Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

szekler in romania

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: szekler in romania
    Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 06:43
Hi!
 
These picture  chronicles are in the rule not more then cartoons. They were writen by west-influenced (hungarian-hun story) writers, who wanted to make a fundament and a history for all settlements and noble familys in Hungary. Almost all of the castle or village or mountian name giver "historian persons" in Gesta Hungarorum die in that settlements. It's funny:-)
Just a few antient storys were writen down (the tale of the Beses f.e.)
 
Gyula Krist said that the szkelys as independent group were formed int the 10-12th centuries, from the tree joined kabar tribes, who had a privilegized status , and from the poor free nomad hungarians, who didn't want to be a sklave of the new feudal nobles. So they run away from the feudal territories, out to the Gyeps (the UNINHABITATED!!! nomadian border lands).
Many of the 11-12th hungarian king orders prescripted for the nobles (ispans) and chuches that they had to catch thes free nomad peoples.
 
TSZ
 
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 08:53
    

How would you know who was "exploited" (I hope it's not a marxist approach") and who wasn't?
How would you know if the colonists preserved their language or not?


Do you sustain that theory that in Middle Age wasn't mattering the ethnicity? This was an adiacent observation.


In Transylvania, the conquerors where the Hungarians. The Hungarian aristocray and their Hungarian subjects considered Romanians a conquered population. From 1437 with the Unio Trium Nationum, Romanians were officialy deprived of the rights but even untill then they were considered unequal with the Hungarians and Germans. This was from the first moments of Transylvania's territory conquest (which lasted two centuries, X-XI).


The colonists were "secure" populations, I mean they have been chosen from that groups which it was presumed to remain loyal to Hungarian Kingdom. A magyarization of colonists could not take place because magyarization or any other ...-ization appears when a ethnic group is dominated by another, politicaly or culturaly.



But this process didn't start in 15th century. Though we don't have relevant data for,
let's say 12th century, we need to postulate it otherwise there's no verosimile justification
how a settling nomadic group would later (linguistically) cover almost the entire Pannonia and
large parts of Transylvania.


Ofcourse, before 15th century many Romanians passed "voluntary" (quotas are because actualy the Romanians were in social inferiority and they were attracted by Hungarian privileges) to catholicism and Hungarian language. Hungarians always wished to hungarize everything (toponims, name of the non-Hungarian peoples), not only from XVIIIth century, but untill XIIIth century this was done spontanous, not organized.


The way Hungarians covered Pannonia and Transylvania is interesting; we can make only presumtions about how this happened. In Transylvania there have been discovered by arhcaeologists necropola of early Hungarian warriors, X-XIth century. They were still pagan, still burried with the horses. From XIth century the burials are Christian. I think Romanian population was not very numerous.

In Xth century The Hungarians established some military camps on the Carpathian Southern line. In XIth century the voivodate from Alba Iulia was fighting against the Pannonian Hungarians. This may have been ruled by Hungarian, Romanian, Slav or combinated ethnic origin voivods. Romanian villages have ben subjects of this voivodate.

From XIth century, Christianized population resulted from metising between Hungarians, Slavs and Romanians in Pannonia established settlements in Transylvania which were the oldest Hungarian villages from here.

In XIIth century started the process of colonising Saxons and Szeklers in South and East of Transylvania. The process ended in XIIIth century. The Romanians from these areas retreated in areas like Fagaras Land, ntorsura Buzaului, Vlahita and others. We can speak more about that.

The point is that colonists have not reasons to adopt the language of the Kingdom rulers. Thez were considered equal in rights with the Hungarians and guests of the King.



But having in mind the first forms of the word I believe the administrative organization but most certainly its name and relation (szek - seat) are following their earlier presence and probably can be explain in a similar way with a large part of Hungarian toponimy related to "szek/szeg".


This theory is contradicting the historical data. In XIIth century the Szekelyfold (Land of Szeklers) is mentioned in Mese Mountains (Salaj county) with that name, Szekler. Toponims (Sacuieni in Bihor, Szekeliko near Aiud) attest the migration of Szeklers accros Transylvania in 12-13th century.



These picture chronicles are in the rule not more then cartoons. They were writen by west-influenced (hungarian-hun story) writers, who wanted to make a fundament and a history for all settlements and noble familys in Hungary. Almost all of the castle or village or mountian name giver "historian persons" in Gesta Hungarorum die in that settlements. It's funny:-)
Just a few antient storys were writen down (the tale of the Beses f.e.)


Is true that the connections with Attila were pure fabulations, but Gesta Hungarorum is saying about 9th century voivodates at Biharea and Dabca and this have been confirmed clearly by archaeology. The fact that at Dabca is spoken about Romanians and Slavs is also very correct.


Gyula Krist said that the szkelys as independent group were formed int the 10-12th centuries, from the tree joined kabar tribes, who had a privilegized status , and from the poor free nomad hungarians, who didn't want to be a sklave of the new feudal nobles. So they run away from the feudal territories, out to the Gyeps (the UNINHABITATED!!! nomadian border lands).


As I sayed, this 'run' across Transylvania lasted more than a century.
    

Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 10:37
Do you think, that the hungarian tribes, who occupied and ruled tho most of the little frankonian and slawian kingdoms and principats(sorry, Idon't know the correct word), and fought against the best armies of Europe,  Frank Empire, Bizac, made war in german terrytorries, reached the Atlantik in France, looted in Burgundia, in Italy, in the Kalifat from Cordoba; that they wasn't able to make short procedure with two little voivodates??
(of wich inhabitants is not sure that they were romanians)
 
And I think, you don't understand, what the major politik and the major social principle of the hungarians was: (and this was one of the magyars damage too)
As a nomad tribe-union, the dentu-moger contend a lot of occupied or invited different ethnic groups, with their own strongs and issius, with different tasks. The Magyar country was like a little Europe, a perfect working organization with hungarian leading, until the Mongol invasion. They cilled or robbed all those inhabitans, who couldn't run over the snow-border:-) So '/3 of the cc. 2 million magyars died, after that the colonist from M and W went to a lot of destroyed and outwiped hungarian territories.
 
It's important than in these age there weren't living a lot of people in Trans., and that few population lived near by rivers and not high in the Mountains. in the 14th cent. there was a large increase of population all in the country, so the magyars grewagain, and the number of romanian colonists grew too. They occupied the higher regions of Tr. so in the Osman wars they survived with little damages the turks and krimian Tatars.
 
In the 15 year war (when the Kt-s damaged total Alba Jula/Gyulafehrvr) and halfed the hungarian and saxonian population, the romanian pupulation had got the leading "minority" in Transylvania. 
 
 
Gyula: had a hungarian or Bulgarian name: Prokuj. His doughter had a turcic-hungarian name: Sarolt - little weasel - silly:-) She was the mother of I. Stephen, she cuold ride a horse, shoot with the bow and drink men under the table:-))) a real nomadian woman:-))
 
 
Oh, and: Geza and Stephen made a big population-removal all over the country, they damaged the communities of the tribes and minorities- to prevent any revolts against themself.
 
TSZ
Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 10:58
Hi!
 
Sorry, Alba Jula was damaged in the 1690's.
 
And: how cuold a few hungarians magyarize:-) the much more romanians? Than they should had speak more romanian, like the proto-bulgarians  were spoken a slawian language with few turcic words and their cars had slawian names 200 years after their conquest in Thracia.
 
TSZ
Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 11:43
Hi!
 
Interesting thing about the szkelys:
the szkely army, the leaders, the horsemen(lfő) and the foot troops had (probably first time in Europe)an  established military uniform: the red knts(caftan) and dolmny (coat). (from the 15th c.)
 
TSZ
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 11:54

In Transylvania, the conquerors where the Hungarians. The Hungarian aristocray and their Hungarian subjects considered Romanians a conquered population. From 1437 with the Unio Trium Nationum, Romanians were officialy deprived of the rights but even untill then they were considered unequal with the Hungarians and Germans. This was from the first moments of Transylvania's territory conquest (which lasted two centuries, X-XI).
If you remember Bobalna revolt it weren't just the Vlachs who revolted, which somehow shakens your theory of oppression on ethnic layers. While I don't deny the ethnicity as much as almost any markers of the identity were sources of conflict during the entire history of humanity, there were also Vlach nobility living quite well in medieval Transylvania, as well as Hungarian/Szekler peasantry living quite badly.
As for the extension of 15th century realities in 10th is groundless. About what rights anyway are you talking about when you address 10-11th century Transylvania? About what equality?

The colonists were "secure" populations, I mean they have been chosen from that groups which it was presumed to remain loyal to Hungarian Kingdom. A magyarization of colonists could not take place because magyarization or any other ...-ization appears when a ethnic group is dominated by another, politicaly or culturaly. [...] The point is that colonists have not reasons to adopt the language of the Kingdom rulers. Thez were considered equal in rights with the Hungarians and guests of the King.
  You learn a language to interact with other people, not because you're "insecure" or "not equal in rights".
Needless to say that Hungarians eventually built an impresive Christian kingdom, therefore your requested criterias of political and cultural domination are fullfiled.

This theory is contradicting the historical data. In XIIth century the Szekelyfold (Land of Szeklers) is mentioned in Mese Mountains (Salaj county) with that name, Szekler. Toponims (Sacuieni in Bihor, Szekeliko near Aiud) attest the migration of Szeklers accros Transylvania in 12-13th century.
I don't know of any Szekler (taken ad litteram) toponym in 12th century Transylvania. Care to detail? As for Sacuieni and other toponyms how do you explain Sacueni in Wallachia? Do you think Szeklers itinerary included those places, too? Also, do you think today's form of the toponym reflects a 12th century reality? Let me give you an example of Transylvanian evolution in toponymy: in 1295 we find particula terre Godyn vocata, que vulgariter Ryngylkyrch nominatur (an obvious German toponym: Ryngenkirche - the round church). Later it becomes Ringelkirch, Rynkerkerh (1313), terra seu villa Ryngenkerg (1323), terra seu poss. Regurkyrch (1324), Regurkyr (1335), Rengunkirl, Rengerkyrch (1380), Lengerkirth (1437), Lengelkyrk (1509), Lengielkek, Lengyelkek (1576), Lengyelfalva (1578), etc.. So from "round church" we get "Polish church", "Polish blue" or "Polish village". Excuse me that I'm skeptical on your analysis of toponymy. Also look how a name given by those priviledged colonists was Magyarized. How dared they?

but Gesta Hungarorum is saying about 9th century voivodates at Biharea and Dabca and this have been confirmed clearly by archaeology
GH doesn't mention any voivodates. Also the archaeology just found some earthwork fortifications, not voivodates.

Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 11:58
   

Do you think, that the hungarian tribes, who occupied and ruled tho most of the little frankonian and slawian kingdoms and principats(sorry, Idon't know the correct word), and fought against the best armies of Europe, Frank Empire, Bizac, made war in german terrytorries, reached the Atlantik in France, looted in Burgundia, in Italy, in the Kalifat from Cordoba; that they wasn't able to make short procedure with two little voivodates??
(of wich inhabitants is not sure that they were romanians)


All the barbar invasions and conquests were lead by a small number of people. For example, the Germanic peoples who invaded the Europe in V-VIth centuries and created Germanic states everywhere (Spain, France, Italy and others) where 6% of the total population.

The efectinvness of Barbarians was due to the fact that ealry medieval European society was almost unorganized, the population sparsed.

The fact that voivodates of Biharia and Dabca opposed Hungarian invasion is attested arhcaeologicaly. But this opposition lasted only short time.



So '/3 of the cc. 2 million magyars died, after that the colonist from M and W went to a lot of destroyed and outwiped hungarian territories.


I think you are intoxicated with fake nationalist historiography. The tribes who moved in Pannonia at the end of IXth century where numbering ~25.000 warriors, so with women, elders and childs they may have reached ~100.000 people.


It's important than in these age there weren't living a lot of people in Trans., and that few population lived near by rivers and not high in the Mountains.


How you know how many lived and where they lived?



In the 15 year war (when the Kt-s damaged total Alba Jula/Gyulafehrvr) and halfed the hungarian and saxonian population, the romanian pupulation had got the leading "minority" in Transylvania.


I'm not contradicting you but also I don't believe you untill you don't bring some arguments.



Gyula: had a hungarian or Bulgarian name: Prokuj. His doughter had a turcic-hungarian name: Sarolt - little weasel - silly:-) She was the mother of I. Stephen, she cuold ride a horse, shoot with the bow and drink men under the table:-))) a real nomadian woman:-))


Don't know at which Gyulayou refer to.





Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 12:08

I think you are intoxicated with fake nationalist historiography. The tribes who moved in Pannonia at the end of IXth century where numbering ~25.000 warriors, so with women, elders and childs they may have reached ~100.000 people.
Before patronizing your debate parteners make sure you read what they write.  Tar Szerend was talking about the Mongol invasion not about the end of 9th century.

I hope you won't do similar gaffes while replying to me.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 13:43


If you remember Bobalna revolt it weren't just the Vlachs who revolted, which somehow shakens your theory of oppression on ethnic layers. While I don't deny the ethnicity as much as almost any markers of the identity were sources of conflict during the entire history of humanity, there were also Vlach nobility living quite well in medieval Transylvania, as well as Hungarian/Szekler peasantry living quite badly.
As for the extension of 15th century realities in 10th is groundless. About what rights anyway are you talking about when you address 10-11th century Transylvania? About what equality?


You're right.


You learn a language to interact with other people, not because you're "insecure" or "not equal in rights".

The adoption of a language by a whole people come only in some situations. I cann't see how the ancestors of Szeklers have learned Hungarian for interacting with them and remained a different identified group.


I don't know of any Szekler (taken ad litteram) toponym in 12th century Transylvania. Care to detail? As for Sacuieni and other toponyms how do you explain Sacueni in Wallachia? Also, do you think today's form of the toponym reflects a 12th century reality?


Sacuieni-Bihor



For Sacuieni-Bihor, read this:
http://www.metszes.hu/honlapok/szekelyhid/roman/index.htm

Sacuieni in Wallachia ofcourse are results of Romanian withdrawals from Harghita-Covasna across Carpathians.

Sorry for this quote in Romanian, I think is inteligible:


O parte a populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezată pe graniţa vestică şi nordică a ducatului, respectiv a Regatului Ungariei. Secuii sunt amintiti, printre altele, n anii 1256, 1314, 1323 şi 1364, pe latura vestică a statului maghiar, n comitatele Pozsony şi Moson. Prezenţa lor este confirmată apoi şi de numele unor localităţi, cu denumiri de genul Szkely şi Szkelyfalu, ambele n comitatul Szabolcs, formate prin includerea etnonimului maghiar atribuit secuilor. Importante comunităţi secuieşti sunt evocate documentar şi n comitatele Bars, Szerm, Gmr, Abaj, Somogy şi Baranya.

Un segment important al populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezat n părţile răsăritene ale Regatului Ungarie, pe teritoriul Transilvaniei. Sarcina principală a contingentelor secuiesti a constat n consolidarea şi apărarea fortificaţiilor de graniţă (ung. gyep). In consecinţă, comunităţile secuieşti au fost deplasate treptat, n mod planificat, concomitent cu avansarea hotarelor statului maghiar spre estul şi sud-estul Transilvanei. Prezenţe secuieşti sunt semnalate n secolele XI şi XII n anii 1116 şi 1146 n Bihor, n zona localităţilor Teleac şi Salonta, dar şi pe teritoriul actualelor judeţe Timiş şi Hunedoara. Comunităţi secuieşti, ntemeiate la o dată incertă, probabil la cumpăna secolelor XI-XII, sunt semnalate de izvoarele arheologice şi scrise pe văile rurilor Secaş, la Sebeş-Alba, şi Trnava Mare, n zona municipiilor Mediaş şi Sighişoara, dar şi n Podişul Hrtibaciului la Saschiz şi Viscri.

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui



GH doesn't mention any voivodates. Also the archaeology just found some earthwork fortifications, not voivodates.


OK, Dukedoms. And archaeology found Duke centers (even in Romanian historiography they are ratherly called Voivodates), not simply fortifications:

Biharia,
com. n jud. Bihor (la cca 12 km NV de Oradea), n marginea careia pe malul vestic al rului Cosmeu (Cesmeu) se pastreaza o mare cetate de pamnt. Aceasta este de plan rectangular (cca 180 / 220m la exteriorul santurilor), valuri late la baza de 20-30m si nalte de 5-7m si santuri adnci de 4-5m, nconjurnd cetatea pe trei laturi. Spre E, unde curgea pe sub cetate Cosmeul, santul lipseste, aici fiind alipita valului mare o fortificatie de pamnt mai scunda de plan circular alungit ("Cetatea fetelor"). Aceasta dateaza se pare din comuna primitiva, si a fost refolosita odata cu ridicarea cetatii mari dreptunghiulare... Cetatea B. a fost identificata cu "castrum Byhor" atestat de Cronica notarului anonim ca centru politic-militar al voievodatului Bihorului aflat atunci sub stapnirea "ducelui" Menumorut... Se pare ca centrul ducatului bihorean s-a mutat n secolul 11 de la B. la Oradea... precum si bordeie semiadncite datate din sec. 5-6, 7-8, 8-9 si 9-10, atestnd o locuire...
(Enciclodepia arheologiei si istoriei vechi a Romniei, 1994-2000)
....

Dabca,
com. n jud. Cluj pe terit. careia se afla o mare fortificatie cu valuri de pamnt, santuri si urme de palisade (cca 15 ha) pe terasa nalta de pe dreapta vaii Lonea... Cercetarile de amploare initiate n 1964 sunt nca n curs. Fortificatia, de plan aproximativ triunghiular, consta din 4 incinte concentrice. n prima ei perioada de existenta, cu doua faze de constructie datate de la sfrsitul sec. 8 pna la nceputul sec. 10, valurile si santurile au delimitat pe botul terasei patru incinte: a) val lat de cca 5 m precedat de berma (1,25 m) si sant adnc de 1,30 m, delimitnd incinta I, lunga de cca 50 m, nlocuit apoi printr-unval cu latimea dubla, precedat nemijlocit de sant adnc de 3,25 m; b) val lat de 8 m cu berma (2,50 m), precedat de sant lat de 5 m si adnc de 1-1,5 m, delimitnd incinta III la cca 230 m distanta de vrful botului de terasa; c) val lat de 7 m si adnc de 2,54 m, delimitnd incinta IV la aproape 600 m departare de vrful botului terasei... n incintele III si IV au fost descoperite semibordeie, locuinte de suprafata din brne de lemn, gropi de provizii, ateliere (cuptoare de redus minereul si fierarii) ce confera locuirii din sec. 9-10 caracterul de asezare ntarita. Cele mai vechi dintre bisericile ale caror temelii s-au descoperit si cercetat la D. nu beneficiaza nca de datari ferme; este posibil ca ele sa apartina sec. 10. Majoritatea materialelor arheologice descoperite la D. si datate de la sfrsitul sec. 8 la nceputul sec. 10 constau din ceramica, la aceasta adaugndu-se piese de metal (pinteni de tip carolingian placati cu foita de aur, arme, unelte etc) si piese de podoaba (pandantive din argint de factura bizantina). S_a propus identificarea primei etape a fortificatiei de la D. cu cetatea de resedinta din apropierea rului Somes a lui Gelu, voievodul romn al Transilvaniei din primii ani ai sec. 10, atestat n cronica lui Anonymus (castrum suum iuxta fluvium Zomus positum). Dezvoltarea ulterioara a asezarii de la D., n vremea extinderii stapnirii maghiare asupra Transilvaniei si cnd aici s-a instalat centrul comitatului cu acelasi nume, este aestata si de izvoarele scrise (1068 -in urbem Dobuka).
(Enciclodepia arheologiei si istoriei vechi a Romniei, 1994-2000)


Dabca


Biharia, house from 5-6th century



Read this too.
    
    

Edited by Menumorut - 29-Sep-2006 at 13:49

Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 14:35

Hi!

 
OK, I'LL show you some facts after the weekend:-).
 
Szekelys and the hungarian language:
 
prehistory:-):
There were a planty of time before some ugrian groups, who lived by the Ural(or somewhere els there)and who had a big iranian(alanian) influence(so they were nomads). some tousend miles away in the middle of the asian steppe lived the turk tribe-union of the tinglings. Some hundred years later the name changed into tiel; from this was "born the ogur and the oguz tribe-union (some times later they have built two different turcic language group). From the ogurs came the onogurs, onogundurs(proto-bulgarians), kutrigurs, utrigurs, saraugurs, kazars etc.
 
In the 7th century the kazars made a country (not with only kazar, but with different alanian and other ogur and ugric, Horezmian groups and probably some avars too). And slawes lived there too. 
In the northern part there lived ugors. I think(these all is my own teory:-), that the kazar Kagan sended an onogur group up ti this area, to defend this border land against other nomads . Here happened the same story with the onogurs like with the proto-bulgars by the Danube: they were "Magyarized":-)) by the ugors. (in about 50-100 years) Here had born the first Hetmagyar union.
Here could happened the szkely-story, or after 812(kazarian civil war), when the kabars joined to the magyars.
When Julianus had arrived in 1232 near to Volga-Bulgaria, in Magna Hungaria ("Big" (antient) hungary) there were living hungarian groops who had spoken just like the western, "european" hungarians.
In the De Adm. Imp. Konstantinos said that the kabars teached their language the hungarians, but they speak the hungarian language too. And, that in the Kaukazus are living an other hungarian group, and they send delegates to eachother.
 
  TSZ
 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 05:12

The adoption of a language by a whole people come only in some situations. I cann't see how the ancestors of Szeklers have learned Hungarian for interacting with them and remained a different identified group.
Szeklers are a Hungarian speaking group with own identity. The argument is whether they spoke it as they arrived (whenever they did) or if they learnt it after they arrived. I see absolutely no reason to dismiss a priori any of the two alternatives.
And to participate a little to your rhetoric, how do you see the ancestors of today Szeklers preserving their identity as a Hungarian speaking group? Why did they not simply become Hungarians?

O parte a populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezată pe graniţa vestică şi nordică a ducatului, respectiv a Regatului Ungariei. Secuii sunt amintiti, printre altele, n anii 1256, 1314, 1323 şi 1364, pe latura vestică a statului maghiar, n comitatele Pozsony şi Moson. Prezenţa lor este confirmată apoi şi de numele unor localităţi, cu denumiri de genul Szkely şi Szkelyfalu, ambele n comitatul Szabolcs, formate prin includerea etnonimului maghiar atribuit secuilor. Importante comunităţi secuieşti sunt evocate documentar şi n comitatele Bars, Szerm, Gmr, Abaj, Somogy şi Baranya.

Un segment important al populaţiei secuieşti a fost aşezat n părţile răsăritene ale Regatului Ungarie, pe teritoriul Transilvaniei. Sarcina principală a contingentelor secuiesti a constat n consolidarea şi apărarea fortificaţiilor de graniţă (ung. gyep). In consecinţă, comunităţile secuieşti au fost deplasate treptat, n mod planificat, concomitent cu avansarea hotarelor statului maghiar spre estul şi sud-estul Transilvanei. Prezenţe secuieşti sunt semnalate n secolele XI şi XII n anii 1116 şi 1146 n Bihor, n zona localităţilor Teleac şi Salonta, dar şi pe teritoriul actualelor judeţe Timiş şi Hunedoara. Comunităţi secuieşti, ntemeiate la o dată incertă, probabil la cumpăna secolelor XI-XII, sunt semnalate de izvoarele arheologice şi scrise pe văile rurilor Secaş, la Sebeş-Alba, şi Trnava Mare, n zona municipiilor Mediaş şi Sighişoara, dar şi n Podişul Hrtibaciului la Saschiz şi Viscri.
I'm not following what are you trying to prove. How would these make their name deriving from "seat"? 

And "denumiri de genul" hides an uncertainty and an inaccuracy. For instance, I've found out that Bihor's Sacuieni was attested in 1291 as Zekelyhid and there's also another contemporary settlement in Bihor known as Zekelteluk, though earlier in the same area I've found Zakulhyd (1278), Zekulhyd - also sometime during 13th century, Sicula (1234). So as you can see, though the toponyms suggest a Szekler presence they certainly do not suggest that "szek" (as "seat") was the root of all these terms. Looking for more such toponyms I've found a large variety: "zek", "zeek", "zak", "szak", "zegh", "zeech", "zyk", "zik", "sic", "scec", "scek" etc.. It's also true that we might have several roots for this variety of toponyms, that we might have here a hesitation of the Hungarian administration to adapt their own words to Latin culture and writing, but as well can be other words foreign to Hungarian.
Such a foreign word could be the Romanian "sec" (it or its derivates are found in toponymy as "sec", "seaca", "sac", "saca", "secatura", "sacatura", etc.), and even its source from Latin, "siccus"/"sicca" which can mean: dry, barren, arid, husky, empty, etc.. And we have a quite a number of mentions suggesting such meaning. A small river called "Szek - Asszo - patak", "Valleszaka vel Szarazpatak" during 12th century, "Valle Zeku" during Andrew II, or a document from 1341 mentioning a small valley "quod vulgo dicitur Zeek". Between "szek" and "sec", for a valley it makes more sense the second meaning.
A very interesting mention is at the middle of 13th century: terra Zek, which is a land "inter terras Olacorum de Kyrch, Saxonum de Barasu et terras Siculorum de Sebus" (which seems to point in the actual Szekelyfold). This "terra Zek" belonged to a Saxon, Fulkun, and after the Mongol invasion remained deserted and uninhabited. And the king Bela IV gave this land to a Szekler named Vincentius. Was this 13th century "terra Zek" a "Szekler seat"? Moreover, considering the description of the land, the interpretation "zek" = "sec" seems to provide a good description and a suggestive toponym.

For another example of a rather modern Szek check this toponym: hospites nostri de Zek (1291), villa Zek (1310), Scekakna (1315), decimae salium de Zekakna (1326), Zeeg (1333), Zyk (1370), comites camerarum salium de Szek (1410), oppidum Szek (1430), villa Skekakna (1438), Zeek (1545, 1579), Szekvaros (1750), Sziku (1839), Szek, Sic (1854).

And archaeology found Duke centers (even in Romanian historiography they are ratherly called Voivodates), not simply fortifications:
If you read carefully the text you'd notice that there's no evidence they were actually dukedoms, other but GH's mention. They are described as earthwork fortifications.

Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 09:04
    
I see absolutely no reason to dismiss a priori any of the two alternatives.


So, you say is possible Szeklers to have been spoking another than Hungarian language when they arrived.

As Tar sayed, Szeklers were not regular colonists, like Saxons. They were nomad groups in Partium and Transylvania and they have been concentrated in the today territory in 12-13th century.
If they were speaking another language, I think is impossible that this language to be replaced with Hungarian as quick.
Or, at least some elements of the ancient language should have remained. But there is NOTHING, Szekler language is pure Hugarian.


Why did they not simply become Hungarians?


They preserved their tribal identity, what is so strange?
The assimilation of a group by another appears in some conditions. Szeklers being a special category of warriors of the Kingdom, so having a high level of self-conscience, is explicable that they preserved their identity.



How would these make their name deriving from "seat"?


The name of the Szekler districts, Szek (Seat) was chosen because the sounding similarity with their name, Szekely. The name Szekely is anterior to the founding of the Szekler Districts of Seats.


Moreover, considering the description of the land, the interpretation "zek" = "sec" seems to provide a good description and a suggestive toponym.


This is not convincing me. Ratherly, I think Szekely is an ancient tribal name, of an origin which may not be very interesting.




If you read carefully the text you'd notice that there's no evidence they were actually dukedoms, other but GH's mention. They are described as earthwork fortifications.


Such fortifications could belong only to some extended political organizations.

    

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 10:34


As Tar sayed, Szeklers were not regular colonists, like Saxons. They were nomad groups in Partium and Transylvania and they have been concentrated in the today territory in 12-13th century.
Evidence? Evidence on "types" of colonists in medieval Transylvania. Evidence on Szekler nomadism (what kind of nomadism, where they came from in the Carpathian Basin? - that is part of the main question). Evidence on their alleged concentration.


If they were speaking another language, I think is impossible that this language to be replaced with Hungarian as quick.
How quick, why impossible?


Or, at least some elements of the ancient language should have remained. But there is NOTHING, Szekler language is pure Hugarian.
Simon de Keza tells us about early Hungarian population: Boemi, Poloni, Greci, Bessi, Armeni et fere ex omni extera natione que sub celo est. Where are they today? Don't they speak Hungarian (or Romanian or German) today ?
Also, considering there are arguably mutual local influences between Hungarian and Romanian, between Hungarian and Slavic languages, between Hungarian and Turkic languages and other languages where a contact existed, assuming the Szeklers would have spoken one of these .. how do you know they weren't one of the agents (and Szeklers do not speak a pure Hungarian, there are dialectal differences - however I don't know what's the cause, I'm only hypothesising now)?
And also, keep in mind there were Hungarians Romanianized in Wallachia or Moldavia, as well as Romanians Magyarized in Transylvania, therefore we know it's possible that individuals and even groups to fully change their language. Their identity was preserved in toponyms, sometimes traditions, but not language.

They preserved their tribal identity, what is so strange?
You're offering a special pleading. If they preserved their "tribal" identity while speaking the same language as a large part of the population, why wouldn't they preserve it if they learnt this language?

The assimilation of a group by another appears in some conditions. Szeklers being a special category of warriors of the Kingdom, so having a high level of self-conscience, is explicable that they preserved their identity.
A "special category" shared with Pechenegs, Cumans, Saxons, Vlachs. In some battles they are the avanguard (for instance, a 12th century document blames the Szeklers and the Petchenegs for running away from the battlefield). Sometimes they are among the buffer population between the kingdom and its southern and eastern neighbours. Also I don't know of a warrior culture in the manner of the Germanic populations.


The name of the Szekler districts, Szek (Seat) was chosen because the sounding similarity with their name, Szekely. The name Szekely is anterior to the founding of the Szekler Districts of Seats.
 Why Szekely (what does this ethnonym mean?) and not Zakuli, Zekeli, Siculi or somehow else?

Such fortifications could belong only to some extended political organizations.
While I prefer not argue about what "extended" means, my point was archaeology doesn't say anything about voivodates or dukedoms. Don't invoke other disciplines to support such assertions.



Edited by Chilbudios - 02-Oct-2006 at 10:48
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 14:29
Evidence on "types" of colonists in medieval Transylvania. Evidence on Szekler nomadism (what kind of nomadism, where they came from in the Carpathian Basin? - that is part of the main question). Evidence on their alleged concentration.


I will quote from the same page of Romanian Wikipedia:

Nu sunt cunoscute exact mprejurările şi nici data exactă la care secuii s-au alăturat ungurilor. Izvoare istorice mai trzii (Anonymus, Simon de Kza) i amintesc pe secui alături de maghiari deja n secolul X, perioadă n care secuii au preluat probabil şi limba maghiară. n calitate de popor asociat ungurilor, secuii s-au aflat permanent n avangarda trupelor maghiare, participnd alături de acestea la diferite raiduri militare.

Secuii, mpreună cu pecenegii, sunt evocaţi n anul 1116 n avangarda trupelor maghiare, n calitate de combatanţi n bătălia de la Olsava condusă de regele Ştefan al II-lea al Ungariei (1116-1131). Cteva decenii mai trziu, n anul 1146, i regăsim pe secui, alături de aceeaşi pecenegi, n oastea regelui Gza al II-lea al Ungariei (1141-1162), n luptele de pe Leitha, duse mpotriva margrafului Heinrich al II-lea de Austria. Demnă de menţionat este şi participarea secuilor, alături de romni, saşi şi pecenegi, n trupele conduse de comitele Joachim al Sibiului, trimise ntre anii 1210-1213 de regele Andrei al II-lea al Ungariei n sprijinul aliatului său ţarul Borilă al Bulgariei (1207-1218). n fine, secuii au făcut parte şi din structura trupelor regelui Andrei al II-lea, participant ntre anii 1217-1218 la Cruciada a V-a, care au luptat n Palestina mpotriva arabilor conduşi de Al Malik al-Adil (1193-1218) din dinastia Aiybidă.

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui



How quick, why impossible?


Because Szeklers were living separately from Hungarians. the Hungarian population in Central Transylvania was scarce. There are no conditions for a Hungarization after the colonization.


Simon de Keza tells us about early Hungarian population: Boemi, Poloni, Greci, Bessi, Armeni et fere ex omni extera natione que sub celo est. Where are they today? Don't they speak Hungarian (or Romanian or German) today ?


Yes, but due to Hungarization in the later period. You may know that Gherla was called Armenopolis.

And don't forget: Why there is nothing non-Hungarian in Szeklers' language? Even the smallest original element (dont tell about dialects, tell about original elements, like in some regions of Romania there are Latin origin wrods which are not to be found in other regions)?


Also, considering there are arguably mutual local influences between Hungarian and Romanian, between Hungarian and Slavic languages, between Hungarian and Turkic languages and other languages where a contact existed, assuming the Szeklers would have spoken one of these .. how do you know they weren't one of the agents (and Szeklers do not speak a pure Hungarian, there are dialectal differences - however I don't know what's the cause, I'm only hypothesising now)?


Ofcourse they have been agents, they magyarized the Romanians in the region (see
http://www.romfest.org/rost/mar2004/secui.shtml )
. But the magyarized Romanians speak also a Hungarian without original non-Romanian elements. I speak about the Chango people.


If they preserved their "tribal" identity while speaking the same language as a large part of the population, why wouldn't they preserve it if they learnt this language?


Because the colective memory about their Szekler identity could not vanish.


A "special category" shared with Pechenegs, Cumans, Saxons, Vlachs.


This phrase is against you. Why all other peoples preserved their language, only the Szeklers would have changed their?


Why Szekely (what does this ethnonym mean?) and not Zakuli, Zekeli, Siculi or somehow else?


The name Szekely may have been a tribal or group name, like for example Moldavians. Its origin are far, maybe even before the Hungarian migration and the original sense was lost. The name could have been gived by a foreigner people or could derive from a toponyme or something else.

Do you believe that the Szekler Seats have been founded early? In which century?


While I prefer not argue about what "extended" means, my point was archaeology doesn't say anything about voivodates or dukedoms.


I will prove with pure archaeological arguments, quoting from the same book with an article about a political center known only from archaeological discovery:
Fundu Hertii,
sat n com. Cristinesti (jud. Botosani), pe terit. caruia... a fost identificata, prin ample sapaturi arheologice, o asezare din sec. 8-11 d.H. situata n marginea de S-V a satului, pe locul "La reduta". Asezarea este ntarita cu un val de pamnt lateral si cu 3 valuri de pamnt si 3 santuri adiacente, transversale pe directia caii de acces, delimitnd o incinta cu o suprafata de cca 2,5 ha. Valurile de pamnt transversale si laterale, pastrate pna la nalt. de cca 1,00m - 2,50m, au fost prevazute initial cu palisade de lemn, dispuse ca un gard pe culmea lor, iar pe pantele exterioare placate cu lespezi de piatra... ...n interiorul cetatuii au fost descoperite numeroase locuinte, partial adncite n pamnt, adosate la valurile laterale si transversale. Locuintele contineau ca inventar unelte si arme de fier, precum si bogate resturi ceramice lucrate cu roata si cu mna, ornamentate cu incizii orizontale si valurite. Au fost descoperite si gropi de provizii contind gru, mei, orz si secara carbonizate... ...Analiza sistemului de aparare, a locuintelor si a inventarului lor atesta faptul ca cetatea apartine, ca si altele din Moldova, populatiei vechi romnesti (constituita ntr-un cnezat) si ca a fost ridicata ca mijloc de aparare mpotriva navalirilor ungurilor, uzilor si pecenegilor la E de Muntii Carpati.
(Enciclodepia arheologiei si istoriei vechi a Romniei, 1994-2000)



    

Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 16:12
Hi!
Cuold we make a new topic with the Changos?
Ther is an interesting chango sentence: Hagyv hagyta magyarit az magyarok csszra(kirlya).
The hungarian king had left his hungarians away.
 
 
In the 1340's the hungarian and the transylvanian vojvod, Lackffy attacked many times with the seklers the Moldavian terr. of the Golden Hord. After that, when Radul(?) made Moldavia, the romanians weren't very strong to fight against the tartars, and the alans (jazigs, jaszok) left the land to (they moved to Hungary), so the hungarians settled little army groups out from the Carpatians, near to the old alanian city, Jasi (Jszvsr) (Jazig market). And after that, some szeklers moved to Moldva as colonists. Like the Walachs to Trans. .All hungarian kings helped the colonization, just
Corvinus, who turned the H. politic to the north from the south and east, had left this way. So the King was him.
 
The szekelys (not the other nomad hungarians and maybe besenyos and horesmians, who joined to them on their way)were settled after Gy. Kristo in the 10-11. c. in the Northwestern and western borderlands and by the innerborders of the comitats (by the duty places) and by the capitals of the dukes (f.e by Bihar comitatus: Szkelyhd stb.) Inthe Time of I. Ladislau and Kalman and II. Stephen they were moved to the east, against the Kipchaks. The place of the szekelys were taken by the big number of pechenegs, who were emigrated to Hungary after their final damage in 1122. Some szkelys didn't moved, their villages were in the Őrsg, and in the western parts of the western hungarian comitats. They have in nowdays related dialekts with the Transylvanians.
The first seks were in the saxonian lands (there weren't any saxons that time. When in he 1170's-90's the kings invited the saxons, and they moved the sekelys to the seks of today. (it can be seen by the nomadic graves under saxonian temples and cemeteries)
 
A lot of hungarians lived in Trans (f.e: in Kolozs district,) and just after the Mongol storms were the most of their villages deserted.
in 1241 f.e. near by Egres (there were livin the cistercienses) the inhabitants of 70 hungarian villages made a big earth-wood castle and fought against the mongols, but they failed, and were masacred.
 
Oh: I've red the Book Tatrjrs (Osiris Pres): Carpini, Master Rogerius : the last was here by the Mongolstorm: he was captured in Trans. by the mongols after Muhi, but he could run away; in his script there were armenians, kipchaks, saxons, seklers, hungarians but now walachians. I searc after an english or german version in the net, hope I'll find one.
 
TSZ
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 19:29
Cuold we make a new topic with the Changos?
    

You can start a new topic for Changos if you want. As Changos are surely an effect of Szeklers (either as magyarized Romanians either as Hungarians) I think we can speak about them on this topic, but how you want.



After that, when Radul(?) made Moldavia, the romanians weren't very strong to fight against the tartars, and the alans (jazigs, jaszok) left the land to (they moved to Hungary), so the hungarians settled little army groups out from the Carpatians, near to the old alanian city, Jasi (Jszvsr) (Jazig market).


Any sources for such a late existence of the Alans?



And after that, some szeklers moved to Moldva as colonists.


Please, mention that thes are just your supositions. Origin of Changos is not known. Anything we know is that people exist, not when and how they arrived in Moldavia.
Anyway, the mention of Hungarian speaking in Moldavia is from XIIIth century, so your theory is surely not correct:
Primele surse(de indicat sursele) menţionează prezenţa unei comunităţi etnice maghiare n Moldova ncă din secolul al XIII-lea.
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceang%C4%83i

See also
http://www.ceangai.ro/ (Very interesting the page about the names of Changos in old documents, nakmes which even magyarized are of Romanian origin. The site is the official site of Chango community.)




Like the Walachs to Trans.


Actualy, the flux was from Transylvania to Wallachia and Moldavia. How many Moldavian or Muntenian name villages are in Transylvania? I never heard of one.

But in Moldavia and Wallachia there are hundreds villages founded by Transylvanians. Myself, I was born in such a village, in Vlcea county.




in 1241 f.e. near by Egres (there were livin the cistercienses) the inhabitants of 70 hungarian villages made a big earth-wood castle and fought against the mongols, but they failed, and were masacred.


The region of the 70 villages is Peregul Mic in Arad county (see:
http://www.virtualarad.net/county/Peregul%20Mic/virtual_peregul_mic_home.htm )

There, in the neighborhoods, it is the oldest Romanian monastery still in service, Hodos-Bodrog, mentioned in 12th century but existing in 11th century:
http://www.manastireabodrog.ro/istorie_engleza.htm

Also, at some tens kms, near Arad city (Frumuseni comune), it was a most important Christian-Orthodox center, an 11th century Byzantine-style monastery recently discovered archaeologicaly:
http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/finds/bizere/bizere.htm


So, in a strong Orthodox area, how could you speak about 70 Hungarian villages?




Oh: I've red the Book Tatrjrs (Osiris Pres): Carpini, Master Rogerius : the last was here by the Mongolstorm: he was captured in Trans. by the mongols after Muhi, but he could run away; in his script there were armenians, kipchaks, saxons, seklers, hungarians but now walachians. I searc after an english or german version in the net, hope I'll find one.


Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Hungarian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Hungarian sources and read other sources.

Let me help you with Rogerius' Carmen Miserabile:

The Carmen Miserabile of the Italian prelate Rogerius is a chronicle written after 1241 (occupation of Transylvania by the Tatars which he witnessed) giving interesting details of the organization of the Transylvanian knezates, a type of administration which was characteristic of the Roumanian communities.

Rogerius tells us how the inhabitants of the village of Frata (today Magyar-Frata, near Cluj, entirely Roumanian) received him, offering him black bread; the village population ('quae Frata dicitur in vulgari,' in the vulgar Latin, or Ausonian, spoken by the inhabitants) 'contituerunt canesios (ie knezes) id est balivios, qui justitiam facerent...et erant canesii fere centum... Conveniebant canesii pene qualibet septimana...Elegi igitur potius cum ipsis canesiis ad exercitum ire...Canesii vero ad recipienda munera acceserunt'.
     These knezes 'brought back peace' (after the Tatar invasion). Neither the Hungarians nor the Saxons of Transylvania availed themselves of the institution of knezates which was purely Roumanian (the word was Slavonic but was the title of prince in Russia), nor of the 'scaune' or seats of justice. The part of the country inhabited from the end of the thirteenth century to the present day by the Szekels - Siculi - has always been called 'Trei-Scaune' in Roumanian.

http://www.vlachophiles.net/ghika.htm

or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerius_of_Apulia


    

Edited by Menumorut - 02-Oct-2006 at 19:54

Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 02:45

Originally posted by Menumorut


Any sources for such a late existence of the Alans?
The jszok were a group of Alans. Their name was Asi or As in Arabic and Turkic languages. Presumably they first arrived Hungary together with the Cumans. In the 13th century they were still numerous enough to serve as border guard people in the Byzantine Empire. Some 14th century maps describe Moldavia as Alania. Only after the formation Romanian principalities they disappered.

Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Hungarian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Hungarian sources and read other sources.


Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Romanian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Romanian sources and read other sources. Wink

This is nonsense you couldn't exclude sources just because you disagree with them.

Rogerius' Carmen Miserabile:

'quae Frata dicitur in vulgari,' in the vulgar Latin, or Ausonian, spoken by the inhabitants) '
"In vulgariter" or "in vulgari" are frequent formulas of medieval sources. It doesn't mean vulgar Latin, but the tongue of the people.
 
for example (ZsOkl. V. 247 1415): ad duas arbores vulgariter thulfa et nyrfa=
towards two trees named in common tongue tlgyfa and nyrfa
 
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 04:07
Presumably they first arrived Hungary together with the Cumans. In the 13th century they were still numerous enough to serve as border guard people in the Byzantine Empire.


Surely is not a confussion in the Byzantine sources? It's known that Byzantines attributed names of Ancient peoples to some who came from the same regions in their time.



Some 14th century maps describe Moldavia as Alania.

Wow! 14th century maps of Moldavia. And me was thinking that the oldest maps of Moldavia are from 16th century.


Only after the formation Romanian principalities they disappered.


On what is based this theory? Only on Iassy city name? This name could came from many other things. I didn't heard about Yazig archaeological discoveries in Romania later than 4th century AD, and that in the West of the country (Partium). In Moldavia, Sarmatians vanished with the left of the Goths in 376. There is not any sign of Goths or Sarmatians after this date. And I never heard about non-Christian discoveries after 13th century in Moldavia.



Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Romanian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Romanian sources and read other sources.

Actualy not. Romanian historiography is in accordance with international historiography.


"In vulgariter" or "in vulgari" are frequent formulas of medieval sources. It doesn't mean vulgar Latin, but the tongue of the people.


Rogerius explained there that Frata, the name of the village, is the name in vulgar language, as you say, the language of the people. Rogerius observed the vulgar Latin origin of this name and knowing that the people in village was spoken this language, considered necesary to make that explanation.

So, the people of the village was spoking vulgar Latin, Romanian.

   

Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 04:32
Originally posted by Menumorut

Presumably they first arrived Hungary together with the Cumans. In the 13th century they were still numerous enough to serve as border guard people in the Byzantine Empire.


Surely is not a confussion in the Byzantine sources? It's known that Byzantines attributed names of Ancient peoples to some who came from the same regions in their time.

Some 14th century maps describe Moldavia as Alania.

Wow! 14th century maps of Moldavia. And me was thinking that the oldest maps of Moldavia are from 16th century.


Only after the formation Romanian principalities they disappered.


On what is based this theory? Only on Iassy city name? This name could came from many other things. I didn't heard about Yazig archaeological discoveries in Romania later than 4th century AD, and that in the West of the country (Partium). In Moldavia, Sarmatians vanished with the left of the Goths in 376. There is not any sign of Goths or Sarmatians after this date. And I never heard about non-Christian discoveries after 13th century in Moldavia.



Please make an effort and understand that some (most?) of Romanian historians are deliberately covering the thruth. Try to avoid Romanian sources and read other sources.

Actualy not. Romanian historiography is in accordance with international historiography.


"In vulgariter" or "in vulgari" are frequent formulas of medieval sources. It doesn't mean vulgar Latin, but the tongue of the people.


Rogerius explained there that Frata, the name of the village, is the name in vulgar language, as you say, the language of the people. Rogerius observed the vulgar Latin origin of this name and knowing that the people in village was spoken this language, considered necesary to make that explanation.

So, the people of the village was spoking vulgar Latin, Romanian. 

1. Alans: I used secondary sources, if you wish I will try to find some more precize sources.
2. International historiography is mostly not interested in Romanian-Hungarian disputes. They generally use secondary sources written by Romanian or Hungarian historians.
3. I do not see how Rogerius speculated about the origin of the village name. There is no such thing in the text.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 04:56
1. Alans: I used secondary sources, if you wish I will try to find some more precize sources.


Only if you want, but I think we already are too far off topic here.



2. International historiography is mostly not interested in Romanian-Hungarian disputes. They generally use secondary sources written by Romanian or Hungarian historians.


I don't understand: they are not interested but they are taking the Romanian and Hungarian sources? You think that these historians are so trustfull to Romanian and Hungarian interpretations?

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that everybody could make an impression about objectivity of the Hungarian historians on one side and Romanian on the other side. The Hungarian interpretations are (with few exceptions) strongly tendencious. I can prove this but not now, later.



3. I do not see how Rogerius speculated about the origin of the village name. There is no such thing in the text.


I dont have the Rogerius' text, only that quota in Matila Ghyka webpage and the mention of a the vulgari language is about Frata: quae Frata dicitur in vulgari.

Also, have you mentioned the several refferencies of Rogerius at canesios (knezes)?

For me, Rogerius's Carmen Miserabile is a proof that Transylvania was peopled almost only by Romanians even in 13th century (excepting the land were Saxon and Szekler colonists have been brought) and the today Hungarians are magyarized Romanians.
    

Edited by Menumorut - 03-Oct-2006 at 04:58

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.