|
Post by Anittas on Aug 29, 2010 10:37:46 GMT -5
Yeah, do it. Like it 1919. I believe an injustice was done to this region when you settled here.
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 29, 2010 18:28:28 GMT -5
wbb, you shouldn't criticize, ez valami a külföldi Magyarok mint te soha nem fog erteni.
yes, anitta an injustice was done when balkanic vlahs settlled in the carpathian basin.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 29, 2010 23:39:44 GMT -5
Hungarians are not Jihadi's.
Why should Vlachs care , those predominantly Slavs that were in Pannonia are now the ancestors of Magyars. Otherwise it was a land that was sparsely inhabited.
Anyway the settlement of the Magyars probably didnt stop transient shepherds wondering through, so what are you complaining about. Plus I havn't said it was an injustice when your people moved north from Macedonia and parts of Bulgaria and Northern Serbia.
Injustice ? when Hungary became an organised Kingdom peoples from everywhere flocked there in droves, in fact the region had probably never previously done so well.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Aug 30, 2010 4:23:05 GMT -5
hhhmm i believe a war between Hungary and Romania is gonna happen, in the near future. It's gonna happen when Anti-Christ will appear in this world and causes fear and anarchy through out the world.
Dezboy, the Hungarians are not doing anything but whinging. When are they going to wake up and create some Pan-Magyar resistance? Cause that what i would do if i were any of u, i would create guerrila warfare. Magyar Garda, Nemzeti Orsereg, Pax Hungarica and any of the neo-far rightist doesnt represent Hungary and Hungarians at all, they are just "Hungarian fakers" who flys the hungarian banner. The real Hungarians, i mean the "bona fide" Hungarians are mostly Pan-Turanist or Pan-Turkist, seeking support from mother Turkey, in solidarity with the Uyghurs, blah blah blah. Turanization of Hungary is the real original way of nationalizing rather than Pan-Slavicizing or Pan-Europeanizing Hungary.
Hungarians who speak Hungarian but reject their Turanian identity, doesnt actually qualify them to be Hungarians, they are just Hungarian by language not by nationality.
Oszkar I thought Hungarians were always been a christian version of Jihadis. I mean how the hell would the hungarians survive without Jihad? And yes to re-take all former Hungarian territory requires war, there's no other way. Romanians will never give back Transylvania if Hungarians beg for it, but they would give it back if Hungarians would kick Romanian's arse and take back Transylvania. There's no such thing called "reclaiming land by peaceful means". It's must be done by war, even if we hate war.
what u mean predominantly Slavs in Pannonia? Slavs colonist were never dominant in Pannonia, the Avars and Huns were. Magyars arent Slavic, cut that bs man, just because Magyars assimilated alot of Slavic people, that does not qualify them to be Slavic. Magyars assimilated Germans, so is that mean Magyars are Germans too? Magyars are nothing but Turks fullstop....
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 30, 2010 8:08:25 GMT -5
In those days, to move from south of Danube to north of Danube is like moving today from Republic of Moldova to Romania. You guys, on the other hand, moved from somewhere near Mongolia. That's a long journey and it didn't benefit the local population. Besides, there were Latin-speaking population in Pannonia, along with the Slavs.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Aug 30, 2010 8:42:13 GMT -5
Anyway the settlement of the Magyars probably didnt stop transient shepherds wondering through, so what are you complaining about. Plus I havn't said it was an injustice when your people moved north from Macedonia and parts of Bulgaria and Northern Serbia. The shepherd thing is coming from a tribe of extremely primitive tribe of nomadic tent dweller bandits that roamed through Asia and don't even had a stable homeland. Of course those primitives didn't practiced any agriculture in the steppes, they weren't even shepherds but were feeding on roots, rats and what they could plunder. Another issue - in 1787, in the lands that were criminally, idiotically, cowardly and illegally given in 1867 by Austrians to Hungarians, the Hungarians constituted only 29% of the population. Considering the trend of Magyarization we saw in later censuses we can assume that in the 1600's Hungarians were 20% or less and even fewer in the previous centuries. Now, what happened in 1918-1920 was the exposure of a terrible hoax, the Hungarians got a country not through their own power (as a result they were completely impotent in keeping the joke for much) and against the will of more than 60% of the population. The only thing keeping the hoax alive was the alliance with Germany as military AH was a weakling. Even since the shameful act of 1867 it was known that it is only a matter of time before a opportunity will arrive and the illegitimate so called Hungary will be given back the the rightful owners. You want to believe in the righteousness of your cause, the thing is at Trianon the invaders and the conjectural oppressors were put in their place. The thing is Europeans were too tolerant with you.
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 30, 2010 15:59:48 GMT -5
Catcher in the Rye you shouldn't speak of primitives, when the vlah people didn't have their own state until the Cumans from Asia established one for you. Or your own writing until the Bulgarians gave you theirs. Or your own bible until the Hungarians printed one for you. Anita, so you're saying the pannonian franks are your kin too?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 20:00:14 GMT -5
Hungarians are Hungarians always were if they were really so much Pan Turanist as you say they would be speaking Turkic by now but they chose to keep their Hungarian language and they dont understand Turkic language at all.
Hungarians have some Turanic history I dont even think they were originally or ever completly Turanic, it was just an element in their ethnogenesis.
Hungarians are Hungarians how can they be anything else. At the time of the Magyar Settlement most of the Indo Europeans in Pannonia at the time were Slavs. Turks refers to Ottoman Turks of Turkey who are predominantly a racially mixed bunch also. I dont regard Hungarians as Turks as they dont speak Turkish/Turkic and they are not Muslims and they fought against the Turks. Hungarians have their own specific history they are Hungarians and cannot be simply lumped in with some other group.
The very few Hungarians that may regard themselves as Turks or Turkic in my oppinion dont understand history.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 20:20:02 GMT -5
What rightfull owners ?
The Pannonia region had an inconsistant and unstable shifting landlords and peoples for the past near 500 years or more before the Hungarians arrived.
Do you think the Slavs and Moravians were autochenous there ?, no they came from somewhere else, before them Avars, Huns,Gepids, Romans,Celts,Scythians. You are not talking about an area like perhaps certain areas in Anatollia or middle east that had previously same well established ethnic culture for like 2 to 3 thousand years.
Anyway the Hungarian Kingdom was granted and recognised by a European Christian Pope in 1000AD it was a legitimate European recognised Kingdom. It had been already a legitimate European Kingdom foe nearly a thousand years when Trianon tore it to pieces. As for Transylvania it wasnt ethnically consistant either, Slavs-Bulgarians, Cumans, Khazars, Vlahs, Gepids, Dacians.
Nor is there any evidence that Transylvania was densly populated at the time of the Hungarian arrival it was likely sparsely populated.
This was the Romanian designed propaganda established to psychologically deal with what was obviously a very generous war booty land grant and included areas where there was not consistant or historical Romanian populations, or connection to certain historical Urban areas/towns.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 20:38:02 GMT -5
In those days, to move from south of Danube to north of Danube is like moving today from Republic of Moldova to Romania. You guys, on the other hand, moved from somewhere near Mongolia. That's a long journey and it didn't benefit the local population. Besides, there were Latin-speaking population in Pannonia, along with the Slavs. The distance issue is no that important, you were trying to present the Hungarians as foreigners, but try to pretend that Vlachs weren't foreigners when they roamed or travelled with others into different lands. Vlachs were moving around a lot too, maybe not as far as Hungarians had moved but the idea that Romanians had some historical land claim on Hungary,Pannonia or Transylvania just because they were historically somewhere in Europe is kind of ridiculous. Actually there is no consistant proof or evidence that Hungarians originated near Mongolia.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 30, 2010 21:32:51 GMT -5
Catcher in the Rye you shouldn't speak of primitives, when the vlah people didn't have their own state until the Cumans from Asia established one for you. Or your own writing until the Bulgarians gave you theirs. Or your own bible until the Hungarians printed one for you. Anita, so you're saying the pannonian franks are your kin too? I don't believe they were Franks, but yeah, in those days, I think all past Roman citizens would feel comfortable living among each other; although now we're discussing an idea, not ethnicity. There was a Vlach state south of Danube before Wallachia was founded. It is indeed a shame that Hungary, with Holy Roman knights, couldn't subdue Wallahia... and to make matters worse, Moldavia was founded on a resistence against Hungarian religious intolerence and you failed subduing her as well... over and over again. Man, admit it. You messed up bigtime. Your kingdom had possesions, but it didn't have the manforce to expand its culture and assimilate other people. You held Transylvania for centuries and failed in your assimilation attempt. You gave birth to Moldavia, so thanks. lolz
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 30, 2010 21:38:13 GMT -5
In those days, to move from south of Danube to north of Danube is like moving today from Republic of Moldova to Romania. You guys, on the other hand, moved from somewhere near Mongolia. That's a long journey and it didn't benefit the local population. Besides, there were Latin-speaking population in Pannonia, along with the Slavs. The distance issue is no that important, you were trying to present the Hungarians as foreigners, but try to pretend that Vlachs weren't foreigners when they roamed or travelled with others into different lands. Vlachs were moving around a lot too, maybe not as far as Hungarians had moved but the idea that Romanians had some historical land claim on Hungary,Pannonia or Transylvania just because they were historically somewhere in Europe is kind of ridiculous. Actually there is no consistant proof or evidence that Hungarians originated near Mongolia. Exactly... Vlachs were not foreigners to the lands because they roamed the lands that were previously held by the Roman Empire and by their Thracian brothers.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 30, 2010 23:12:15 GMT -5
The distance issue is no that important, you were trying to present the Hungarians as foreigners, but try to pretend that Vlachs weren't foreigners when they roamed or travelled with others into different lands. Vlachs were moving around a lot too, maybe not as far as Hungarians had moved but the idea that Romanians had some historical land claim on Hungary,Pannonia or Transylvania just because they were historically somewhere in Europe is kind of ridiculous. Actually there is no consistant proof or evidence that Hungarians originated near Mongolia. Exactly... Vlachs were not foreigners to the lands because they roamed the lands that were previously held by the Roman Empire and by their Thracian brothers. Roaming around does not make you rightous owner of any land, not necessarily even a native.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 31, 2010 2:30:05 GMT -5
really, how long did it take for Italy to become a nation let alone Romania.
For the most part it didnt try to assimilate other people, the Magyarisation ideas started around the same time national consciuosness and nationalism erupted all throughout Europe.
Actually from early on many peoples from East and West (Jasz,Cumans,Germans,Italians,Greeks,Armenians,Slavs,Luxembourgers, etc) came in droves to Hungary and many self assimilated whilst certain others remained for long times as minorities.
For example one of Hungarys most famous nationalist Poet and Freedom fighter Petofi Sandor was of Serb and Slovak extraction but willingly called himself a Magyar a Hungarian.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Aug 31, 2010 2:34:01 GMT -5
founded by tribes of Turkic race. Which they do, i mean just the Pan-Turanist Hungarians like me speaks a Turkic version of Hungarian. Modern Hungarian language is not a pure Hungarian language, the language itself needs to be reformed, that reformation of the language is strongly supported by the Pan-Turanist Hungarians who are being support by the Anadolu Turks. Hungarian language is classified as Magyar Turkce like for example Uyghur Turkce, Azeri Turkce. This statement is very famously said by european wanna-be Hungarians. The Hungarian Pan-Slavicist like Pax Hungarica strongly supports this theory by faking the Turanian history on Hungarians. This idea originated from Szalasi Ferenc, the worst politican ever known in Hungarian history promoting Pan-Slavism in Hungary with Christian ideology. Of course there was Slav colonist in Pannonia, but what im saying is that the Avars and Huns were already there, and it was possible that their numbers were much more larger than the Slavs in Pannonia. The Huns, Avars, Bulgars and any Turanian-Turkic family people that settled in Europe are the traditional ancestor of the Hungarians, not the Slavs. U like it or not, Hungarians are Turks as a race, it got nothing to do with Islam originating from Arabia, the proto-Hungarians were Shamanist like the Ottoman Turks, both of them originated from the Altay area.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 31, 2010 2:59:42 GMT -5
sorry but there is no certainty of this. We can say with probability that some of the tribal elements were Turkic/Turanic, but there is no evidence Hungarians as a whole or majority were Turkic/Turanic. Linguistically Hungarians do not speak a Turkic language.
you are one person we cannot take how you speak as a representative of a language.
most languages have changed over time. in any case professional linguists from a cross section of ethnic backgrounds do not tend to accept Hungarian as being Turkic language.
Hungarians most likely did not originate from Slavs but without question they assimilated many Slavs this may have started to occur even before they entered Carpathians as it is written they had Slav slaves that they were selling somewhere near Black Sea, considering they had already encounterd Slavs and keeping them as Slaves its not strange to imagine they kept some of the beautiful Slav girls as their wives and produced children with them.
Studies show that Hungarians have 35% Slav stock in them. Its impossible to know what was the afterflow of those previous Avars and Huns. But it is written than many Avars mixed with southern Slavs most likely the Croats. Another idea is that part of the Hungarians had arrived in Carpathians earlier than Arpads Magyars , some say that these Hungarians were mistakenly reffered to as the second group of Avars.
Ottoman Turks were Muslims not Shamanists. We cannot conclude that Hungarians originated in the Altay, although it may be possible certain tribal elements such as Khazar/Kabars or their ancestors may have.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 31, 2010 8:04:12 GMT -5
Oskar... and other Hungarians... I don't understand where you're going with this, but let me be clear about how we feel. We don't give a fuck that we took your land and you can't make us feel guilty about it. Yes, in our mind, we have more right to the land than you do. To put things in perspective, if we were to migrate to Mongolia, or any other place in Asia, we would've had a tough job convincing the Mongols and the like that we the rightful owners of the land. They would probably say that it's their land, before raising their sword; and I don't think that the argument Oskar used and which we would use against the Mongols, namely that roaming around does not make you the owner of the land, would've worked for us.
I think you got a lot of nerve to claim that you, an Asiatic people who mingled with locals, have the right to take the land of natives... right under our nose. Yes, we were natives, as the entire area was ours to use. Be happy that you got that Banana Republic of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 31, 2010 8:07:21 GMT -5
really, how long did it take for Italy to become a nation let alone Romania. For the most part it didnt try to assimilate other people, the Magyarisation ideas started around the same time national consciuosness and nationalism erupted all throughout Europe. Actually from early on many peoples from East and West (Jasz,Cumans,Germans,Italians,Greeks,Armenians,Slavs,Luxembourgers, etc) came in droves to Hungary and many self assimilated whilst certain others remained for long times as minorities. For example one of Hungarys most famous nationalist Poet and Freedom fighter Petofi Sandor was of Serb and Slovak extraction but willingly called himself a Magyar a Hungarian. You tried to assimilate on religious lines. That would've assured the loyalty of your subjects. You messed up in Maramures, the Vlach elite left and founded Moldavia. Moldavia would later kick your ass, unite with Wallachia to form Romania; and Romania would eventually seize Transylvania and a year later occupy the whole of Hungary. You messed up.
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 31, 2010 16:54:59 GMT -5
Its funny how you describe Hungarians as "Asians"......you act like they've just arrived. After 1200 yrs. Hungarians are as European as you, even more so, Hungarians have embraced Europe and defended christianity against the muslims, introduced the renaissance to central and eastern europe and is one of the oldest nations in Europe, founded before France and Germany became separate entities, and before the unification of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Just because your race was spawned in Europe really means nothing and entitles you to nothing, You think because you were given Hungarian territory makes you some kind of victors? You're the ones with "nerve" claiming daco/roman bs and glorifying yourselves. Your brief history as a nation has shown what kind of people you are, and all of europe knows, you're currently reaping what you sowed. The only "banana republics" The EU sees were regrettably admitted just a few yrs ago.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 31, 2010 17:43:20 GMT -5
I'm not claiming you as Asians; I'm saying you came from Asia. As of what you are and what your culture is... I think you should get your house in order, as there seems to be some dispute among yourselves.
Your continuity as a statehood legitimizes you as an European nation and you are European. My argument was based on your logic: when you say that we are not justified to have Transylvania due to a later arrival, you make the argument that justifies land grab to be about people's movement; thus, I included your own history and how you came about to grab this land. In this aspect, I believe us to be more justified to having the land.
We fought the Ottomans for more than five centuries, so no need to go there.
I repeat: we feel no guilt. We were enemies since the 13th century and you guys messed up. We not only wanted Transylvania... we wanted to own the whole of you. The European powers forced us to leave Hungary in 1920. If it was up to us, we would've kept the whole thing and had no trouble sleeping at night.
It's one thing to debate history and politics, and quite another to disrespect someone's cultural and historical herritage. You, as a nation, have conducted an image war against Romanians.
You hold a very high image of yourself and think that the whole of Europe views you as some kind of Greek heroes that sacrificed themselves. Get over yourself, already! Reality is different. Contemporary people don't even care about these issues anymore. Capitalism killed patriotism.
|
|