just curiosity, do the magars accept Atilla as they ancestor?

The Romanovs claiming Roman linkage when in reality they were of Viking decent. What ever works I guess!  

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.

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.

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.

"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!

"Language-------------X--------------------------- (ONLY A hypothese, NOT PROVEN) "

It is proven.

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?

Kenaney:

As much as I know the scythian were of iraninan origin. I think Minchickie spoke  about their culture.

About relationship beetwen Bulgarians and Hungarians:

The ancestor of dinasty Dulo was Attila called Avitohol. The ancestor of dinasty Árpád was also Attila.

No its not! Its quite arguable! Read this: http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/index1.html - http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/index1.html

Read it all because it does explain the situation well!

Language relativety does not mean any genetic relation. Why do most Hungarians pretend to be some kind of fake Arian nation? We are from Asia!

It is not known that the original homeland of the Hungarians was either the western or the eastern side of the Ural. (It depends whom you ask.)Personally I don't think that it has any relevance.

The theory, that Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric language was made in the 19th century when the Habsburgs ruled the country, and the Hungarian people was 'awaking'. They wanted to have an independent country(1848-49), they wanted to know the history of the nation. So, the Habsburgs hired some 'linguists' just to make the people quiet by teaching them and telling them: 'here you are, they are your natives, this is the history of your language'. They didn't wanted to tell them the truth, they just wanted to tell them something. And this theory is teached in every schools in Hungary. Some linguists who found other evideces didn't get money from the gov. or from official organisations, because Hungary was not an independent country( 20th century-soviets). There was scientist who made researches and who wrote books, but they couldn't get enough publicity, because thr official point was 'that a little country could not have big history'. And the Academy doesn't want to even take up this question, because the people there who work with the Finno-Ugoric thing don"t want to lose the job, and there are a lot of people who remained there from the communist times.
Before this theory was made, many Hungarian authors and poets marked themselves as the succession of the Huns, and nobody thougt, we're finno-ugorics. Thats interesting.

This theory also played a major part when Hungarians were being looked down upon by basically every surrounding country as "Asian steppe people associated with the Turks and Mongols as being leftover barbaric people" so we took advantage of this bland theory to say the Finns are our brothers hence we had been native to Europe and the north connected by the Finns.

I realize that Finns have some similarities in the Hungarian language (even though we dont understand each other at all) but Magyars have a closer cultural and genetic connection with the steppe people even today. I feel more comfortable with it being an overall Ural-Altaic theory than split in two with just Finno-Ugriac and Altaic as separate groups.

Anthropology and Genetics

Anthropology can point to the Hungarian homeland through physiological research. The old country of Hungarians must be sought where people lived, or still live who are physically like Hungarians. The Uyghur cemetery at Astana near the Jungar Gate provides the answer to this, revealed by Aurel Stein between 1913 and 1915, with 1200 more graves discovered by the Uyghurs and Chinese in 1986. The people buried there were physically the same as the Hungarians who settled in the Carpathian Basin. Also demonstrative is the fact that typically Turanian, Pamirian and Taurid genetic elements, that entered the Carpathian Basin with the Hungarians, are common only among the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, but occur nowhere else in Europe.

Aside from physiology, recent genetic research has provided clues about national origins and kinships. Within the Landsteiner Blood group system, the rate of the typically Hungarian "0" and "B" blood types (31.05% and 17.90%) is off from that of Indo-European and Finno-Ugric nations, but is within the range found among Central Asian Turkic nations. Besides this, there is another blood type among Hungarians, the Diego [A+], present in no other people of Europe. The "Mongolian spot", almost unknown in Europe, has 22.6% occurrence, and Lactose intolerance (missing lactose digestive enzyme), rare elsewhere, is at 37% among Hungarians, as in Central Asia. The skin splinter system of Hungarians has Central Asian characteristic (low bend rates, but high vortexes). The Gm-marker research pointed out that the Gm abst and Gm afb3 gene markers occurring among Hungarians are missing among other European populations. International Mitochondrial DNA research has also recently identified additional Central Asian characteristics among Hungarians.

Now that i believe that since all the men in my family have Asiatic features, dark hair, wider cheekbones, somewhat slanted in the eyes.

I have seen this with many Hungarians in my lifetime.
It all depends on today with who mixes with whom regionally.

Before 1918 the Habsburg dinasty was the evil enemy who faked the Hungarian history, between 1920-1945 the jews faked Hungarian history, after 1945 the soviet communists faked Hungarian history. You can't be serious to beleive this thing.  There is no mean scholar who questions the finno-ugric origin of the Hungarian language.

But I believe! Every country had it in mind that Magyars are not European and they were right except we deserved our right to stay but noone else agreed with that and so we had many things to deny and portray. Stands to reason. But I think today we have nothing to feel guilty about and we should be proud of who we are,,, Hunnic, Asian Finn, Turk, Mongol, whatever people want to call us. We are Magyar and thats it! No need to claim our "brothers" to be European!

minchickie:

What is European? What is Asian? 

Remember, for cronichel writers River Don was the natural border of Europe...

And Indo-Europeans came from Asia into Europe, too.

Originally posted by tadamson Originally posted by great_hunnic_empire Yes, After his death Huns went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks   No...    The Goths and others rose up and broke the control of the Huns. The Alans split and moved West.  Many individual Huns joine the Roman Armies. There was no mass migration of Huns thousands of miles to join the gok Turk.

yes Goth rose up and germenics too. So think of other way round, they migrated from Central Asia to Europe, so why should not they migrate back? it's simple they were nomadic

Also there was a another threat for east romans 150 years later after Attila's death. Avar Turkish Empire. This empire were consists of Peceneks and Huns Turkish tribes.

You mean east romans right? because West Romans was collapsed shortly after GrayWolf death.

Peceneks joined to Roman army but after they found out they were fighting against Turks in Manzigert War 1071 they changed their side.

They went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks, Uygurs, North and South Huns where located northern India in that time.

I will not be discussing anymore about Huns because it's already accepted origin of them, lifestyle, leaders and politics between another nations

 Yes there is many accounts of Huns serving in 6th and 7th century Byzantine armies as mercenaries for example, its seems they were largely dispersed or assimilated after the Hun empire collapsed.

 It should be pointed out that the *huns* themselves wernt in very high numbers Ive read accounts of the battle of Chalons that suggest only around 10 - 15 thousand of the *hunnic* army were actually huns and the rest were an assortment of Gepids and Ostrogoths and other germanics who fought for the Hun King.

worked for roman army as mercenaries? C'mon romans had enough of them, why should they be needed Hun's help

Yes Huns werent large enough of population but they were given high spiritual powers to make rule over romans, goths, vandals, germenic right? or they were so weak, who anyone can manipulated them easily and made Huns big threats for Romans by germenic, goths, vandals, franks, saxons

Huns where more then 10 000, with 10 000 men you cant conquer a place like ukraine nowadays...

Its also said, the archers, warriors took their familiy with them so if there where 10 000 warriors, archers plus their family...

 The Huns could be excellent mercenaries, ferocious, fearless, their reputation alone scared the hell out of their enemies, their charges were murderous and enemies rarely stood against them and for good reasons.

 I dont know what the Hun population when they entered Europe but I did definately hear that its may have been 10,000 huns at Chalons, most of their army was made up of Ostrogoths and Gepids and god knows what else. Allies were obviously hugely important to the Huns.

 I'd like to know though what was the size and composition of Attilas army when it invaded Italy after Chalons?

Originally posted by great_hunnic_empire Yes, After his death Huns went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks

? are you sure? It would be quite silly.

I disagree, Chingiz' empire was a quite different Steppe empire from previous ones in that he did conquer settled lands as opposed to just raid them like most other Nomads (in europe at least).

the battle of Chalons and the following last camapign of Attila give a good picture of Steppe warfare but is mostly distorted in favour of a more pro-Roman viewpoint. anyways, it has been noted that at the battle of Chalons, on both sides mostly German allies of both Rome and Huns fought each others, the actual amount of native Roman and Hun troops at the battle is comparably low. the battle was very bloody and costly for both sides and the Huns eventually mounted a feigned retreat which was either ignored by the Romans & allies or the losses were too high to pursue the Huns. this would explain why the Huns lost at Chalons and why they still had the capability of raiding Italy afterwards unopposed.

Many native tribes of conquered lands would join the armies of Attila's Huns and Cengiz's Mongols. I agree with Temujin's view regarding steppe tactics in warfare. This could explain why Atilla had the reserves to continue his hold on his empire after Chalons.

The Mongols empire(s) were very efficient in governing their territories. From their mature postal system to global trade, the Mongol's strict adherance to the yassa could be one reason for their success. 

Hungarians an Bulgarians are somewhat later settlers, as Attila the Hun's people went up north. Today's Finns have 25% of our genes herited from the Hunns.

Hope this helps.