During the the 10th century the Vikings were ravaging Europe by sea and Magyars by land. My question is that were the Magyars a Turkic people or were they more related to the Scythians and Khazars??

This site that i found says that they were indeed Turkic but ive been to Hungary and i havent seen anyone looking Turkic at all. In fact most of them look rather German. I guess people in the villages might look different i only stayed in Budapest. Here's the site by the way http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan.html - http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan.html

Scythians are a mix of Turkic and Iranic people, and the Khazars are Turkic too.

Magyars are Finno Ugric people, who belong to the same linguistic group with Turks (Ural Altaic). But "Hungars", the original word "Ongogur" or "Onoguz" were certainly from Turkic origins. Today, they are very mixed with the local populations of Europe, but it doesnt matter, if they speak Turkish, if they still have a Turkic culture and still call themselves Turks, they are Turks.

Magyars were not Turkic and are not Turkic, they have a Turkic element because they were subjects of the Khazar Turks when they were still in Russia and they apparently had a Turkic ruling elite but thats it.

and I make one thing clear now, any further post that claims Steppe people x or y (like Scythians or Hungarians are Turkic or whatever) and i go on a post deleting rampage and if it still doesn't stop i go on a banning rampage, I'm like soooooooo sick of that dumb Turkic this Turkic that blabla I will give no quarter in the future, this is my only warning, you have read this as you have already posted in this thread and you know who i'm talking to!

Well this is a difficult question. Accoding to the anthropology researches of B�lint H�man the finno-ugrian peoples were different kind of people from the beginning. This is only a language group. The magyars were ethnically mixed when they arrived to the Carpathian Basin. The Hungarian Tribal federation was also consisted turkic and iraninan people. It is likely that the social elit was bilingual. They spoke magyar and some turkic dialect. (Giving turkic names was common. For example: Zolt�n(=sultan) or Vajk(=bey)) In byzantine sources Hungary appears as Turkia.

In Hungary the magyars mixed with the native and immigrant people. (slavs, late avars, germans etc.) (Don't forget, nearly half of the population was killed by the mongol invasion or by the famine after it.)

Personally I know that among my ancestor were slovaks, germans, and cumans (and naturally magyars  ).

the site that i posted in the opening claims that they are ... they claim that the magyars are one of the two branches of the scythians with the Huns being the others but i doubt it. They relate this to a legend concerning two sons of a Scythian king. One was called Mago and the other Hunno. After they went on a hunt they pursued the deer so long that they decided they would move their respective peoples where they killed it. So the people of Mago were called Magyars and Hunno .. Huns. A nice little bedtime story

Vulkan02:

That's an anti-trianon, nationalist page. I would not take it seriously.

"One was called Mago and the other Hunno"

Hunor and Magor. According to historians the name Hunor refers to the onogurs, not the huns.

A Picure from the Illuminated Chronicle:

Well mostly They dont like.

I dont see  any reason  for calling them Turk too. Our culture is different.

who care what happened 1500 years ago. If they dont want to call themself as Turk, they are not Turk.

I must repeat myself. The magyars are not turks. We were culturaly influenced by turks, and assimilated some turk group, but we are definitely not turks. The turks were only one of those ethnic groups which mixed with us.

Raider

what is the history of  magyar  people? I always think they are as a Turk.  But well I cannot know magyars better  than you.  So they are not Turk

Murtaza:

Above I have already written a brief summary.

By the way there are some nationalist who still prefers the "warrior" turk origin instead of "the eskimos" (I am sorry Finnland.), but their opinion was falsificated yet in the end of the XIX. century.

We both come from the onoghur tribe, so if you look at the three we are family. Why is the differences big with Turks and Magyars, its because of they choosed christianity, so they where heavely influenced by latin.

but in my eyes they are the best avar tribe who still keeps his name: magyars.

Like bilge kaan sayed few centurys ago; "Ey T�rk, yerde yagiz delinmedikce g�k yarilmadikca senin t�reni kim bozabilir?"

I'm neither sided toward Turks nor anyone else. in fact your not long enough here to know that in most cases I've always sided with Turks in most issues but by now those topics have exceeded a healthy level and now i will no longer tolerate any violation of the rules. and i did NOT call Turks dumb, read more carefully. and what i said still stands!

Dont generalize next time if you gonna blaim someone!

Haha

If I need blame, I will surely let you know.

"We both come from the onoghur tribe, so if you look at the three we are family. Why is the differences big with Turks and Magyars, its because of they choosed christianity, so they where heavely influenced by latin.

but in my eyes they are the best avar tribe who still keeps his name: magyars. "

1. We magyars lived with the onoghurs, but we did not come from them.

2. There is a theory by archeologist Gyula L�szl�. According this theory the conquering magyars of �rp�d were turks, and the so-called late avars of the Carpatian Basin (whom �rp�d conqured) were finno-ugric. This groups merged and created the modern hungarians just like in the case of the bulgarians. This theory gives answers to many question and itself creates many question, but because of the lack of evidences 95% of the historians reject it.

Accordint to the great majority ogf the historian the magyars are definitively not avars.

Nonetheless thats an interesting theory... but weren't the Avars Turkic themselves?

Hello all,

first to answer the original question and statement.

Here is where the confusion comes in. As we all know the Magyars entered the Carpathian basin around 895. by the early 900's they had taken control of what is now Hungary, Vojvodina, Transylvania, and western Romanian. They continued stretching westward and south.

Around 955 Ad Constantine the seventh, also known as Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote a book to his son, the future emperor, on how to deal with the surrounding nations and who they are and where they came from. He calls the Magyars, Turks. This obviously was picked up upon by western historians thus associating the Magyars with Turks. Now the dress, weapons and language of the Magyars was very close to the Chazars or Kazars being they where a subject nation of Chazars, who where at one time a subordinate nation of the Turks.

But as to the origins of the Magyars, well Hungarian chroniclers made allot of stuff up such as the Hunor and Magor story. But Constantine does tell his son where these Magyars come from. A place called Lebedias where they where called "Sabartoi Asphaloi" After a Chazarian war with the Pechenegs some traveled east others west who ended up in Carpathian basin.

Now the word Magyars is thought to be derived from one of these Sabartoi clans, the third, the Megris of which Apard is thought to be.

Apard being the well known conqueror along with his ancestor founding the first kingdom caused the name of Magyars to be associated with all the Hungarians/Turks/Sabartoi clans. As to where the Sabartoi come from, well in the 6th century historian Jordanes claims that the Huns split into two groups of people the Sabiri and the Altziagiri.

How closely related the Sabiri are to the Sabartoi, well I'll let you decide but it does give credence to the Magyar claims that they are descended from the Huns.

Now remember that both the Mongols and the Ottoman Turks did invade Hungary through out the 14th through 16th century.

As to the German connection, well as early as the 12th century Hungarian kings offered land to German immigrants in exchange for border defense and then again through out the 17th century to repopulate certain areas

"Nonetheless thats an interesting theory... but weren't the Avars Turkic themselves?"

Late-avars, not avars. Since Gyula L�szl� was an archeologist his theory based on archeological evidence. The avar and late-avar attifacts differs. (Typical late -avar ornamentation: snakes and spindle) In truth we do not know that this late-avar were turks or not. Usually historian says they were turks, because of "all avar were turks". That is only a supposition. We don not know.

"the Magyar claims that they are descended from the Huns."

This is first appeared in a late XIII. century chronicle, and just in the chronicles. In folk tradition it only appeared in the XVIII. and XIX. century.

Looks like it is the same kind of theory as the one that Poles descended from the Sarmatians. And it appeared moreless in the same time.

Do Hungarians still like Poles and say that:

Magyar es lengyel jo barat

Karddal s pohar kozt egyarant.

as well as we say in Poland that:

Wegier, Polak dwa bratanki

tak do szabli, jak do szklanki.

its part of the poem written by 19th century hungarian poet and mean in both hungarian and polish:

"Hugnarian and Pole are two nephews

good to saber as well as to glass"

or somthing like that in my free translation into english

 Well many Hungarians were taught to disassociate themselves and their backround with turks but we are still related to Turks, (not so much the mixed ones today but the European/Asian Turks yes! On the other hand the Hungarians in Budapest are culturally mixed in with German, Slav etc.

My family happened to come from small villages and stayed there for generations. Again, Hungarians are mixed looking  so i hear that I look like alot of things. Here is my pic: not my best picture 

Of course they're going to say that: it's a Turkish newspaper. I think you'd better accept the fact that not a single one of the Christian European countries which were occupied by the Ottomans is going to say that the occupation of their country was a good thing. Ever. Give it a rest, please! It really seems like all the posts that have even a marginal connection to the Turks (real or imaginary) eventually turn into an argument between the Turks and someone else, be they Greeks or other Europeans. Is that really necessary?

Originally posted by vulkan02 it seems you have some Turkic features... probably the eyes i would say... if thats really your pic

Yes that is me. my point is magyars all look different. we are NOT ALL mixed with german and slav. That just isnt true!  All Turks look different too. Some look more Arabic and some look European. If anything because of the Ottoman rule we probably are mixed in alot more with Turks now than had we been once apart of the same Asiatic tribes!

Well, that is the poor, ignorant European term. They think all people who are related with Islamic world are Arabs. They ask us if we still speak Arabic and travel with camels. Some of them even dont know what Turkey means (except that bird)...

The thing is, all people with dark skins and middle easter features arent Arabs or Arab looking. That is a local genotype or something like that. Middle Easters have such features, including Persians, Kurds, Assyrians, Turks, even Greeks. Some Turks look more middle Eastern and some more European because of some mixing with locals (not Arabs, Iranians, Greeks etc., they werent the locals). But just to inform you, we have nothing to do with Arabs except our religion and common past.

And except Hatay, and except Sirt, and except some  arabs who live in other Turkish city. Oguzoglu,  why do you think Turks have  nothing related with arabs?

Where this Turks live? In the middle of minor  asia?

Do you realy think, our borders with Iraq and  Syria have nothing related  with arabs?

why do you think we have no relation with greeks or Armenians?Or Kurds?(Arent  this  guys iranic?)

Why do you think,  It is only Locals who converted Islam?

Because before Turkey, There is not Turks, or Greeks. But Muslims and christians. 

pfffffff, when you people stop being so offensive? It whas a newspaper article with hungarian sources!!! Damn man i know what im talking about!

Man, what is your problem? You get offended so quickly because of someone saying that some Turks resemble Arabs. Can you tell apart a Spanish from a Portuguese? A Romanian from a Hungarian? A Finn from an Estonian? A Russian from a Ukrainian? Probably not. Every single people has different characteristics: there isn't one "typical" Spanish or "typical" Russian. Yet people may say that someone looks Russian or Spanish and nobody will get offended.

Do all the Turks know a lot about the "poor ignorant" Europeans? You condemn us for not knowing things about your culture, yet most of you don't know enough about ours and still make judgements upon us. Quite a double-standard, don't you think?

Kenaney, any newspaper in a country is probably going to give a certain story a spin which favors that country. Regardless of the sources.

You shoud probably note that I didn't say that the Ottoman occupation was a good or a bad thing, only that you're not going to find a European country who will admit that it was a good thing. If it had been a French or an English occupation, they still wouldn't have admitted that it was agood thing: it's a foreign occupation and that's it.

Actually i dont care what anyone else says, i care what the local people of the country that lvied under my occupation says. They choosed a Turkish as their king, lived not under heavy taxes, some of them moved to Turkey (Antalya, Macar k�y) etc etc... And Finaly the research of their own proffesors of an university in Budapest prooved that Ottoman empire wasnt evil at all...

Kenaney:

Above I have already written that It is true. The ottomans spent more to Hungary than the revenue of the province. But they spent to millitary, and defense.

The age of ottoman occupation as Hungarian historians see:

http://www.mek.oszk.hu/01900/01911/html/ - http://www.mek.oszk.hu/01900/01911/html/

There are some mistranslation in the text (archduke not chief prince, prince not principal etc.), but I think it is understandable.

Not only military, they also did build some great hamams, palace (now its in Romania), many mosk, etc.

By the way territories you speak about were parts of the principality of Transylvania a vassal state, so it was not occupied by ottoman forces.

"I think mosques and palaces were not built for the local population. "

I never thought about that. were they?

Murtaza,

I didnt say we arent any related with Arabs, I meant ethnicity by that, and I mentioned our common past and religion. Why do you try to show me as one of the anti Semites or something? I have no problems with Arabs or any other specific nation.

Com'on, I wasnt offended. I meant ethnically, you know what I meant. Of course we have lots of things in common with them. I dont deny it, and I dont need to.

I didnt mean Europeans were so, I meant that term, generalization of "Muslim" was a poor term, used by some ignorant people.

no, I dont think you are anti semites, If I showed you something like this I am sorry, but we have some relation with arabs too and I mean ethnicity.

I am sure, I have no arab blood in my vein or you have no arab blood, but Turks from south east of Turkey, may have some arabs blood.

In fact, Arabs are still living there.

Originally posted by Turkic10 Gad! As a result of all the various conquering groups from Europe, the Middle East and Asia we're all of mixed blood. Maybe several times over. The latest mix in my case is Romanian (lots of mixing there!) and Irish (the Celts and Vikings). The mind boggles!

You have Romanian blood as well? I'm "pure-bred" Romanian: whatever that means... I've never had someone guess what background I have. I've had people guessing anything from Finnish to Polish to Italian to French. Romanians are probably one of the most mixed nations in the world.

"The actual descendants of the Huns were the Bulgarians, later assimilated by slavic influence."

As a Hungarian myself i would say its pretty speculative whether we ALL were mixed in. Hungary isnt exactly a small country and there are many villages all over that were untouched throughout the years. The people tend to look different all around. (forget Budapest where it is all mixed) I have relatives that have asian characteristics with black hair and slanted eyes yet they are magyar!

As for the language, it is also currently speculated between many experts.

The fact that Magyar (Hungarian) has connections to the Uralic language family is well-attested and is not the issue here. Perhaps the title should be something like "Uralic Comparisons". However, since the reference language is Magyar and because many of the words in these lists don't have known or definite Uralic origins, the existing title seems appropriate.

(a) Webster's 1913 Dictionary courtesy of http://www.gutenberg.org/" target=MainWindow>Project Gutenberg , defines 'Magyar' as 'One of the dominant people of Hungary, allied to the Finns; a Hungarian'. (There is no 'alliance' with the Finns other than a tenuous linguistic connection separated by about 4000 years!)

http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/index1.html - http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/index1.html

-------------

I've been reading some things about Bulgarians in the meantime and I must correct my sentence: change actual by likely, please.

Uralic peoples should be rather Asian-looking in origing, anyhow. Think about Samoyedes, who are also Uralic. Finns (and also Lapps), as Hungarians, have mixed too much with other peoples to be easily recognizable as Asian. Also, before Magyars, Avars and Huns dwelled in the Danubian plain and both peoples seem to have come from Asia, maybe helping in some extent to those Asian features you mention.

gerik:

I think Raider told about church terms after meeting with Christianity. But quite Turkish word survived the Christianity, too.

The religious terms are turkic, but terms of church hierarchy etc. are slavic.

Originally posted by Cyprus I am from Czech republic and that is why I visited Magyar many times - and as most of you said Magyars are mixed with many ethnic groups - but each of you forget to mention Slavs - because when Magyars came to Panonia this was inhabited by Slavs and was part of Great Moravian empire(with capital "city" only about 3 kilometers far from my home Also their languague(in spite of the fact that it is ugro-finic)is greatly influenced by Slavonic languagues - excpecialy terms from agriculture came to their languague from Slavonic ones. But because Hungarians don�t want to hear that they are more Slavs than Ugro-finic people - completly no one knows this. It is the same problem as in Bulgaria - former Bulgarians were nomads ver similar to magyars - but they mixed with seven slavonic tribes and formed Bulgarian nation which is counted as Slavonic nation - the only differences is that try to stay separately from their slavs serfs.

Didnt you confuse bulgaria with Hungary? Bulgars where from origin Turkic (remember Volga Bulgars, Chuvash, karachay Turks), but today they mixed, are slavinized or better to say assimilated cultural and genetical (didnt find any words to describe) by slavs   

Neat paper (related to subject) connecting some ancient dots. Written awhile back. Like to find more recent info though. 

http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/1997-3/GRAIL.htm - http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/1997-3/GRAIL.htm

anyway a paragraf of that page that interested me damn ALOT!

Arthurchemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

Geoffrey Ashe mentions that the Celts have no mythology in which a god by the name of Arthur can be found.>>

In Magyar traditions the name Artur leads us to our �st�r�k nation, the Etruscans, and the prehistory of the Turanian peoples. The second syllable of this name �tur� means bull and a maleness. This word describes our beautiful Sun�s daily journey and return just as much it describes the circling flight of the falcon, which the T�r�k group called Turul-bird. In this context Arthur�s name means Bull Man, Sun man, whose role is linked inseparably with his return. >>

Britain�s ancient history begins, as does the Magyar with Fairy traditions which are also an inseparable part of the Arthurian legends. It is interesting to note, that the Mythology of the British Isles preserved a memory, according to which these fairies spoke in the language of the Troyans. As Arthur�s name is connected with the Magyar t�r, so is the name of Troy. As long as the name of Arthur cannot be tied to any of the Celtic god names, there is ample proof that this name was part once of Magyar Mythology, celebrated today in a festival of the so called �Turka-j�r�s�, a part of the Winter Solstice celebration. Arthur, or better Artur was once the personification of the Son just as much as was the Magyar Mikl�s Toldi. In later Germanic mythologies we find Tor, William Tell with the same role and names. The feminine of this word is �t�r," which means a well defined, material space, and also a closed circle as does the related English word: turn. The Etruscan goddess Turan was personification of the round Earth and their country; the later Latin word terra was derived from here.>>

what me interest about that paragrafe is that the "Tur" word is many times used, the word Turan that i tought it whas from Persian origin is used as a God by Etruscians. Also this;

 "there is ample proof that this name was part once of Magyar Mythology, celebrated today in a festival of the so called �Turka-j�r�s�, a part of the Winter Solstice celebration"

Also the name Etruskians in Magyar language is called as �st�r�k its little bit similat to later Turkish empire G�k T�r�k, K�k T�r�k. Also if you say �zt�r�k in Turkish, it has a meaning btw �zt�rk is Turk from the beginning (or something similar to that).

This whole thing seems to be nonsense.

�st�r�k = ancient turk.

�smagyar= ancient hungarian

These are composite words. I do not think that they related to G�k T�r�k.

i only noted a similarity, you dont need to get angry on that.

Ok so �st�r�k is ancient Turk? and �st�r�k is etrusc in magyar wich means ancient Turk?

Etrusc is etruszk in Hungarian. Yes the two words (�st�r�k and etruszk)may be similar, but I do not think that they related.

ah thanks,

and i tought "hey i found something"

DayI:

"The second syllable of this name �tur� means bull and a maleness."

This sentence contrary the belower is true. I heard about "turi bika" and bika indeed means bull in Hungarian.

Turul bird actually means the same in Turkish: the Togrul.

The ideas about the Etrusco-Turkish and Etrusco-Hungarian relationship is very frequent but in my opinion these are false statements without enough base.

Since we have all Turkic ancestors those theory's are common in those area's heh

 It has the exact same meaning in serbian.I couldn't stop laughing...

Btw, people, Etruscans called themselves Rasci/Rasenna-the romans called them etruscans-so the entire theory is ...

Concerning the name Arthur-it's probably of sarmatian origin-it survives in baltic Arturas.Sarmatians had a legend similar to the ''sword in stone''-one of the theories suggests a sarmatian origin of the whole tale...

Wait a minute........... So the Scythians were a mix of Turkic and Indo-European peoples?? So many people in Eastern Europe are descended from these noble steppe warriors?