Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Topic: conquest of attila the hun Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 07:59 |
Kenaney:
As much as I know the scythian were of iraninan origin. I think Minchickie spoke about their culture.
|
|
Kenaney
Colonel
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 543
|
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 07:47 |
Originally posted by minchickie
The origin of the MAGYARS
theme -----------Finno-Ugric------Central-Asia / Carpathian Basin----- own ancient -----------------------------------X (Codexes, historial notes) Language-------------X--------------------------- (ONLY A hypothese, NOT PROVEN) Genetic-------------------------------------------X (haven't data for HUNS/SCYTH./AVARS Relation in history of Asiatic peoples---------------------------------X Folk------------------------------------------------X (HUN, scythian,avar type) Structure of society---------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type: twice) Writing--------------------------------------------X (runes, equivalent with HUNS) Origin Faith -------------------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type) Fightstyle-----------------------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type) Ornament-----------------------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type) Archeology ---------------------------------------X (hun,scythian,avar type) Costume------------------------------------------X (hun,scythian,avar type) Music----------------------------------------------X ( : Central+South Asia,. popular-song-------------------------------------X (pentaton (la) Central+South Asia) folk-tale/ballads---------------------------------X (Central-+ South Asia.) |
I know you may right, but persians out here claim that Scythians where persian people how reard it sounds (their capital city whas in altaic mountans). What you or Raider gonna say about that?
|
OUT OF LIMIT
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 03:27 |
"Language-------------X--------------------------- (ONLY A hypothese, NOT PROVEN) "
It is proven.
|
|
minchickie
Shogun
Joined: 03-Jul-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241
|
Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 18:21 |
The origin of the MAGYARS
theme -----------Finno-Ugric------Central-Asia / Carpathian Basin----- own ancient -----------------------------------X (Codexes, historial notes) Language-------------X--------------------------- (ONLY A hypothese, NOT PROVEN) Genetic-------------------------------------------X (haven't data for HUNS/SCYTH./AVARS Relation in history of Asiatic peoples---------------------------------X Folk------------------------------------------------X (HUN, scythian,avar type) Structure of society---------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type: twice) Writing--------------------------------------------X (runes, equivalent with HUNS) Origin Faith -------------------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type) Fightstyle-----------------------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type) Ornament-----------------------------------------X (hun, scythian,avar type) Archeology ---------------------------------------X (hun,scythian,avar type) Costume------------------------------------------X (hun,scythian,avar type) Music----------------------------------------------X ( : Central+South Asia,. popular-song-------------------------------------X (pentaton (la) Central+South Asia) folk-tale/ballads---------------------------------X (Central-+ South Asia.)
|
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 18:14 |
I do not know how much credit I should give this, but I once heard a
story that the Huns and Magyars left the steppes together but were
seperated. The Huns reached Europe first, and the Magyars wandered for
centuries before being able to enter Europe.
|
|
minchickie
Shogun
Joined: 03-Jul-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241
|
Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 17:44 |
"just curiosity, do the magars accept Atilla as they ancestor?"
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone in my family is named Attila and i will name my son Attila too one day!!!!
The land that my horse has rode there shall be not a grass again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
____________________________________
To the other magyar on here, whether you like to believe it or not, Magyars are mixed in with HUNS!!!! It will take many many MANYYYY more generations to loose those genes!
|
|
|
the Bulgarian
Colonel
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 12:03 |
I do know that Bulgarians and Hungarians have some sort of a relationship between them. I red it in a site, but can't remember it. Does anyone have any info about this?
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 03:25 |
Originally posted by the Bulgarian
Khan Asparuh's biggest brother - Bayan, settled around the Volga and became leader of the Volga Bulgars.
|
They were accompanied by a group of Hungarians who lived with them. Medieval Hungarian chornicles mention their place as Magna Hungaria.Somewhere here:
In the first tierce of the XIII. century a Hungarian monk named Julianus found them and he was able to speak them in Hungarian language. On his second journey he found them devastated. The mongols detroyed them. According to linguist there are still Hungarian toponyms at this region.
|
|
the Bulgarian
Colonel
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 01:21 |
Originally posted by doorman
Didn't the Huns end up becoming the Bulgars? As I recall the Bulgars split into two groups, one became th Volga Bulgars settling around the Volga river east of Moscow and the other settled in Bulgaria. |
Actually, they split into 5 groups led by khan Asparuh and his 4 brothers. Aparuh's Bulgars settled around the Danube and established the First Bulgarian empire in 681. Kuber's Bulgars settled in Macedonia. They both mixed heavily with the slavs and were united in one state by khan Krum, who annexed Macedonia to Bulgaria. He is the khan, who annexed Sofia, our modern capital, to the Bulgarian empire.
Khan Asparuh's biggest brother - Bayan, settled around the Volga and became leader of the Volga Bulgars.
One of his brothers, I don't remember who exactly, even made it to northern Italy, but the Bulgars there were assimilated. The other two made it to the Baltic coast and modern day Poland, but the Bulgars there were also assimilated from the locals and vanished from the historic scene.
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:57 |
Originally posted by Mortaza
just curiosity, do the magars accept Atilla as they ancestor?
No, I mean as a whole people, If I am not wrong, Huns didnt return back, they stayed hungary.
|
1. Well in medieval chronicles he is a Hungarian king. In modern times yes, he is accepted as an mythic ancestor.
2. As much as I know the bulk of the hun population was never lived in the territory of later Hungary. Most of them remained their "original" homeland north of the Black Sea.
Originally posted by Degredado
Raider, how accurate is that map?
|
I have failed to find reliable and precise sources. I think this map and the other are merely a speculation.
Originally posted by doorman
Didn't the Huns end up becoming the Bulgars? As I recall the Bulgars split into two groups, one became th Volga Bulgars settling around the Volga river east of Moscow and the other settled in Bulgaria.
|
Yes they are. This is the base of the theory that Attila and the rpds related. The before conquest rpds married noble bulgarian women possibly the descendants of Attila. Latest historians reject this theory because of the lack of definite evidences.
|
|
Turkic10
Knight
Joined: 01-Jul-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 18:54 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
I don't think there's a way to answer that question in terms of ethnology because we're not sure what the Hunnic ethnicity really is. If we are to define Huns are people who came from the Central steppes, then it would be highly improbably that Bulgars have much trace of Hunnic descent. On the other hand, it is possible that ancestors of the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic Empire. So in that respect, it is understandable for many eastern European to claim a link to the Huns.
A similar case is with the Byzantines and the Russian Romanovs claiming linkage to the Romans, while not being people of the "Latin" ethnicity. In fact, I would bet that even in the Roman Empire itself, Latin ethnicity was less than 5%.
People like to take advantage of the fact that some of these empires were very large, while not fully respecting the fact that they contained a diverse group of people.
|
The Romanovs claiming Roman linkage when in reality they were of Viking decent. What ever works I guess!
|
Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly.
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 02:48 |
Yeah, Bulgars came from the steppes; what's more their language is sometimes classifed as a sub- family of Ural- Altaic group.
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 23:06 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
A similar case is with the Byzantines and the Russian Romanovs claiming
linkage to the Romans, while not being people of the "Latin" ethnicity.
In fact, I would bet that even in the Roman Empire itself, Latin
ethnicity was less than 5%.
People like to take advantage of the fact that some of these empires
were very large, while not fully respecting the fact that they
contained a diverse group of people.
|
This is true. The Hunnic Empire itself was made of very few Huns. The
common folk of the empire was largely comprised of Germanic tribes,
Dacians and perhaps Slavs as well.
As for the Roman Empire, a theory of mine is that the genuine Latin
ethnicity ceased to exist early in its history. It was Roman practice
to send Romans to newly conquered lands to make the people more
accepting of Roman rule. As the people of Latium were dispersed into
the new provinces, newly conquered people came to Latium, and soon
there were no 'Latins', only Latin speakers.
The reason why the Byzantines and, to a lesser extent, the Russians
claimed lineage to the Roman Empire is not because of race. The
Byzantines based the structure of their society upon the original Roman
model, and in turn, the Russians based the structure of their society
on the Byzantines. So logically, the Russians could trace their lineage
back to Rome.
|
|
Feramez
Colonel
Joined: 16-Jan-2005
Location: Uzbekistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 521
|
Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 19:28 |
The Bulgars also came from the steppe, so it's very possible they're descendents of the Huns.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 17:35 |
I don't think there's a way to answer that question in terms of
ethnology because we're not sure what the Hunnic ethnicity really is.
If we are to define Huns are people who came from the Central steppes,
then it would be highly improbably that Bulgars have much trace of
Hunnic descent. On the other hand, it is possible that ancestors of the
Bulgars were part of the Hunnic Empire. So in that respect, it is
understandable for many eastern European to claim a link to the Huns.
A similar case is with the Byzantines and the Russian Romanovs claiming
linkage to the Romans, while not being people of the "Latin" ethnicity.
In fact, I would bet that even in the Roman Empire itself, Latin
ethnicity was less than 5%.
People like to take advantage of the fact that some of these empires
were very large, while not fully respecting the fact that they
contained a diverse group of people.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 14:31 |
Dear Doorman,
Hi there. Well, I was going to ask similar question. Bulgars also claim to be Hun desendant. Some other Eastern Europeans do the same too. Anyhow, they're all related to each other, aren't they? Their culture, their languages are alike. Take care...
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Scytho-Sarmatian
Earl
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 290
|
Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 06:24 |
Originally posted by Degredado
Raider, how accurate is that map? |
That's a sweet map--nicely done.
I once saw a similar map that even included what is now Denmark and
southern Sweden within Attila's domain. So, there seems to be
some debate as to the accuracy of drawing maps of Attila's
empire. However, based on the available historical sources,
Raider's map reflects the general consensus regarding borders.
|
|
doorman
Janissary
Joined: 16-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 17:36 |
Didn't the Huns end up becoming the Bulgars? As I recall
the Bulgars split into two groups, one became th Volga
Bulgars settling around the Volga river east of Moscow and the
other settled in Bulgaria.
|
|
Degredado
Consul
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 366
|
Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 14:57 |
Raider, how accurate is that map?
|
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 12:00 |
The Huns in europe were never very numerous in the first place,
probably about 10,000 according to some estimates. Local barbarians far
outnumbered the Huns in the Hunnic empire. So when their empire
collapsed, it's difficulty to trace where the orignal Huns went. Some
say they merged with the Magyars after moving back into Asia.
|
|