|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 31, 2010 20:09:22 GMT -5
You didnt really take land more like it was given . 1919 is something else Hungary was on its knees already, stories of Romanians looting half of Budapest is what you are known for in that time.
Perhaps you had some right to certain areas where you had historical majorities but the amount of land you got and also the amount of land other Trianon countries got in areas where there was still Hungarian majorities you did not have the right.
Hungary wasnt Ottomans in the Balkans , Hungarian Kingdom was granted and recognised by Christian Pope. Hungarian Royalties intermarried with and entwined with European Royalties. As Dezboy pointed out Hungary became and contributed to European culture. Hungary is one of the oldest nations in Europe. Anyway I dont see a logic in your argument, being that just because you were somewhere in Europe that hence this automatically gives you more entitlement to Pannonia, Transylvania etc. Actually there is a theory that FinnoUgric people are originally geographically from Europe and predated Indo Europeans.
After 1000 years , older than many big nations like USA,Australia etc, I think Hungarians are well and trully and have been for long time Europeans. There are in reality only a minority of Hungarians that would say otherwise, and such people are living in some state of disillusion. If anyone doesnt believe me simply look at genetic data for Hungarians and its clear they are predominantly European.
If that were true then it would be you to blame that it wasnt united and organised under any stable authority or Kingdom to protect it from invaders, that it wasnt fortified, wasnt progressing in sync with rest of Europe. Hungary achieved that and held it for thousand years and more, so who looked after the land better ?
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Sept 1, 2010 4:18:42 GMT -5
And the Romanians, a mixture of Turanian genetical people (originally from Hungarians) with Hindu element of Gypsies are just a wanna-be Romans, Romans from Italy has nothing to do with the present Roman-wannabe people living in the Balkans. The funny thing about the Romanians is that they were nothing other than Hungarian originated people living in Transylvania who bought those Hindu gypsies stock who were slaves of the Ottoman Turks at the time. Over time, the Hungarians living in Transylvania inter-married with the gypsy ex-slaves and that what's actually started the Romanian ethnicity. Romanians needed the Cumans who are the cousins of the Hungarians, to set-up a nation of the wanna-be Roman peoples....Roman-ia or Romany-a It's a pseudo-science of course but if it's true then this theory is not pseudo anymore. So overally what im trying to say is that Annitas and many other are critizing Hungarian's origin of being an Asiatic-Turanians but in fact those Roman-wannabe people are also from Asia with some percentage of Turanian genes in them in which they constantly denying. Hey Romanians, stop denying your Turanian genes on ya cause it's still in your blood.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 1, 2010 6:31:29 GMT -5
To make it clear, it's not about being right--it's about power; and power is not constant. It is changing.
I believe we are in the moral right because of three things:
1. Hungary declared war and maintained hostility against the Romanian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia since the 13th century--thus you began the conflict;
2. You seized Transylvania by force from the locals, including from the Romanians (Maramures is a good example). In turn, you lost it by force;
3. It is very logical to reason that the natives of the land have more right to live in their own country rather than under occupiers.
You say that Transylvania was given to us. You mean the same way it was given to you by the Austrians? Or what about the Holy Roman Empire who aided you in your early 14th century campaigns? Michael the Brave conquered Transylvania but Austria intervened by assinating him. If it weren't for them, you couldn't have done a damn thing about it.
What about WW1? If your allies would've left us to fight over Transylvania, we would've done that; but seeing that you had Austria and Germany as your allies, we couldn't just take it. So we took it by force from you when you foolishly declared war on us. We looted Budapest as a retaliation for your looting of Bucharest in WW1... we also feed you soup. The brave Romanian soldiers feed your helpless Hungarian women (which you failed to protect).
No one gives a damn that you have greater political continuity. You try to use that card in every argument there is. Spare us the BS. You also inflate your contribution to European culture. Wake up and smell the roses. You're passionate of these things because you live in diaspora and your passion makes you conclude the wrong things.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 1, 2010 9:12:06 GMT -5
I personally had been talking about the injustice of Trianon in the sense of borders being drawn poorly and unfairly and Hungary losing certain land that still had Hungarian majoritys in certain parts of the respective newly extended Trianon countries.
The area had been under Cuman rule and Hungarians fought against Tatars there and defeated them then later Vlachs pushed back Hungarians there, but what the fack does that have to do with Trianon.
Its without certainty as to whom held authority over Transylvania when Hungarians arrived. It seems situation was not the same throughout the region, meaning probably certain regions were very sparsley populated and ready to be easily inhabited whilst various other areas had varying and possibly independant populations of differing peoples eg Slavs,Bulgarians,Vlachs,Cumans,Kabars. At least the old chronicles paint such a picture. Hence its very difficult to say whom held an ethnic majority at that exact time. Certain Hungarian tribes started inhabiting certain parts of Transylvania as the Hungarians were entering Carpathians. Transylvania similiar to Pannonia had been a revolving door, historically various peoples are listed as being there or having some authority there. Once more we have the situation of population shift and populations shifting. Vlachs were gradually changing there habitats as were the Hungarians, so I dont necessarily buy some story that says Vlachs had historically inhabited all the land throughout Transylvania and hence it historically belonged to them or they had more right to it.
This is a very old well worn argument but it is not without holes as there is no absolute evidence that todays Romanians were the natives of Transylvania, there is as much or more chance that they gradually moved north from more well known Vlach lands. Not to mention Romanians gained political power via unions with Cumans.
Michael the Brave was initially aided, supported and in league with Hapsburgs. Hungary was a Kingdom since 1000AD way before Austro-Hungaria.
Anyway if you have read my posts I have not personally demanded a complete return of Hungary's lost territory. I have highlited the unfair and injust way that Trianon borders were drawn, in this sense it can be said I take a revisionist stance on the issue. As I have said in my oppinion any territory that maintained Hungarian majority should not have been included within the borders of those newly expanded countries.
If no one cares then why have certain Romanian Politicians tried to remove Hungarian historical monuments from certain Transylvania towns.
how do we inflate it ?
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Sept 1, 2010 15:04:40 GMT -5
You don't need Hungarians to conduct an "image war" against Romania, you do a pretty good job of that all by yourselves, its about the only thing you people do on your own anyway. You're so full of BS I'm surprised its not coming out of your ears too, anita. You people are devious land grabbers who's only claim to fame are ambushes and lootings and where dogs outnumber people in your great metropolitan cities. BTW I can care less what you or other Romanians think.
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Sept 2, 2010 15:05:41 GMT -5
....and one more thing, what locals did we seize Transylvania from, name some battles? When Transylvania was given to Romania, you people were clearly the aggressors, your so-called "vote" at Gyulafehervar was an act of treason, everyone at that assembly should've been hanged or at least deported back to wallachia where they belonged. Secondly Kun and his communists were attacking invaders from the balkans who were trampling on Hungarian ground that never belonged to them. Enjoy your devious history, Transylvania hasn't been yours for 100 yrs. yet. I wonder if you'll keep it for 200 or 1000 yrs. I'm looking forward to eventual Szekelyfold independence and Hungarian citizens in your parliament.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 3, 2010 10:17:10 GMT -5
BTW I can care less what you or other Romanians think. I'm sorry to hear that my opinion holds no merit to you. I suppose there's no purpose for us to continue this discussion: now or ever--unless, of course, you give us more credit.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 3, 2010 12:11:26 GMT -5
I m Bulgarian and I think the Hungarians are deffinately european nation and if we have to be honest they are one of the greatest european nations. We are most probably related through the Bulgars - some Bulgars played part into the ethnogenesis of both nations. Hungarians had and have great european culture and achievements... They were one of the most fearless people that almost non stop fought the Turks. The hungarians are unique with their Ugrofinnic language, but I count them and the Finns and the Estonians as bigger europeans than others . By the way, there was no vlach state south of the Danube. The state south of the Danube was called Bulgaria.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 3, 2010 14:05:47 GMT -5
I m Bulgarian and I think the Hungarians are deffinately european nation and if we have to be honest they are one of the greatest european nations. We are most probably related through the Bulgars - some Bulgars played part into the ethnogenesis of both nations. Hungarians had and have great european culture and achievements... They were one of the most fearless people that almost non stop fought the Turks. The hungarians are unique with their Ugrofinnic language, but I count them and the Finns and the Estonians as bigger europeans than others . By the way, there was no vlach state south of the Danube. The state south of the Danube was called Bulgaria. There was a Vlach state south of Danube and it's not Bulgaria that I'm referring to. I don't know what makes the Hungary "one of the greatest european nations" and they stopped fighting the Turks pretty early. Apart from John Hunyady, who was of Romanian origin, most of their rulers were pretty mediocre. Corvinus, the son of Hunyady, wasn't any good and the Bathory dynasty was incompetent. Fearless people... I don't know what that has to do with tactics and strategy. If anything, the Hungarians after Hunady showed great restrictions in fighting the Ottomans. Corvinus agreed to a disadvantegous peace with the Porte. Ioan, have you any idea of what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Sept 3, 2010 16:46:54 GMT -5
The area had been under Cuman rule and Hungarians fought against Tatars there and defeated them then later Vlachs pushed back Hungarians there, but what the fack does that have to do with Trianon. Another of your day dreams posted as history? Cumans had their tents only on some stretch of land in SE Romania. They fled before the Mongolian invasion with some 40000 tents to Hungary. When Mongolians arrived in 1241, they had to fight Romanians according to Persian, Russian, Lithuanian and French chronicles. The medieval Hungary was wiped of the map after 1526, with a large part of it transformed into a Turkish province. In 1867 the suicidal and idiotic Austrians gratuitously invented a new Hungary in spite of the will of the majority of the Transylvanian natives who were Romanians. What were the realities inTransylvania before 1867: Around 1860 the Diet of Transylvania was reestablished and the first free election were held and despite some problems, Romanians gained the majority. Soon new laws were voted to modernize the region, Romanian language was made official and so on. The extremist Hungarians seeing their criminal and primitive feudal laws were put to the garbage been, boycotted to Diet. Still Romanians and Saxons ignored the hating animals and continued their work. Then came the catastrophe of 1867, after some war they lost with France, Austrians decided they had enough begging from the Hungarians and invented an artificial country on the lands the Austrians gained through war and treachery. Transylvania was given to the Hungarians completely ignoring the will of the inhabitants. Imagine the shock of the majority of the Transylvanians. Anyway it was a common knowledge that the hoax cannot last. As for dezboy and ioan babbling, it's laughable, military Hungarians were/are a joke always showing their back to their enemy. They never fought the Turks except for Mohacs. What happened during the time of the Romanian John Huniady was his sole effort, the guy was immensely rich owing a big chunk of Hungary and using the money to equip armies to figh the Turks. Most if not all of his retinue consisted of Romanians from S Transylvania. After his son Matei Corvin died, left in the hands of the impotent Hungarians, Hungary was soon to be destroyed. In the same time the Turks were decided to finish with Wallachia even appointing a Pasha, but after years of lost battles they had to give up seeing they are not dealing with Hungarians. It was Radu de la Afumaţi who fought no less than 20 battles in three years, that single guy fought more with the Turks that did the "brave" Hungarians in their entire history. The battles are listed on his beautiful tombstone which unfortunately was damaged by some Hungarian bandits. From the tombstone: ...and I rised myself and the Boyars many battles fighting ... may the wars made by me be known to you: the first war with the Turks, the second one at Gubavi, the third at the village of Stefeni, the fourth at Clejani, the fifth at Ciocăneşti..., at the fortress of Bucharest, at the fortress of Târgovişte, at the river Argeşel, at the village of Plata, at Alimăneşti on the Teleorman, the fastest and the most terrible one at Grumazi with seven Turkish armies, at Nicopole (Nikopol), at Sistov (Svishtov), at the fortress of Poienari, at the fortress of Gherghiţa, at the city of Bucharest... ... the nineteenth at the village of Rucăr, the twentieth at Didrih. ... As it can be seen he went even in Bulgaria, crossing the Danube after the Turks. As a result Wallachia was saved from the fate of Hungary and in the same time protected Transylvania and Moldavia. Here is his tombstone: And btw, I think Anittas meant this state in Thessaly: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/ShepherdByzempire1265.jpgNot that that was the most important one, the honor should belong to the state of Johannizza, the King of Wallachia. www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.htmlPS Go ahead, continue barking your impotence on this forum.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 4, 2010 2:11:50 GMT -5
Ioan, have you any idea of what you're saying? Louis the Great (reigned 1342–1382) Matthias Corvinus (king 1458–1490) Battle of Mohács (1687) and Battle of Zenta (1697) etc...
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Sept 4, 2010 5:30:05 GMT -5
history is not your strongest point. Battle of Mohács (1687) and Battle of Zenta (1697) are battles won by the Habsburg Empire, a map of 1700 should clear the things for you: mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/europe_map_1700.jpgHungary didn't existed but as a Habsburg Empire's region, by 1700 Transylvania fell to the Habsburgs too. If not for the Austrians you could have heard the imam cries in Buda even today. Matthias Corvinus (king 1458–1490) was a Romanian king of Hungary, he didn't fought any wars against the Turks though. Even more, although he received a huge sum of money from the Pope to fight the Turks, he left the Romanians do the fighting on their own and at the end of the war when Vlad took refuge in Transylvania to gather support against Radu, Hungarians had some letters forged and the cowards had Vlad arrested. Although it is considered the greatest king of Hungary, Corvin doesn't look that great to me, well considering the other Hungarian kings, i suppose he was great. Anyway running from the battlefield with some three arrows in his arse is not how a great king does it. Louis the Great (reigned 1342–1382) didn't fought the Turks, i checked Wiki and read some hilarious bullshit how he subdued Wallachia, Moldavia and how he fought in 1374 against the Turks in Wallachia. These are all mongoloid fantasies, it was around 1377 that the war between Radu I of Wallachia and Louis started and soon after in Hungarian documents disappeared any recordings of ban of Severin with that region obviously annexed by Radu. The new borders with Hungary were confirmed in later Hungarian documents, proving the clear defeat of Hungary. Also, that looser Louis fought Vlaicu of Wallachia, in 1368 the Hungarian armies were defeated and in 29 august 1369, Vlaicu went to S of Danube at Vidin where he freed Stratimir and chased out the Hungarians who just transformed part of Bulgaria into the Hungarian Banat of Bulgaria.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 4, 2010 6:00:07 GMT -5
I think what you have posted is one sided, pro Romanian ranting. Accept that the Hungarians have done alot in the fight against the Turks and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Sept 4, 2010 7:04:40 GMT -5
What i've posted are well known facts, Hungarians done s**t fighting the Turks, what they do is bragging with the deeds of some Romanians like John of Hunedoara. I don't know what are supposing to be rantings, but anyway, regarding the pathetic Bulgarian acting against the Hungarians, some quotes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_occupation_of_VidinThe Hungarians took Ivan Sratsimir and his family captive and imprisoned them in the Humnik fortress (at Bosiljevo in today's Croatia). Shortly afterwards, the Hungarians seized the entire land of the Tsardom of Vidin (known as Bodony in Hungarian[1]) and turned it into a province of the Kingdom of Hungary governed by a ban.[1]
Ivan Sratsimir's father, Tsar Ivan Alexander, ruler of Bulgaria at Tarnovo, could do nothing to stop the Hungarian invasion and his son's capture.
For joining the alliance, Ivan Alexander offered the Byzantine emperor the Black Sea ports south of Nesebar (Messembria); in return, however, John V had to pay 180,000 florins to Vladislav I Vlaicu, voivode of Wallachia. The Vlach voivode would, in return, seize Vidin and cede it to Ivan Alexander.This is to say Vlaicu freed Vidin. It's strange how the most important event of the history of the Hungarian Bulgaria can be so masterfully hidden behind words. Vidin was freed by Vlaicu as a result of a larger war between Wallachia and Hungary during which Hungarians were defeated several times and lost more than Vidin. Well, your reaction cannot be blamed, you belong to another nation of constant loosers just like the Hungarians only worse.
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Sept 4, 2010 8:37:24 GMT -5
Ceaucescu still lives in the hearts and minds of every Romanian
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 4, 2010 9:19:23 GMT -5
Ioan, have you any idea of what you're saying? Louis the Great (reigned 1342–1382) Matthias Corvinus (king 1458–1490) Battle of Mohács (1687) and Battle of Zenta (1697) etc... You use Corvinus as another example... the same dude who used the 200,000 florints the Pope sent him to fight the Turks for his wedding? As for Louis, he was also king of Poland and he was more Polish and German, than Hungarian. Corvinus was half Vlach. Dude, get out of here! Be pro Hungarian if you'd like, but know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 4, 2010 9:27:09 GMT -5
Ceaucescu still lives in the hearts and minds of every Romanian This has nothing to do with Ceausescu. Again, why are you posting in the Romanian forum if you don't care for our opinion? It looks a bit self-defeating to me.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Sept 4, 2010 13:15:06 GMT -5
Anittas, have you heard about Philippe de Commines? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_de_ComminesSome interesting quotes from his memoirs: In our times other valiant and wise princes have also ruled, the king of Hungary, Matthias [Corvius] and [Mahomet] sultan of the Turks. King Matthias of Hungary was the son of a very courteous knight called the White Knight of Wallachia (John of Hunyadi), a simple gentleman but one endowed with great sense and virtue, who had long governed the kingdom of Hungary and won many victories against the Turks, who were neighbours of that realm because of the lordships they had usurped in Greece, Slavonia and Bosnia. ... During his reign they did not harm his kingdom in any way but he increased its size, at their expense, in Bohemia, which he held for the most part, and also in his native Wallachia and in Slavonia. www.r3.org/bookcase/de_commynes/decom_9.html
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Sept 4, 2010 17:47:29 GMT -5
Later in the 13th century, King Charles I of Hungary attempted to expand his realm and the influence of the Roman Catholic Church eastwards after the fall of Cuman rule, and ordered a campaign under the command of Phynta de Mende (1324). In 1342 and 1345, the Hungarians were victorious in a battle against Tatars; the conflict was resolved by the death of Jani Beg, in 1357. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavia#Historical_population Your rantings here have nothing to do with the points that were made in my post, which were regarding the claim that Anittas made about Romanians being natives to Transylvaia and Pannonia. but as for your rantings the Romanians only gradually increased their population and habitats in Transylvania as they were invited to work for Hungarian landowners throughout the region. Of course this invitation would only later come back to haunt the Hungarians of Transylvania. You like to believe this. Actually few years back I read a history book about Romania and the Romanian soldiers in either 1st or 2nd WW were reffered to by their allies as women in uniform, this apparently had something to do with their performance and abilities on the battlefield. Of course Hungarians fought in Hunyadi"s army, his main elite troops were Szekely. One of his loyal generals was a Hungarian. Dezboy and Ioan are correct, your posts are coming from purely pro Romanian rantings. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_HunyadiAt his own expense, he restocked the supplies and arms of the fortress, leaving in it a strong garrison under the command of his brother-in-law Mihály Szilágyi and his own eldest son László Hunyadi. He proceeded to form a relief army, and assembled a fleet of two hundred ships. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_HunyadiAs for Bulgaria Hungary has no beef with them. Many years back Magyars and Bulgars were close allies at other times on a few occasions they also fought against each other, but at the end of the day there is no bad blood.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 4, 2010 18:35:49 GMT -5
In reply to Oskar:
Well, I didn't exactly claim we were natives to Pannonia, although we may have been in the eastern part of the region. I did say, however, that the land was inhabited by a Romance-speaking population.
This is Hungarian propaganda at its best. Where are these documents with this invitation for us to come and work your land? Your own sources mention our presence in the land. Your own sources mention your seizure of Romanian land in Maramures. Is this how you invite people to work your land? Get a grip, dude.
Is that so? Were they referring to the Battle of Marasesti where our so-called women in uniform defeated the Germans on their own? Or maybe they were thinking of Ecaterina Teodoroiu who killed several German soldiers. It's such a shame that the same women in uniform occupied your wholy country soon thereafter.
So far, he is the only one posting sources--and not a single source was Romanian. You and your peers are just talking.
Who here questioned Hungary's relation to Bulgaria? Or better ask, who would even care?
|
|