Slavic Warriors

I wonder how big was the population of the balkans before the slavs came..Any suggestions?

2. Ancient Hungarians were neither asian nor mongoloid. By the way large numbers of immigrants settled in the country during medieval times and there were also great population losses. (Mongol invasion, constant warfare against the Ottomans etc.)

3. There is no continuation in the ancient cities of Pannonia. This is a proven fact. The local population expelled, died out, assimilated.

4. Where are the graves? If there was a large number of rural population, graves and other relics should have been remained.

Major slav population lived only in today Western Slovakia and they still live there. They are the Slovaks.

2. Magyars never lived in Finnland. Ancient Hungarians came from the steppes of Europe.

We live here (in the Carpathian Basin) more than  a thousand years. Do you think this is not enough time to mix with neighbouring people, immigrants etc. to create genetic similarities?

3. As far as I know there is no historian who said else.

4. Of course the found graves are Hungarians and the unfounds are all Slavic by coincidence. These is nonsense. Or You said there is a two century long, world wide Hungarian conspiration? Dan Brown should write a book about it.

Central (?) Slavs assimilated and Slovaks and Slavonians not. Why? The only possible logical solution: these slav population was very low in numbers and lived together with people of different origins.

PS:

Hungary is not on the Balkans. Check a map.

National identity was never non-existent, tough - of course - it wasn't as enhanced as modernly. But there were kingdoms born from nations, wether truly popular (Vasconia and Navarre) or product of the dominating nation: France, England, Hungary - or other more unclear cases as wel: Germany, Poland, etc.

As far as I know there's no historian who said anything. All we know is that Magyars irrupted in Europe and they are dicted as criminal hordes by Germans and Italians. And that one century later, after the decissive battle of the Lech, they adopted Christianity and became another member of the European commnunity of nations.

I'm not knowledgeable enough but the same phenomenon is found among Britons: they "vanish" for one or two centuries archaeologically - yet they reappear later among Saxons.

1. National identity != nationalism

2. So, you said what I wrote is conceivable. In this case we have to choose the version which matches to other facts. These other fact shows that the Carpathian Basin was sparsely populated by slavs and magyars were in superior numbers. On those territories where magyars were in minority they assimilated to the local slavs.

3. Than you have mistaken. There is no continous population from the Roman times to the Hungarians in Pannonian cities. By the way magyars not interrupted in Europe. They come from the eastern European steppes to the borderland of the catholic west. It's not the same.

criminal hordes: the Magyars were mostly mercenaries of local princes against other local princes. So choose who was the "criminal".

(For more detailed information the aftermath of the battle of Lech check topic: Notable Hungarian battles.)

4. You stated that a large "native" slav population lived in the Carpathian Basin when the Magyars (relatively small numbers) arrived. You are the one who states, you have to show evidences. The lack of archeological relics is not an evidence. Genetic similarities can be explain in an other way. So What evidences do you have?

Avars arrived to the Carpathian Basin in the 6th century, Hungarians arrived in the very end of the 9th century; the Hungarian conquest 895-899. (And avars still lived there when the magyars arrived.) You said that the avar, and german/frank presence already separated the slavs and you also said that large numbers of slavs lived there. I see some contradiction in your statements.

By the way you do not answered my question. Slavonians, Slovaks etc. why remained unaffected by the forced magyar assimilation? Do you know that ancient Slovaks originally lived only in today western Slovakia and they assimilated the slav immigrants of the east. Not the Hungarians, but the Slovaks assimilated them.

No. The early magyars acted on their own like bands of bandits making incursions deep into Germany and Italy without any pretext other than they could do it. They acted in a violent and honorless way that definitively shocked their contemporaries.

The first Slavs came to the region, almost certainly from the north, soon after the departure of the Ostrogoths (471 AD). Along with the Lombards, they were to be the principal inhabitants of the territory until the arrival of the Avars.

Around 530, the Germanic Lombards settled in Pannonia. They had to fight against the Gepidi and the Slavs. In 568, pushed out by the Avars, they moved into northern Italy.

The nomadic Avars arrived from Asia in the 560s, utterly destroyed the Gepidi in the east, drove away the Lombards in the west, and subjugated the Slavs, partly assimilating them. The Avars, just as the Huns had decades before, established a big empire. This empire was destroyed around 800 by Frankish and Slavic attacks, and above all by internal feuds. The few remaining Avars were then quickly assimilated by the Slavs.

Around 800, northeastern Hungary became part of the Nitrian principality, which itself became part of Great Moravia in 833. Also, after 800, southeastern Hungary was conquered by Bulgaria, but was lost in 881 to Great Moravia. Western Hungary (Pannonia) was initially tributary to the Franks, but in 839 the Slavic Balaton Principality was founded in southwestern Hungary, and in 883/884 the whole of western Hungary was conquered by Great Moravia. The advanced economic and political conditions of the Slavs, who had been settling in the entire area, exerted a significant influence over the newly-arrived Magyars after 896 (see below); in fact, several Hungarian words relating to agriculture, politics, religion and handicrafts, were borrowed from Slavic peoples.

Notice that when we talk of "Slavs", "Avars", "Magyars", etc. (as for almost any other people), we don't talk of genetics, maybe not even paternal lineages, we are talking about loyalties. And we must also consider that any given noble of any nationality, had a bunch or slaves and serfs, who may well be of a diferent ethnicity, at least initially. The names are given by the aristocrats but the genes are transmitted also by the plebeians - who seldom appear in history.