byzantine how you can take it back. Serbs went in Vojvodinja because of Hapsburgs. I think you're mistaken. Vojvodina was Byzantine before the Hungarians even showed up on the scene and it was given to Serbs. After the region was dominated by the Hungarian Kingdom it was colonized but we took it back in 1918. The Hungarians occupied the Carpathian basin at the end of the 9th century. At that time, the territory of the present Vojvodina was settled sparsely by Bulgarians, but they soon merged with the Hungarian population. The immigration of Serbians started in the 15th century. As a consequence of the more and more threatening attacks of the Turks, the Hungarian king Sigismund signed a contract in 1426 with Istvan Lazarevic, the Serbian vojvode, declaring the Serb his vassal. The southern Hungarian population started to move northward, fleeing from Turkish attacks, and fleeing Serbians took this territory. In a mere four years, between 1479 and 1483, more than 200 thousand Serbians were transferred to Hungary. Numerous Serbians fought against the Turks in the Hungarian army. The Turks occupied the central part of Hungary in 1541 and they were chased out in 1686 by the United European Forces, under Prince Eugene of Savoy. It was then that a mass immigration of Serbians to Hungary started from Serbia, which was still under Ottoman rule, after the suppressed revolt against the Turks in Kosovo in 1690, the Christian nations on the Balkan peninsula were encouraged by the Austrian Emperor Leopold. Serbian patriarch Arsenije Carnojevic from Kosovo Polje, sought asylum in Hungary with his people consisting of 36 thousand families. At the time, the Serbian newcomers were not considered permanent settlers, only temporary guests.
A letter written by Emperor Leopold to the patriarch testifies to this: " We will strive with all our force and all our ability to lead the Serbian nation that fled to our country back to their former land and to expel the enemy from there, with our victorious arms and with the help of God."
However, this did not happen. Serbia remained under Turkish rule for a long time. A century the Serbs who were granted asylum in Southern Hungary came up in 1790 with a claim of territorial autonomy. In 1848, after the outbreak of the Hungarian War of Independence, they attacked the Hungarian army in the rear and proclaimed the Southern part of Hungary an independent Voivodina.They did this in spite of Law 1848,XX. of the Hungarian Parliament which ensured complete ecclesiastical and educational self-government and free use of their native language to the Serbs, something for which a parallel could not easily be found in relation to the rights of any other nationality in Europe at the time.After the suppression of the Hungarian war of independence by the combined forces of Austria and Russia, Voivodina was governed directly from Vienna for a short time, but it was reannexed to Hungary in 1860.At the outbreak of World War I, the Pan-Serbian movement, encouraged and fully supported by Russia, openly declared that their aim was to destroy the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and to unite all the Southern Slavic nations living on its territory under Serbian rule. All over the world, Southern Slav emigrees started propaganda activities. Together with the Czech emigrees, led by Masaryk and Benes, they undertook the production of an unbridled level of propaganda rare in modern history. In a memorandum given to the English and French governments in May 1915, they referred to Bacska and Banat (also to Croatia and even to the south-western part of Hungary) as "Yugoslav national territories" under the name of Vojvodina. They tried to justify this by the false statement: "On this territory, our nation lives in a compact mass and almost without merging with other races". In order to understand the real situation, we must turn to the data of the 1911 census referring to Bacska, when the Serb population was relatively the highest, the proportion of the Hungarian population was 40.5%, the German population 29.7%, Serbs and Croats together did not reach 20%.www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/cseres/cseres01.htmthink again
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 24, 2008 6:54:35 GMT -5
Hungary had little to be thankful for after WW1, after losing a good part of her territory with much of it still having Hungarian majority areas to Serbia or rather Greater Serbia.
They are also afforded minority status rights same as Serbs in Hungary so plse tell this to redneck Nationalist Serbs who bully Hungarians in Vojvodina.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 22, 2008 21:35:04 GMT -5
]
Byzantines didnt take care of it same as Romans nor Germans didnt took care of Pannonia hence it went to Hungary and Hungary was a recognised nation State and Kingdom befor Serbia and Vojvodina was part of our recognised borders before it was part of yours anyway you are not Byzantine how you can take it back.
Serbs went in Vojvodinja because of Hapsburgs.
The majority Hungarian populated regions in North Vojvodina should never been seperated from Hungary to be fair and realistic there was no reason for that.
Serbs should be thankful to Hungary , when the Turks were kicking yoiur asses , Hungary allowed many thousands Serbs to come into Hungary and take refuge this is why we have even today Serb minority places even in North Hungary such as Szentendre. Serbs should treat their Hungarian minorities well as Serb minorities in Hungary have been treated pretty good for several hundred years even one of the biggest Hungarian nationalist Sandor Petofi was half Serb.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 14, 2008 0:05:35 GMT -5
Dutch? I thought the English got their blondism from the Germanic Angls,Saxons and Danes,Vikings and Normans.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 14, 2008 0:02:40 GMT -5
Excuse my ignorance here but what was the difference between the Serboi and the Slavs in this context. Weren't the Serboi a specific group of Slav tribe or something else ?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 12, 2008 20:52:37 GMT -5
[/quote]
I recently watched the documentary series Michael Pailins (from Monty Python)...Michael Pailins new Europe.
Anyway Michael travels in Turkey and most of the Turkish people he spoke with young and some older seemed to support Turkey to join EU, ok it seemed maybe some supported the idea a bit reluctantly but it appeared the consensus was they thought it was right way to go.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 26, 2008 22:26:22 GMT -5
It did occur under Magyars in 1000AD and from then continued 300 years of Magyar Kings and this same State exists today as MagyarOrszag.
Whomever it ocured under it would more than likely have been by force as most State formations were and its not necessary it would have been under the local population eg it may have become a Germanic state.
As has been said the term Asiatic is somewhat a broad term in this context but it can be said they were most likely not Indo-European names.Certain Hungarian names of today are not Indo-European origin either.
As has been said modern Hungarians are a mixture of all the layers that went before them. And as I have pointed out there has been a lot of immigration into Hungary from early times majority of those people assimilated into Hungarians so Magyar blood was not just diluted by whomever was there when they arrived but also from the many people whom went into Hungary from East and West.
I would say the Hun tribes stock was probably stronger in the first 300 years and after that due to much intermixing and much immigration into Hungary it became more and more diluted even still as has been stated Turanian blood is still considered to be as high as 25% in Hungary.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 22, 2008 18:41:49 GMT -5
the extract below is written by English Historian Mcartney.Even if we disregard the high mountains and Transylvania, which usually lived its own life, the fates of the two parts of the plain in early times and the Dark Ages were often very different, sometimes sharply opposed. The western half was usually peopled and intermittently controlled from its immediate or remoter central European, or Italian, hinterlands; for several centuries it belonged to Rome. By contrast, the Great Plain was recurrently occupied by waves of nomadic horsemen, the overspill from the seemingly inexhaustible reservoir of these peoples which then filled the Pontic, Caspian and central Asiatic steppes. Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns (with their Germanic subjects), Bulgars and Avars all successively sought in it a refuge from more powerful neighbours, and a home. These two elements - Europe and Asia - strove for mastery, and neither ever achieved it quite completely. The horsemen, when they arrived, were usually the stronger in the field and some of them carried their conquests across the Danube and as far as the western forests, but in time they always weakened, their empires collapsed and Europe reasserted itself. On the other hand, the Europeans seldom ventured beyond what was for them the greatest of natural defensive lines, the Danube; the Romans themselves, who for a while held Transylvania as well as the west, left the Great Plain alone, even during a long period when its nomadic population was exceptionally weak. There were other times when neither Asia nor Europe was present in force, and when the whole Basin was little more than a no-man's land, and the end of the ninth century AD. was one of these times. The Avars, the last invaders to enter the Basin in force, had ruled the whole of it for the unprecedented span of over two centuries, but their power, too, bad decayed with time, and at the opening of the century Charlemagne had destroyed it utterly. The German Empire had, however, limited its subsequent extension of its political frontiers to the old Pannonia and the areas flanking it north and south, and even there it had done no more than set up a series of dependencies, governed by Slavonic 'dukes', whose allegiance was often insecure. One of these vassal states, Croatia, had made itself fully independent in 869, and Sviatopluk, Duke of Moravia, which then included the: area between the Danube and the Gran, had been in open defiance of his overlord for as long. The East Roman Empire, of which the Serbia of the day was a loose dependency, disputed Syrmia with the Western Empire, but did not look across the Danube-Drava line. Bulgaria may have exercised suzerainty over the Alföld, and perhaps Transylvania, but its rule over either area was at best shadowy. Thus a number of Powers claimed rule over parts of the Basin, but all of them were peripheral to it, their own centres far distant from it. The native populations ruled by these Powers were as various as they.There were Moravian Slavs in the north-west, Slovenes in Pannonia; in the north, and along the banks of the Tisza, some more Slav settlements, and roaming the plains of the Alföld, a nomadic people of Eastern origin, perhaps akin to the Magyars themselves: the Szekels. The ethnic appurtenance of the then inhabitants of Transylvania is acrimoniously disputed between Roumanian and Hungarian historians, the former maintaining that a Roman, or alternatively, Romanised Dacian, population had survived the Dark Ages, the latter pointing to the fact that all the pre-Magyar place-names of Transylvania are Slav, except four river-names, which are not Latin; also that the first mention of 'Vlachs' in Hungarian documents comes in the thirteenth century, when they figure only as roving shepherds, and not numerous. In any case, all these populations were sparse. The most densely populated area was probably the foothills and open valleys of the north-west. The upper valleys and mountains of the Carpathians were practically uninhabited. There were only one or two places larger than hamlets in Pannonia, or in the Alföld. Transylvania, too, whatever the ethnic appurtenance of such inhabitants as it possessed, consisted at that time mostly of unpenetrated forest. Such was the situation in the Basin when the Magyars appeared on the further side of the Carpathian Gate.According to this tradition, the decision to migrate was motivated by pressure of population on the feeding grounds; foreign sources reveal that in fact the Magyars had suffered defeat at the hands of a nation newly arrived from the East, the Petchenegs, who had evicted them from their feeding grounds. This was in A.D. 889, and Árpád now led his people westward in quest of a new home. The Kavars came with them, as did half a dozen small hordes of Turki or Ugrian origin.[1] Their journey brought them to the outer slopes of the Carpathians, and by the favour of fortune, to a new life beyond them. For had the passes been held strongly against them, this would have been the end of their national existence; those not destroyed by the Petchenegs would gradually have lost their national identity, as refugees in foreign lands and mercenaries in foreign armies. But far from finding their road barred, they were actually invited to enter on it. In 892 the Emperor Arnulf enlisted a contingent of them to help him against his rebellious vassal, Sviatopluk. The weakness of the land was revealed to them. In 894 they were back, raiding Pannonia on their own account, and in the autumn of 895 or the spring of 896 the entire nation, with their auxiliaries, crossed the mountains for good. A little fighting left them in possession of the Alföld (where the Szekels submitted themselves voluntarily) and put an end to any resistance from Transylvania. The Germans and Moravians patched up their differences in view of the common danger, but by A.D. 900 Frankish rule in Pannonia had vanished. The final destruction of Moravian rule in the north-west came in 906. In 907 a Bavarian army was annihilated at Ennsburg and the Magyars' rule extended up to the Avars' old frontier where the Enns runs into the Danube. The Magyars had thus entered on possession of their new homes speedily and completely, far more so than, as far as we know, any of their predecessors. It is important to emphasise that what had been done was indeed to establish a nation in a new home, not, as the Normans did in England or Russia, to impose the rule of a relatively small band of conquerors on a subject people. The invaders did not, of course, exterminate the indigenous populations, and may even have admitted some of their chieftains into their own ranks, with their status unimpaired; but most usually, they were allotted as subjects or tributaries to one or another of the Magyar tribal chiefs, or at best, given a semi-free status. The polity was exclusively that of the Magyars and their confederates. We have no certainty as to the invaders' numbers; one of their chroniclers gives the number of the Magyar clans at 108, which reads like genuine tradition, but his statement that each of the 108 could produce 2,000 armed men seems more dubious. The Magyars and their allies were, however, numerous enough to occupy in sufficient force all the then habitable parts of their new home, viz. the plain, using the term in its widest sense. Árpád's own horde settled in the Dunántúl, between Székesfehérvár, on the site of which, or near it, he made his headquarters, and Buda. Of the six other Magyar hordes, three settled respectively north-west, west and south-west of the leading tribe, one on the middle Tisza and one on the upper. The seventh, the tribe of Gyula, after first settling in the west, moved to the approaches of Transylvania. The plain of the lower Tisza and its tributaries was allotted to the Kavars, while the 'Kuns' took the northern fringes of the Great Plain.The invaders did not then attempt to occupy the mountains, which were not adapted to their economy. These, and certain marshlands, were deliberately left as an uncultivated and impenetrable belt, known as 'gyepü', the passages across which were watched by permanent guards, a service to which most of the Szekels were assigned. Beyond this again, there were perhaps isolated outposts. www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/macartney/macartney01.htm
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 21, 2008 10:15:46 GMT -5
Haha... I recognize such "theories", they were writen in same modus for the steppe-bulgars. To justify them for things they actually never did or for facts who were not real. When different theories are coming, means they are nothing more than just theories. The source-Gesta was written in 14th century todays politics and the time this was written is 2 different things. The Szekely themselves in their own folklore believe they are direct ancestors of Attila's Huns. Not to mention just because you recognise theories about Steppe Bulgars that doesnt qualify you on Hungarian history. The Avars were a mixed people apparently even anthropolgical data shows this. It is believed by archeologist Gyula Laszlo that what is known as the second wave of Avars whom went into Hungary in 6th-7th century and whom Russian chronicle refferred to as White Ugrians were actually the first wave of Hungarians that entered Carpathian Basin.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 18, 2008 23:14:51 GMT -5
We dont know that they being specifically only farmers or non warrior class stayed behind show me where any source states that, why do people think migration has to take place in one foul sweep, it possibly occured over several years. Infact after the conquest period there was always a constant influx into Hungary from eastern and western peoples again if there wasnt a singular stable language spoken by majority of population its hard to believe language would have surived or that newcomers would have assimilated to it.
[/quote]
Seriously how many excess males do you think they were and if this were the case then it would seem the population that stayed behind would be even more numerous.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 18, 2008 21:09:32 GMT -5
Village settlements from the 8th-9th centuries discovered at the Don region show that after the Hungarians' moved to Levedia, this process of settling down may have continued: the majority of Bulgarian-Turk loan-words in the Hungarian language are related to farming: words for wheat, barley, plough, sickle, fruit, apple, wine, hemp and pea. Animal husbandry became intensive: ox, bull, sty, sheepfold. The words meaning hen and pig are the proofs of it, since pigs and chickens could not bear the continuous moving of the nomads. The Hungarians in Etelköz were not just nomadic shepherds. There was also a significant farming layer. Farmers could bring their experience with them to the Carpathian Basin, the westernmost corner of the steppe. mek.oszk.hu/01900/01993/html/index1.html There were Hungarian speaking tribes that were later found in Bashkiria region in 13th century so some stayed behind but the point is the Hungarians who went to Carpathian Basin maintained these BulgarTurkic words relating to farming which shows they were familiar with agriculture and settled life not only nomadic warfare. Its not simply the case they all had to be warriors or even that some were not capable of agriculture and warfare too and again there are still differeing theories about the settlement process and when and how it occured. I have already mentioned the 2 wave migration theory and the sources in Russian chronicle that also mention it. Even the Gesta mentions Szekely were already in Hungary before Magyars arrived and when they arrived they already recognised them as brothers, this may also relate to the 2 wave migration theory. Dont forget Hungarian tribes were pushed out of their previous region by Petcheneg attacks this shows they were not only moving around for plunder and warfare they were also in search of new homeland so why wouldnt they move as much of their tribes including women, farmers,Priests etc as much as they could.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 18, 2008 18:21:40 GMT -5
. You are making the asumption they were all pure nomads. I dont think thats the case as their are sources that indicate periods of settlement for several years in various places before they entered Carpathian Basin. It is likely some of the military contingants were from more nomad warrior backgrounds but not necessarily true for the entire tribal federation. Village settlements from the 8th-9th centuries discovered at the Don region show that after the Hungarians' moved to Levedia, this process of settling down may have continued: the majority of Bulgarian-Turk loan-words in the Hungarian language are related to farming: words for wheat, barley, plough, sickle, fruit, apple, wine, hemp and pea. Animal husbandry became intensive: ox, bull, sty, sheepfold. The words meaning hen and pig are the proofs of it, since pigs and chickens could not bear the continuous moving of the nomads. The Hungarians in Etelköz were not just nomadic shepherds. There was also a significant farming layer. Farmers could bring their experience with them to the Carpathian Basin, the westernmost corner of the steppe. mek.oszk.hu/01900/01993/html/index1.html
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 17, 2008 23:53:07 GMT -5
well all of your examples consisted of more technologically advanced societies dominating less advanced socities as your examples of Spanish vs Indians of Mexico and South America. I actually wrote "how can small groups of plunderers dominate such a supposed large population that is not militarily technologically inferior or with less manpower." as it seems you are proposing that the inhabitants of Carpathian Basin greatly outnumbered the Hungarian tribes. I mean same thing. Simon Kézai (1283) calls the moving in of Árpád's Magyars to the Carpathian Basin a "remigration" after the Huns. The Hungarians' ancestors stayed some 45 years in Etelköz, and the exact date of the settlement, as calculated from the Byzantine solar eclipse, was 895. (This statement came before the diet in 1892, but as the preparations of the millennial festivals were not ready, the Austro-Hungarian government appointed 1896 as the year of millennial festivals). The Avar empire in the Carpathian Basin had broken up about a hundred years before the settlement; but some Avars lived strewn about the countryside, calm in their village life. Most of the basin was inhabited by the Slavs. The northern part belonged to Great Moravia, weakened by a civil war. Transylvanian salt mines were guarded by Bulgaria. The Balaton Principality in Transdanubia was occupied first by Great Moravia, then by the Frankish empire. The beginning of the Hungarian settlement was instigated by other factors: in 894 AD an extreme Muslim attack streamed into Eastern Europe; the Byzantines disappointed the Hungarians living in the Balkans; they were hit by a Pecheneg attack; and finally with Svatopluk I's death that year, Great Moravian power started to decline. The settlement itself supposedly took place in May 895, when the Hungarian tribes from their quarters in Etelköz took the closest routes (Verecke, Tömös, Ojtoz, Gyimes, Békás pass, Lower Duna, etc.) and occupied first the Upper Tisza area; then three groups calling themselves kabar ("rioter") split from the Khazars and invaded the Transylvanian salt mines guarded by Bulgarians, and with the claim of finality pushed into the Carpathian Basin. Transdanubia was entered by the Hungarians only after the death of Arnulf, the Frankish ruler, in 890 AD, completing the occupation; thus this year may be taken as the actual end year of the settlement. The real significance of the settlement is that a nation originating in Central Asia, evolved on the border of Europe and Asia, calling themselves Magyar; getting the name "Turk" from the Byzantine Greeks, and "Ungar, Hungarus, Hun"" from other European nations, could create a firm state in the Carpathian Basin, one that was able to form a relatively peaceful symbiosis for the nations under the Holy Crown, and that today has a Constitution guaranteeing rights that is equal to any among the nations of Europe. At the end of May 895 at Ópusztaszer (or from 890 AD, after the Transdanube's occupation), the first Hungarian diet took place -- whence Hungarian prehistory ends, and history begins. [edit] Land conquest in two waves theory A theory reiterated in recent decades by Hungarian archeologist Gyula László[11]. He has argued that the Magyars arrived in two separate waves, centuries apart, a notion which is still controversial. Some evidence: The Primary Russian Chronicle, attributed by some to Nestor, recalls that the Magyars undertook two Conquests of Hungary, first under the name of "White Ugrians", during the time when the Avars occupied the country, and then a second during the reign of the Grand Duke Oleg. Archaeologists of the Rippl-Rónai Museum from Kaposvár (Hungary) have made a sensational discovery near Bodrog-Alsóbû - Temetõ-dûlõ, Somogy County, in 1999. The research-workers dug up a pottery piece that was long-ago part of an ancient furnace bellows, having on its edge a Székely-Magyar type runic text of 4 letters in Hungarian language ("funák" = "they would blow", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_prehistory
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 17, 2008 23:29:47 GMT -5
well all of your examples consisted of more technologically advanced societies dominating less advanced socities as your examples of Spanish vs Indians of Mexico and South America.
I actually wrote "how can small groups of plunderers dominate such a supposed large population that is not militarily technologically inferior or with less manpower."
as it seems you are proposing that the inhabitants of Carpathian Basin greatly outnumbered the Hungarian tribes.
I mean same thing.
|
|