Barbi!!!

[Evilho]

Wanna discuss Turkish-Hungarian history?
I've heard from (and read in) several sources that this 150-200 years period is judged more the sligthly different in Turkey than in Hungary. I'm very much interested in this.
For a start, they say the Turks believe they've ruled the occupied part of Hungary TOGETHER WITH the Hungarians.
Which is in a sense true, but mostly false. Yes, we had a Hungarian king but it was more like a puppet-king, and we had to pay taxes for the Ottoman Empire and also there was a constant military threat. On the other hand, although being Christians, most of the population sympathized with the "Pagan" (non-Christian) Turks rather than the bloody Habsburgs who attacked our back while we fought our doomed battles with the massive Turk forces. Sure this religion-matter doesn't affect me as I'm not Christian nor Muslim or anything else, but around that time (XV-XVII century) it did matter to everybody

So let's talk about these things?

 

[Evilho]

A work with the title HUNGARY - Brief History

Well, this is how it all began (early 1400s):
(i edited a little)

"In the meantime, King Sigismund fought two battles against the Ottoman sultan, the ravager of Byzantium rising high on its ruins, who was approaching the soft underbelly of Europe, the Balkans, as a dynamic conqueror. He lost both battles. This was sinister omen. "
(...)
In the southern borderlands, however, in the ever-increasing battles with the Turks, a general emerged who stamped his own individuality on the age more effectively than its crowned kings. János Hunyadi (...) was also regarded as King Sigismund's natural son. This is of little concern to us. His deeds qualify him. From a warrior of low rank he was to become the most eminent general of fifteenth-century Europe. At the end of his life, he owned two million hectares of landed estates. He spent his income almost exclusively on battles with the Turks. We shall not mention at this time all the battles he won and lost; let us merely recall why the bells ring.

In 1456, three years after he captured Constantinople, Sultan Mohammed II encamped and set off to besiege Nándorfehérvár (today's Belgrade). The Christian army gained a decisive victory. The wounded sultan was rescued half-dead from the battle by his guards. This triumph at Nándorfehérvár turned back for nearly a century the Ottoman expansion threatening Europe. This was an enormous advantage. It awaited exploitation. But often, only bells ring.

In Christian churches throughout the world (except in America), the pealing of the bells at noon still reminds people of the victory János Hunyadi achieved on July 22, 1456. According to one version, Pope Calixtus issued the decree. Actually, the pope had already given instructions on June 29 to ring the bells as a plea to the powers above to decide in our favor the impending battle, which he considered vital to Christianity. The universal joy that reigned after the battle, the celebration of victory turned the pealing of the bells from an occasional into a lasting event.

However, barely a couple of weeks after the battle, the bells rang again for János Hunyadi: the death knell. The plague that broke out in the encampment carried him off too. The loss of the forger of the victory again plunged the country into anarchy.

I'll continue

 

[Evilho]

So, some time after this Hunyadi hero guy died his son Matthias was crowned. He created a great army called Black Army, it contained mostly German and Italian mercenaries.
He prepared a lot to fight the Turks before they had the chance to attack Hungary. But first he wanted to eliminate the Austrian and German threat from the North and West. He captured Vienna and made it the capital of Hungary. ("The proud bastion of Vienna groaned under the onslaught of Matthias's ferocious army - poet still sang centuries later") However, apart from a few small battles in th South, he had no opportunity to fight the Turks, as "the rising Ottoman crescent diminished instead of increasing."

In the beginning of the 1500s, a Hungarian bishop started organize a Crusade against Turks. They recruited a throng of peasants and armed them. However the peasants instead of fighting the Turks, turned their weapons on the noble ones.

"1514. The armies mobilized under the Sign of the Cross took arms not against the heathens but against their noble lords. All four corners of the country burst into flames. A bloodbath began. The manor houses of the nobility were ablaze, the magnates withdrew into their castles, where they were besieged and prepared to counterattack. John Szapolyai, the voivode of Transylvania was the military leader who suppressed the peasant revolt. He had Dózsa arrested. He had him seated on a red-hot throne as "King of the Peasants", had a burning-hot iron crown placed on his head, and forced his lieutenants to eat of his flesh."

Then came the Turks.
Barbi don't sleep.
Don't you know a good Turkish website (in English) about Turk history?

 

[BARBARIAN]

Dear Ivy..Of course I'll join in this but let me clear that (just to avoid you misunderstand things) when I say that Hungarians were Turks I meant this: (I can go great details in this)

The ancient Turks,which were Huns,lived in middle Asia.There were lots of tribes and these tribes joined and formed little Turkish states.There were many battles among them and with china..Anyway I am passing quickly.With these wars among them they caused a chain reaction by pushhing eachother and created a migration.The bulgarians,hungarians and many more were these tribes pussing and making war with eachother.Then after the result of the migration hungarians,bulgarians and many many more came to the balkans.Here they mixed with slavs and changed.This is the summary..
When I say that your ancestor were turks I meant this..

You had told me some historical events/wars of hungary.
There were a lot of wars in middle age..If I go deep in ottoman empire which lived 6 centuries I can faint from writing just the wars.
Ottoman used to conquer lands and bring someone from that conquered land to rule there but as an ottoman pasa.This was to keep the public calm.They collected tax of course..
And ottoman didn't interfered to the religion of the local public because this would cause many rebels.Example, Fatih the conqurer kept Istanbul as Orthodoks and said that everyone is free for their religion..This was of course to avoid rebels but more than that to keep the division of christians as orthodoks and protestants...Anyway I am passing the religion parts.

Turks always made war with eachother in the history..(most of the turkish state ended by a war with another turkish state)
That's why it is not abnormal that Hungarians attacked Ottomans or vs vs..

These were what I wanted to say first...

I will go deep in detail about the things you say in a couple of days ok?
I think you want to discuss Ottoman-Hungarian history..Not the turkish-hungarians...Because turkish history goes far away up to Huns..(If I am not mistaken BC600-700)

 

[BARBARIAN]

Btw These Huns I mentioned were not the Attila's Huns..This is older than that which was in middle asia named as "Great Hun Empire"..
And HUNGARIAN comes from this HUNS....I am serious..(the word HUNgarian I mean.)

 

[Evilho]

I didn't misunderstand you Barbi, I know what you meant
Maybe you misunderstood me
Hmm. Here's what's the most widely believed theory about Hungarian origins.

Hungarians (closely related to Huns, little concrete evidence though), just like many-many small tribes lived around the Urals mountains in the first centuries AD. Our ancient mother land was probably just to the East of the Urals (it's on the right on this map). As the Mongol and other wandering armies started to threaten this area, most of these nomad tribes went West (this process took centuries). It is widely believed that the Hungarian and the Finnish (Lapp) tribes lived together and had a very good relationship. However, Finns decided to head North after a while.

The proof of the Finnish connection is the language. Although it's seemingly not at all familiar for a Hungarian, the ancient words that must have been in use at that time (fish, wild animal, etc.) plus certain grammatical forms are very similar. Anyway, go to Finnland or ask a Hungarian and they'll say Hungarians and Finnish people are brothers. (you canask the Finns on this bb too )

The idea of Turkish kinship is not as much popular or well-known (although it IS popular and known), probably because the Finnish connection got much more publicity. It is a fact that Turks and Hungarians lived together for a period of the ancient times. Let me quote some things from an online book:

"In 1235, Julian us, a Dominican friar, set out with three brethren to find Magna Hungaria. At that time, it was certainly common knowledge that the Hungarians had split in two before the Conquest, and that only the smaller group came west and the larger remained in the east, in the Great Ancestral Land.

The bold Julian us eventually reached on his own the people he was searching for. He actually came across Hungarians beyond the Volga, in the area of today's Soviet Bashkiria, whom he could clearly understand"


"on paths leading into the Carpathian Basin, the early Hungarians came into frequent contact with Iranian and Turkish peoples, which influenced not only the language and style of life but also the ethnic group."

"There is no doubt that the anthropological standard establishes remarkably few Finn-Ugrian traits and many more of the Turks and others."

---

btw Barbi Hungary is not on the Balkans

Hungarians attacked the Ottomans to prevent them attacking. everybody knew that the Ottoman Empire wanted to conquer the Hungarian Kingdom and go further to Vienna and all...

 

[BARBARIAN]

I haven't misunderstood you..It was just a summary...
Ottoman DID conquered the hungarian lands..
Btw when I said balkans because I mentioned bulgarians too..

There are lots of similarities in our language between finnish language too..Therefore your so called proof doen't mean what you are trying to imply.

Of course Ottoman wanted to capture the world...
Therefore I didn't understand why you need to mention the last sentence of your last post..I haven't said anything opposite.

 

[BARBARIAN]

Btw what is known here is this:
We call huns,gokturks,bulgarians,mongolians and many many small tibes with a common name and that name is TURK!!!
(just a little detail.)

It's like redskins of america...
mohicans,cheerokees,apachees,komanchees are all redskins...
And ottomans,huns,gokturks,mongolians,seljuks,bulgarians vs vs are all turkish..

 

[BARBARIAN]

Some notes about here..
There are two opposing theories as to the origin of the Magyars, or native Hungarians. Arminius Vámbéry and his supporters hold to a Turkish origin of the Magyars, while Pál Hunfalvy and his followers place them in the Finno-Ugrian division of languages of a Ural-Altaic stem and look for the original home of the race in the region of the Ural mountains, or the district between the rivers Obi, Irtysh, Kama, and Volga. The presence of Turkish words in the language is explained by the theory that, after leaving their former home, the Hungarians dwelt for some time near Turkish tribes, who were undoubtedly on a higher level of civilization, and from whom these words were borrowed. About the middle of the ninth century, when the Byzantine writers first speak of the Hungarians, calling them "Turci", the Hungarians were in Lebedia, in the territory on the right bank of the Don. From this point they carried on their marauding excursions into the district of the Lower Danube and on these expeditions they sometimes advanced into Germany. Being exposed to attack by the Bisseni, the Hungarians left Lebedia, some returning to the district on the further side of the Volga, while others went towards the west and settled near the Danube, between the Dniester, Sereth Pruth, and Bug Rivers. The Byzantine writers called this region Atelkuzu (Hungarian, Etelköz). While in this neighbourhood the Hungarians undertook an expedition under Arpád in 893 or 894 against Simeon, ruler of the Bulgars. The expedition was successful, but Simeon formed an alliance with the Bisseni, and a fierce attack was made on the Hungarians in which their land was devastated. The Hungarians, therefore, withdrew from this region, went westward, and reached the country where they now live. The date of their entry into Hungary is not certain, apparently it was 895 or 896; neither is the point from which they came positively ascertained. It is not improbable that they entered Hungary from three directions and arrived at different periods. The chronicle of the "anonymous notary of King Béla" (Anonymus Belœ regis notarius) has preserved the history of the first occupation of the country, but modern historical investigation shows that little credence can be given the narrative.

 

[BARBARIAN]

Look what http://www.hunmagyar.org/ says? (this site is great look at the inner-links of the site..It can be helpful to find your origins ) (YOUR TURKISH ORIGINS )

"Hungarian mythology tells the story of the Hungarians (Huns and Magyars) from their origins to the foundation of the Hun Empire and of its successor state, Hungary. This traditional account which goes back thousands of years has been preserved by the Hungarian people despite the centuries of persecution by a foreign forced christianization which sought to destroy all traces of the ancient Hungarian culture."

 

[BARBARIAN]

And this is important too; (taken from the site above)

"During the 19th c., British, French, and German researchers discovered the most ancient civilization, that of the Sumerians, in Mesopotamia, and deciphered their language, coming to the conclusion that the Sumerians were neither Semitic, nor Indo-European: the Sumerians belonged to the Turanian ethno-linguistic group which includes Hungarian, Turkish and Finnish (51). Comparative linguistic analysis has shown that the language closest to Sumerian is Hungarian (52). The evidence therefore suggests that the ancestors of the present-day Hungarians had established themselves in the Carpathian Basin as early as the Neolithic period, well before the arrival of the Magyars in 895 AD, who represented the last major link in the Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar continuity of Turanian peoples which amalgamated with their ethno-linguistic relatives of Near Eastern origin previously settled in the Danubian region. It should also be mentioned, in connection with the Daco-Roman theory, that according to Roman sources, the Dacians, who inhabited today's Transylvania, belonged to the family of Scythian peoples, which also included the Huns, Avars, and Magyars (53)1"

 

[BARBARIAN]

And look what I found here...I need to mention that these are all from a very carefully done researches...

"The principal opposing views are, on the one hand, the traditional account of Hungarian origins rooted in the pre-Christian era, which shows a remarkable degree of compatibility with the Sumerian-Hungarian relationship demonstrated by international orientalist research starting in the first half of the 19th c., and, on the other hand, the more recent Finno-Ugrian theory which was essentially the product of foreign regimes in Hungary: Habsburg in the 19th c., and communist in the 20th c. The traditional account of Hungarian origins states that the Magyars and the Huns were identical and traces their roots back to Ancient Mesopotamia. Sumerian-Hungarian ethno-linguistic research seems to confirm this. The Finno-Ugrian theory has sought to contradict the traditional account of Hungarian origins and the Sumerian-Hungarian relationship through a seemingly scientific linguistic approach. However, a more careful analysis of the facts reveals that the methodology of the Finno-Ugrian school is unscientific and that the motives of the Finno-Ugrian theory's promoters are political and ideological: their objective has been to weaken the Hungarian national identity by instilling a collective inferiority complex in order to weaken national resistance and to consolidate foreign rule in Hungary. The current "mainstream" Hungarian historiography adheres to the Finno-Ugrian orientation, promoting the view that the Hungarians were "primitive Asiatic latecomers and intruders" in the more "civilized" Europe. This official historical interpretation is therefore characterized by a dogmatic state of denial which deliberately ignores or dismisses the ancient Turanian origins of the Hungarians, the Sumerian-Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar identity and continuity, and the fundamental cultural, political and military Hungarian achievements of the millenia prior to 1000 AD which laid the foundations of the Hungarian state."

 

[BARBARIAN]

Now lets ask the finns about it

 

[Evilho]

Wow Barbi!

Well, in most things I agree but in a few I must correct you & those sites!

Let's start

We call huns,gokturks,bulgarians,mongolians and many many small tribes with a common name and that name is TURK!!!

Wow I didn't know that!!! Nice

Hungarian mythology tells the story of the Hungarians (Huns and Magyars) from their origins to the foundation of the Hun Empire and of its successor state, Hungary. This traditional account which goes back thousands of years has been preserved by the Hungarian people despite the centuries of persecution by a foreign forced christianization which sought to destroy all traces of the ancient Hungarian culture."

Well this christianization was not forced by foreigners and did not last longer than a century! It was the unified leader of the Hungarian tribes called Géza in the 900s who realized that if hungarians stay with their pagan religion and do not form a Christian Kingdom in our land, there is no way to survive. So, although Géza kept his faith, he raised his son István (his pagan name: Vajk) in Christian faith. István got the power in 997 when Géza died. In 1000 he got his crown from the Pope and was crowned as the first King of the Hungarian Kingdom. Of course there were revolts against the new faith but István crushed them all. He created a state that could match even the German-Roman Empire. After his death he became a Saint, first of the three Saints in his dynasty.


About the Hungarian-Sumerian common origins.
Yes I've heard about that too, but you know what? There are some mentally unstable guys who even say Jesus was Hungarian Personally I think this Sumerian thing is bullshit, although I can only know what other people say about that. My historian friend and the greatest Hungarian historians deny this, they even say it's ridiculous. I can only say that the Sumerian Empire pre-dated the Hungarians by many thousand years, and I think this explains all. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe. But then 99.5% of the historians are also wrong Now, this Mesopotamia is crazy shit. Don't believe this, please

Now comes the really interesting part Maybe it'll turn out that this website you linked is total crap Probably some Hungarian extreme rightist shit.

"The principal opposing views are, on the one hand, the traditional account of Hungarian origins rooted in the pre-Christian era, which shows a remarkable degree of compatibility with the Sumerian-Hungarian relationship demonstrated by international orientalist research starting in the first half of the 19th c., and, on the other hand, the more recent Finno-Ugrian theory which was essentially the product of foreign regimes in Hungary: Habsburg in the 19th c., and communist in the 20th c ".

In reality, the Finno-Ugric theory is around from the 1700s, long before the Austria-Hungarian Monarchy. And it was not a foreigner but a Hungarian who discovered it. And look:

"linguistics indisputably ascertained, within a century and a half, where, given its determinant percentage of Finno-Ugrian vocabulary and grammatical forms, the Hungarian language with its basically Finno-Ugrian character is to be placed exactly in this family of languages, designating the Ostyak (Khanti) and the Vogul (Manshi) languages of the Ugrian group as its closest relatives."

Barbi, there is a very obvious explanation for the borrowed Turkish words in our vocabulary. It's the 150 years of occupation. Of course we probably picked up some words a lot before when we first met the Turkish tribes. But most of them came in the 16th, 17th centuries!

I'll quote you and your website again:

The Finno-Ugrian theory has sought to contradict the traditional account of Hungarian origins and the Sumerian-Hungarian relationship through a seemingly scientific linguistic approach. However, a more careful analysis of the facts reveals that the methodology of the Finno-Ugrian school is unscientific and that the motives of the Finno-Ugrian theory's promoters are political and ideological: their objective has been to weaken the Hungarian national identity by instilling a collective inferiority complex in order to weaken national resistance and to consolidate foreign rule in Hungary.

I don't kow whether I should cry or laugh! This is utter crap! First, the "traditional account of Hungarian origins" does NOT contradict with the Finno-ugrian theory, on the contrary!! It explains the whole story! While the Sumerian - Hungarian relationship is not at all proved or accepted or traditional.
My god. There's one thing that's wrong with this "inferiority" thing what this quotation says: the Finnish believe in the Finno-Ugric theory as well, and they had no foreign rule that was trying to weaken their national identity

The current "mainstream" Hungarian historiography adheres to the Finno-Ugrian orientation, promoting the view that the Hungarians were "primitive Asiatic latecomers and intruders" in the more "civilized" Europe.

Well that is the truth: Hungarians were wandering NOMADS; if you compare them to the already more or less stable Western-European states we were primitive latecomers and intruders.

Let's forget hunmagyar.com, it's ultra-rightist bullshit

 

[Evilho]

It's funny some people discuss vanilla coke others discuss these things

 

[Evilho]

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/macartney/one.html
The author is an Oxford professor, director of the Hungarian section: Carlile Aylmer MACARTNEY (1895-1979)
Very interesting and to my knowledge it seems very true! (And of course he knows better anyway )
It's very brief (i only quote excerpts) but it mentions the Turk connection and the common way of life.


"To all appearance, the Magyars were just such another horde of Asiatic strangers as their predecessors - the Huns (with whom their victims, and later, their own national legend, mistakenly identified them), the Avars and the rest. The travellers, Arabs and Greeks alike, who first came into contact with them, described them as 'a race of Turks'. Ethnologically, this was incorrect. The linguistic evidence shows that the Magyars' remoter ancestors belonged to the Finno-Ugrian family of peoples whose habitats in olden days extended from the Baltic to the middle Urals. In their original homes, which were densely forested, these peoples lived a primitive existence as hunters and fishers, hardly acquainted even with agriculture and possessed only of the most primitive political and social organisation. But early in the Christian era some causes unknown to us seem to have driven the Magyars' direct ancestors, who were the eastmost of these peoples, across the Urals, and thence southward into the steppes, and here, under the influence of geography and, presumably, of the Turki and Iranian peoples with whom they came into contact (how far, if at all, this contact took the form of conquest it is now impossible to say), they exchanged their former way of life for the nomadic herds-men's existence appropriate to their new environment. "

"By this time the Magyars were indeed 'a race of Turks' to all outward appearance. They subsisted by pasturing their herds in summer over the grasslands round their base, retiring in winter to the shores of the Maeotis and the banks of the Don. Although they now practised a little agriculture, their chief sustenance was meat, mare's milk and fish. Much of their lives was spent in the saddle, and their raids and campaigns, too, were conducted on horseback. Their favoured arm was the bow and arrow.
If any earlier conquest of the primitive Finno-Ugrians by a more warlike Turki people had ever taken place, all memory, and all trace, of it had vanished. Except for the penal slaves, the Magyars were 'all free men'; elaborate social differentiation between them was unnecessary, for they supplied themselves adequately with slaves by raiding the neighbouring Slavs. They supplemented their incomes by selling the surplus in the Crimean markets".

 

[Evilho]

So far I concluded that Turks and Hungarians had different origins, but in a period of the ancient times, parts of their tribes pretty much mixed culturally and ethnically. A few Hungarians probably even joined the Turks on their way to the South, maybe some Turks joined Magyars on the way west.
So, we can't say Turks and Hungarians have common origins, but in a sense we can
How about you?

 

[Evilho]

Muahahah. This was after Hungarians arrived and settled in the Carpatian Basin.

"For the next half-century the Magyars were the scourge of Europe, which they raided far and wide, striking terror into the hearts of their victims with the suddenness of their descents - for their little, lithe horses outdistanced any news of their coming - the ferocity of their attacks, their outlandish and, to Western eyes, hideous appearance, their blood-curdling battle-yells. Historians have counted thirty-three expeditions between 898 and 955 some of them to places as far afield as Bremen, Cambrai, Orléans, Nîmes, Otranto and Constantinople , and there must have been innumerable smaller enterprises of which no record has survived. Most of these raids were simple profit-making expeditions, in which cities and churches were ransacked and gold and treasure carried off, with captives for domestic use, re-export or re-sale in return for ransom. Alternatively, Danegeld was exacted. In addition, the Magyars often hired out their services to one or another warring prince, against his neighbours.

In this half-century they inflicted dreadful damage on Europe , but even for themselves this mode of life was not invariably profitable. Arnulf of Bavaria almost annihilated one of their armies in 917. In 933 Henry the Fowler gave them a frightful beating near Merseburg. Finally in 955 Otto the Great inflicted a terrible defeat on them outside Augsburg. Their leaders were taken and shamefully hanged and according to legend only seven of the whole host escaped"

 

[BARBARIAN]

http://www.hunmagyar.org/ can be partly crap,I can accept that.
The the quotes you made are similar to the other sites I visited so it makes sense that it's more real...

Well what I believe (and been taught in school) is there were many many tribes in central asia and these tribes were very similar,even same in everything..
These were "all" called in a "common name" which is "Turk".

It includes (I repeat but) Huns+magyars=Hungarians ,bulgarians,mongols,kazaks,ozbeks,yakuts vs vs (list goes so long)...

That's what I believe..
I have very good resourses indeed but it is in turkish and it is not in the internet...It is very very hard for me to translate it to english and post it here...Even if I decide to translate it will take a a centuries of time to finish it

So maybe you better learn your mother-language TURKISH..

 

[Eclipse]

In the meantime, on the civilized part of the continent, the cities of Bruges and Ghent managed to overcome the food crisis and the plague due to a progressive agricultural policy. At the same time they succesfully restructured the traditional industry towards more diversified and higher quality products. (second half 14th century)

The boom of the Englisch wool industry brought tensions to the old cities. New cities like Antwerp managed to face the competition with the English better, and came to be the center of North-West Europe. They were the central headquarters of the English export merchants as well as the German Trade Organisations.

Its role would even become more important, when the Spanish decided to build in Antwerp its new sugar refineries, and when the Portugese decided to bring their gold and silver from the colonies to be traded here as well.

Antwerp became the commercial and financial center of the world and had a golden age in the 16th century. Its glory would have remained forever if not the Spanish cannons destroyed it in 1585, leaving the Flemish people to migrate all over Europe.

Some went to the Netherlands and founded the West Indien Company, which later colonized massive parts of North America and founded New Amsterdam aka New York. Others built up the metal industry in Sweden. Others fleed to England, where they helped to prepare the country for its golden age.

The noble Belgian people that left behind, suffered for ages under the Austrian and the French rule. They finally managed to regain their freedom in 1830. And were after England, the 2nd country to be subjected to the Industrial Revolution.