First, I must explain a few things: I understand and recognize the presence of any Hungarian people on these forums. I must say that, although I am part-Hungarian by heritage, I have never lived in, least of all visited, Hungary, and cannot speak the language save for a few words or sentences here or there.

A Hungarian person in my class often mentions how many people overlook Hungary, even just in common knowlege. Hungarian history, not even detailed history, is most often found exclusively in obscure graduate school or college classes, and most schools (outside Central Europe, of course, and especially in the Americas) don't have a Hungarian langage/culture/history department.

Perhaps it is because Hungary has no "world wonder". Or perhaps it has been around for so long that historians do not bother to preach about its 1000-year-old history. No matter what theory you may take, it is hard to disbelieve the fact that Hungary has slipped through the sieve of common knowlege.

Due to recent events that I don't think I need to explain, some historians or non-Hungarians are beginning to doubt Hungary's status as a republic (much like Putin's not-so-democratic rule of Russia). I do not wish to impose upon you or take an opinion of any of these events; however, Hungary's declining economy (which will be even more so after the integration of the Euro in the near future) combined with a lack of understanding of both the country's culture and its language's reputation as an extremely difficult one makes it hard for so people to see through the veil of doubt and ignorance that surrounds the Central European country.

But what, my friend asks, can be done? It's quite sad, in my opinion, how not just Hungary is being overlooked. Well-known facts such as the rapid extinction of languages and cultures and the endangerment of more major ones (Romansch, Breton) will lead some, including myself, to see a monolingual, monocultural world in the future.

Do any of you have any opinions on this?

I think it's because (1) Hungary's period of greatness was before 1526, and (2) it's in Eastern Europe, where it was buried behind the Iron Curtain for many years. European history books written in Western Europe tended to act as if Eastern Europe (outside of Russia) didn't exist. Bohemia and Poland-Lithuania also tend to be undervalued.

sydhe makes a good point. Though I think Poland, and even the Czech Republic get more attention. I guess its also because there really isnt too many Hungarians (like 10 million?). Also for a large time they were part of the Austrian Empire.

You must watch The District (http://www.cine.hu/district/), one of the funniest films I've seen in recent years, which mocks (among other things) American ignorance of Hungary...

I never really realised Hungary had such a history until I did a bit of research on it after playing Mediaeval II: Total War. Before then I knew there was Austria-Hungary but never realised it was a large empire before that.

I think it's been forgotten because it's now a small Eastern European country. Europe has changed a lot due to the world wars.

i think part of the problem lies with few people knowing any famous hungarians. apart from franz liszt, bela lugosi, and ferenc puskas :worship: , hungary and it's history don't readily spring to mind as much as other countries. but that could be said of many east euro countries, as sydhe has pointed out. our loss.

i think part of the problem lies with few people knowing any famous hungarians. apart from franz liszt, bela lugosi, and ferenc puskas :worship: , hungary and it's history don't readily spring to mind as much as other countries. but that could be said of many east euro countries, as sydhe has pointed out. our loss.
You forgot László Bíró (inventor of the biro, or "ballpoint pen" to us American-English speakers).

But of course I agree with you. Many, many countries, not just in Eastern Europe, are losing touch with today's history books and everyday conversation. Perhaps, instead of simply giving out financial aid or (in more impoverished nations) food, wealthy countires such as the United States should commence programs to teach its citizens about these "forgotten countries" and make an attempt to integrate world culture (and not just French or, say, Spanish culture) into their school curriculums.

But I guess a vain celebrity trying to gain press coverage and a good reputation by adopting a baby from a third-world country may spotlight the country for a while.:rolleyes:

You forgot László Bíró (inventor of the biro, or "ballpoint pen" to us American-English speakers).

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Laszlo Biro's patent was issued in 15 June, 1938, while John J Loud issued the first patent of a ballpoint pen on 30 October 1888, 50 years before that. Biro's model was just an improvement. :)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Laszlo Biro's patent was issued in 15 June, 1938, while John J Loud issued the first patent of a ballpoint pen on 30 October 1888, 50 years before that. Biro's model was just an improvement. :)
However, Mr. Biro was justly credited by inventing the biro for the previous model, patented by Mr. Loud, was drastically different and less efficient than Mr. Biro's. Although one could say Mr. Loud invented it, one must consider that Mr. Biro's version is easy to manufacture and use, thus being a more legitimate invention, as time has explained to us; perhaps this is why his name was bestowed upon the invention in common usage?

But petty details must be dismissed. Hungarian and other less-noticed countries have only a handful of famous persons, although almost every country has an equal amount of people that have, in some way, impacted our world today.

Hungary is a small and insignificant country.

That's just the truth!

i think part of the problem lies with few people knowing any famous hungarians. apart from franz liszt, bela lugosi, and ferenc puskas :worship: , hungary and it's history don't readily spring to mind as much as other countries. but that could be said of many east euro countries, as sydhe has pointed out. our loss.

And, of course, Zsa Zsa, Eva and Magda Gabor. Although I tend to think of kings such as St. Stephen, Louis the Great, John Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus.

The problem with Hungary is that the more recent history is, the more people pay attention to it. And, in recent history, Hungary just hasn't been there in a particularly significant way.

Hungary (and the rest of the eastern european states) were only their own masters for about thirty years throughout the twentieth century ; the rest of the time they were, direclty or indirectly, the puppet of some of the bigger European fishes (Austria early on, but mostly Germany and Russia/USSR).

The same goes for the nineteenth century, which Hungary spent (in the simplified history most people deal with) as part of the Austrian empire (Austro-Hungarian, but again - the capital was in Austria, the ruling house was the Habsburgs, so its generally understood as Austrian), and Poland partitioned still.

Poland, and the rest of eastern Europe's time in the sun came in the medieval and early modern era, which is a very long time ago for most people.

The problem is reflected in what countries get a spot as civ's in Civ.

A problem is the attention span and depth of interest that the average Joe possesses.
People have grown accustomed to the superficial pieces of info quickly flashed before their eyes in commercials or even newsfeeds. Its over before it started and the everyday bombardment of advertising makes sure you mainly think about what to consume.
That divided between work or school and most people just don't have time to care.

I think it's because (1) Hungary's period of greatness was before 1526, and (2) it's in Eastern Europe, where it was buried behind the Iron Curtain for many years. European history books written in Western Europe tended to act as if Eastern Europe (outside of Russia) didn't exist. Bohemia and Poland-Lithuania also tend to be undervalued.

Not to mention Hungary got buried in the Ottoman Empire in 1526...

I think it's because (1) Hungary's period of greatness was before 1526, and (2) it's in Eastern Europe, where it was buried behind the Iron Curtain for many years. European history books written in Western Europe tended to act as if Eastern Europe (outside of Russia) didn't exist. Bohemia and Poland-Lithuania also tend to be undervalued.

Indeed. It is rather shameful that the colorful culture from this area is either repressed or forgotten.

Wasn't Elizabeth Bathory of hungarian ancestery/nationality?

you should be proud. ;) :)

How can it by Hungary so close to Greece and Turkey anyway?

Hungry, grease and turkey the animal

I've been twice to Budapest, and I find it's a nice city with some history in it.
For instance, the metro of Budapest is the oldest in continental Europe

I had heard of Saint Elizabeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_of_Hungary) of Hungary.

So I guess not all famous Hungarians are serial killers.

Wasn't Elizabeth Bathory of hungarian ancestery/nationality?
Yup, mrs Dracula from next door. :D

I was in Budapest once, in my opinion its nicer city even than Prague or Vienna...

I think that ignorance is also because their strange language and origin.

Probably that's because you live in Prague. ;) Honestly from all land cities (no access to sea) I found Wien to be the most beautiful city I've been to, and Prague second.

But yes, I agree the language and origin contributed to the lack of knowledge of the people. :)

Maybe. I have to admit that Prague has maybe most beautiful sight (this well known with charles bridge nad prague castle), Vienna has not this sight but is cleaner and without communist architectonic presents. But Budapest is different at all, I like it.

I am sure that Bucurest has also some nice places.

Whats the connection to Atilla and all those Huns?

Whats the connection to Atilla and all those Huns?

There is none, really. Only connection, if you can call it that, is that both the Huns and the Magyars migrated to Europe from central Asia.

I thought they were related tribes, that migrated in different times...?

I thought they were related tribes, that migrated in different times...?

I think there are some claims that this is true, but no evidence.

I don't know. It's anyway a subject full of propaganda for so many interests, that I might be very wrong (or get others annoyed at me for this). :) So I'll let someone who knows more than me to talk.

I believe this here thread discussed it thoroughly: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140327

Vrylakas made nice posts as usual.

Ah, so what happened to the Huns anyway? Didn't Attila have a palace in Hungary or something too?

the huns just dissapeared. its one of those misterys of history. and no they didn't have a palace. although the conquered/bullied a lot of countries they never bothered to settle down. But there is a small village in france wich has hun orrigans. thus far the only place wich we know of where they settled down.
About the history of HU. even in midevil times HU was considered an "outcast" nation. It became more accepted after there defeat by the holy roman empire when they turned christian. I agree that the Hu are a forgotten country. Since I have a HU girlfriend I learned a lot more about them. She never passes on an oppertunity to teach me about them. :)

Hungarian girlfriend? I envy you! :groucho: I don't think I've seen any Hungarian girl under 30 who wasn't attractive. ;)

the huns just dissapeared. its one of those misterys of history. and no they didn't have a palace. although the conquered/bullied a lot of countries they never bothered to settle down. But there is a small village in france wich has hun orrigans. thus far the only place wich we know of where they settled down.
Ok, I'm just stupid, thanks! I know this group of people who went to Hungary, Austria, and the Czech Republic, and their tour guide spoke 7 languages- Hungarian was not one of them, according to him, he'd rather be shot in the foot than try and learn it. Sounds fun.

Oh yes, learning hungarian is reall fun. breaking your tongue over there pronouncations. I'm learning Hungarian, fortunatly they have the same sounds as my language but there language is only distantly related to one other languagethe finnish people. and there language is one of teh most difficult ones to learn. But my girlfriend says the same thing about my language. :)

Well Finnish has some 54 cases (kasus in Swedish, don't know if thats the correct translation) German has four, Polish/Russian have seven, Swedish has none/one.
How many cases does Hungarian have?

Hungarian girlfriend? I envy you! :groucho: I don't think I've seen any Hungarian girl under 30 who wasn't attractive. ;)

thnx. But there are ugly ones. Just go to hungary and youll find out.

Well Finnish has some 54 cases (kasus in Swedish, don't know if thats the correct translation) German has four, Polish/Russian have seven, Swedish has none/one.
How many cases does Hungarian have?

what are cases? I'm dutch so englis is not my native tongue.

Well its been a while since I studied any language and my brains are mush since I started working with volatile cancerous liquids but from what I remember:

In Swedish they Call the four German ones Nominativ Objekt, Ackusativ objekt, Dativ objekt, and I've forgotten what the forth one is called, damn those braincells!

Well its been a while since I studied any language and my brains are mush since I started working with volatile cancerous liquids but from what I remember:

In Swedish they Call the four German ones Nominativ Objekt, Ackusativ objekt, Dativ objekt, and I've forgotten what the forth one is called, damn those braincells!

I'm dutch not german!:mad: :mad:
Btw I suck at langueges. :) still have no idea what your trying to tell me. lol
it sounds familiar byut that is probably cause our languages are related.
nominativ=name/subject?
ackusative=sounds like acustic. or accusation. lol
dativ=time?

"I'm dutch not german! "

Well I do not know much at all about Dutch! Anyway german was one of the languages I mentioned, and it being one of Hollands greater neighbors i just assumed you would know something of it, had comparable things in Dutch grammar or understood the Swedish/Latin words I posted.;)

It is supposed, I belive, to have something to do how you bend words in senteces according to what that word is used for, describing/naming, describing time, blabla, I do not remember...

german grammar is very different from dutch. if fact dutch grammar is different from every other language in the world.
I had german and latin, but that was a very long time ago. I don't understand dutch grammar let alone foreign ones. :(

ps. I'm dutch not german was more meant as a joke. ;)

Well its been a while since I studied any language and my brains are mush since I started working with volatile cancerous liquids but from what I remember:

In Swedish they Call the four German ones Nominativ Objekt, Ackusativ objekt, Dativ objekt, and I've forgotten what the forth one is called, damn those braincells!

The fourth case is genitive, used for possession and for the objects of certain pronouns.

Well I suck at grammar as well, fortunately I have a girlfriend who studied linguistics at the university:) , unfortunately she is asleep.:sad:

All dough I did wake her up to ask here about the word Kasus, and she answered emediately! :D

Then I told her "This is exactly the kind of situation your teachers said they prepared you for, 'Learn it so well that you'll be able to answer it emediately when i wake you up in the middle of the night' they said". Fortunately she found it funny and let me live.... so I do not dare risking it again.:sad:

Thanks Sydhe!

who! pokurcz, your really brave waking your girlfriend up in the middle of the night. I bet she will get back at you one of these nights. ;) lol

thnx. But there are ugly ones. Just go to hungary and youll find out.

I've been to Hungary 3 times, and passed through it about 6 times (it's about the only route from Romania to the west, as well as my city is about the only route from anywhere to the Balkans, excluding ex-Yugoslavia). :)

Hi! anybody heard about Peace Treaty of Trianon?

If you not please read this: ."Trianon", the peace treaty which officially ended the First World War for Hungary, signed in Versailles in the Trianon Castle on the 4th of June, 1920, is one of the most catastrophic events in the history of the Hungarian Nation. With this „treaty”, the Allies or more commonly the 'Entente' implemented the decision by which Historic Hungary was dismembered. This is how, under the pretext of founding new nations, the largest minority group in Europe, the Hungarian minority, was created.
his decision, which was made without hearing Hungary's argument, forced 3.2 million Hungarians to live in other countries, suffering scorn and discrimination.
This decision was made in spite of the fact that almost all territories inhabited by Hungarians could have been left within the borders. The territories with the largest Hungarian minority are situated in a bloc just outside the present borders. Transylvania is the only exception, with communities that are farther from the borders and there are many areas still populated by pure, ethnic Hungarians.
The new borders, imposed by the treaty, had a "more far-reaching" effect than the dismemberment of the Hungarian nation: this decision sowed the seeds of the outbreak of the Second World War. It increased tension between Hungary and its 3 neighbours: Czechoslovakia, Romania, and the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom (Yugoslavia) to the bitter end. At the same time, this created an opportunity for Germany, led by Hitler, to take advantage of these conflicts of interests in order to use them for its own purposes.

That this devastating effect could have been predicted is proved by Premier Károly Huszár’s speech, January 1920: „What is waiting for us will decide not only the Hungarians' fate, but it will also mean the permanence of Europe's peace. A just peace will mean peace and safety for the European civilization, but an unjust one will be a newer suicidal attempt for Europe's peace.”
Certainly, these considerations were not taken into account at the decision-making. The main purpose was to fulfill the demands of the 3 previously mentioned neighbouring countries and, by this, to assure their long-standing Entente-friendly policy, which later proved to be unsuccessful. They also wanted to make the economic recovery of Hungary more difficult.

And we, HUNGARIANS saved Europe against the Turkish occupation.
The Noon bell
During the Siege of Nándorfehérvár (modern-day Belgrade) in 1456, Hungarian nobleman John Hunyadi defended the city against the onslaught of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II. During the siege, Pope Callixtus III ordered the bells of every church to be rung every day at noon, as a call for believers to pray for the defenders of the city. However, in many places, news of the victory arrived before the order, and the ringing of the church bells at noon thus transformed into a commemoration of the victory. The Pope didn't withdraw the order, and Catholic churches still ring the noon bell to this day.


From Wikipedia.

Will Hungarians ever get past this childish revisionism stage? I understand feeling sorry for your nation losing a war, but I don't understand why you have to think the earlier situation was justified in any way.


the decision by which Historic Hungary was dismembered.
"Historic Hungary"? You could say that in 1989, the "Historic Russia" was dismembered. Hungary was a country that managed to overpower most of its neighbors in the industrial age (except for Austria, obviously) and so it started conquering around. It was an oppressive regime, anti-orthodox and anti-minority.

This is how, under the pretext of founding new nations, the largest minority group in Europe, the Hungarian minority, was created.
No, sorry this is BS. Gypsies are the biggest minority in Europe, Jews were second, and Turks were third at the time.

Transylvania is the only exception, with communities that are farther from the borders and there are many areas still populated by pure, ethnic Hungarians.
Of course, you forgot to mention that those "pure Hungarians" (statement that BTW sounds like it's copied from a nazi book), the Szkelys you are talking about make up a grand total of 19% of the population of Transylvania.

The new borders, imposed by the treaty, had a "more far-reaching" effect than the dismemberment of the Hungarian nation: this decision sowed the seeds of the outbreak of the Second World War. It increased tension between Hungary and its 3 neighbours: Czechoslovakia, Romania, and the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom (Yugoslavia) to the bitter end. At the same time, this created an opportunity for Germany, led by Hitler, to take advantage of these conflicts of interests in order to use them for its own purposes.
We all now nazis in WW2 were evil. No need to repeat it for us.

That this devastating effect could have been predicted is proved by Premier Károly Huszár’s speech, January 1920: „What is waiting for us will decide not only the Hungarians' fate, but it will also mean the permanence of Europe's peace. A just peace will mean peace and safety for the European civilization, but an unjust one will be a newer suicidal attempt for Europe's peace.”
Certainly, these considerations were not taken into account at the decision-making. The main purpose was to fulfill the demands of the 3 previously mentioned neighbouring countries and, by this, to assure their long-standing Entente-friendly policy, which later proved to be unsuccessful. They also wanted to make the economic recovery of Hungary more difficult.

No, those countries just wanted freedom. There was no evil plot against Hungary - it was only a plan of liberation. Stop hiding facts at your will - should I point out how nobody who was not a Catholic or a Protestant was not allowed to have any access to jobs above the most basic ones? Or how the Romanians in Transylvania were not allowed to live inside the city walls, making them always the easiest victim of everything? The regime forced by the Austro-Hungarian kingdom was incredibly oppressive, and it's good that it ended. I do not blame any Hungarian today for anything that happened in the past, but I am disgusted by those who sympathize with those ideas.

And we, HUNGARIANS saved Europe against the Turkish occupation.
The Noon bell
During the Siege of Nándorfehérvár (modern-day Belgrade) in 1456, Hungarian nobleman John Hunyadi defended the city against the onslaught of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II. During the siege, Pope Callixtus III ordered the bells of every church to be rung every day at noon, as a call for believers to pray for the defenders of the city. However, in many places, news of the victory arrived before the order, and the ringing of the church bells at noon thus transformed into a commemoration of the victory. The Pope didn't withdraw the order, and Catholic churches still ring the noon bell to this day.


From Wikipedia.

Should I point out the number of times Serbia, Wallachia and Poland stopped the Ottomans? It was great that they defeated the Turks, but don't come saying you were the only ones that did. After all, Hungary was conquered by the Ottomans, while many other states weren't.

Oh man, Hungarians arguing history and national identity with Romanians?

*Grabs popcorn*

It's a show going on for more than 150 years. ;) Look, it's not that I have anything against Hungarians at all, personally, I have met so many and so many were my friends (or hot girls) that it would be really stupid to make any generalization. But what I really hate is trying to bend history in your favor. In other words, propaganda. :)

Edit: By the way, I will most likely not answer any future posts here for some time. :) I will be having 3 concerts, in Transylvania, starting with tomorrow and ending with Tuesday (first in Cluj, second in Alba Iulia and third in Bistrita - all three in Transylvania). I will probably answer in a week from now at the earliest...

http://www.trianon1920.hu/

First, I must explain a few things: I understand and recognize the presence of any Hungarian people on these forums. I must say that, although I am part-Hungarian by heritage, I have never lived in, least of all visited, Hungary, and cannot speak the language save for a few words or sentences here or there.

A Hungarian person in my class often mentions how many people overlook Hungary, even just in common knowlege. Hungarian history, not even detailed history, is most often found exclusively in obscure graduate school or college classes, and most schools (outside Central Europe, of course, and especially in the Americas) don't have a Hungarian langage/culture/history department.

Perhaps it is because Hungary has no "world wonder". Or perhaps it has been around for so long that historians do not bother to preach about its 1000-year-old history. No matter what theory you may take, it is hard to disbelieve the fact that Hungary has slipped through the sieve of common knowlege.

Due to recent events that I don't think I need to explain, some historians or non-Hungarians are beginning to doubt Hungary's status as a republic (much like Putin's not-so-democratic rule of Russia). I do not wish to impose upon you or take an opinion of any of these events; however, Hungary's declining economy (which will be even more so after the integration of the Euro in the near future) combined with a lack of understanding of both the country's culture and its language's reputation as an extremely difficult one makes it hard for so people to see through the veil of doubt and ignorance that surrounds the Central European country.

But what, my friend asks, can be done? It's quite sad, in my opinion, how not just Hungary is being overlooked. Well-known facts such as the rapid extinction of languages and cultures and the endangerment of more major ones (Romansch, Breton) will lead some, including myself, to see a monolingual, monocultural world in the future.

Do any of you have any opinions on this?

100% agreed. Same thing for Poland, (strongest, richest, biggest, and one of the most important nations in europe at one point)

"I really hate is trying to bend history in your favor."
bend history in your favor???
ok if i do that then what did you do? You also bend the history in your favor, so i don't dispute with you. Why?
1,You can't assure me, and i can't assure you.
2, And the Romanians can speak romanian language, and they can practice they persuasion. And now the hungarians can't speak in their language.
So leave this thing alone. I don't want to flee from this conversation.
But my English is not perfect so i have to learn more, then we can dispute about this thing.
And i don't want to offence your people.

(Sorry about my english)

"much like Putin's not-so-democratic rule of Russia"
Yes this unfortunately is true, our actually present government, its a "democratic-dictatorship, i mean "masked dictatorship" do you see what i mean?
Our prime minister is a liar pig, and he command the police to crush the demonstrations with brutality. after "Balaton öszöd" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Gyurcs%C3%A1ny%27s_speech_in_Balaton%C5%91s z%C3%B6d_in_May_2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hungarians

I think the reason why Hungary is so forgotten compared to Poland or Austria is because time after time, era after era for the past 600 years they had been supressed down to an insignficant cube by stronger nations. The Ottomans did it. And so did Austria. Hungary did half the fighting, half the work but Austria got all the credit. And then begin Russia and communism.

Another thing about poor Hungary is that Historic Hungary had its borders and lands resettled by other races such as the Romainians in Translyvania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kingdom_of_Hungary_counties.svg
It used to look like that. But it lost half of its lands to other countries during the break up of WWI and became half its size, resouces, manpower and so on and slipped into decline until the 90's. Faith hasnt been that good on the Hungarians

I think the reason why Hungary is so forgotten compared to Poland or Austria is because time after time, era after era for the past 600 years they had been supressed down to an insignficant cube by stronger nations. The Ottomans did it. And so did Austria. Hungary did half the fighting, half the work but Austria got all the credit. And then begin Russia and communism.

Another thing about poor Hungary is that Historic Hungary had its borders and lands resettled by other races such as the Romainians in Translyvania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kingdom_of_Hungary_counties.svg
It used to look like that. But it lost half of its lands to other countries during the break up of WWI and became half its size, resouces, manpower and so on and slipped into decline until the 90's. Faith hasnt been that good on the Hungarians

Resettled? :rolleyes: You must be kidding me. First of all, the Romanians are not a race. Nor are the Hungarians. Second, the Romanians were making up 75% of Transylvania in 1910. Hungary has been oppressing all its neighbors, especially Transylvania because it was orthodox, and you call them unlucky? I beg you to show me 1 place where Romanians resettled anything anywhere, anytime, except for the forced Cadrilater (southern Dobrogea) that is in Bulgaria, which has been resettled back by Bulgaria after WW2. I have no idea why you chose this side of the debate, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

For your information, those counties you see there in the east that you love are all of Romanian origin: Fogaras <- Fagaras (place with "fag" trees, "fag" = beech); Kolozs <- Cluj (from Latin "Clus", enclosed, due to the hills nearby, surrounding the city); Temes <- Timis (Latin "Tibiscum", name of a big river); Maros (which is present in "Maramaros" and "Maros-Torda" is from Latin "Marisia"). Szatmar <- Satu Mare (Romanian for "big village"). Do I need to give more examples?



Another thing is that you somehow believe Croatians deserve to be in Hungary, for some reason. Those people earned their freedom and you are saying Hungary was unlucky? Again, why not say the Soviet Union was unlucky in 1989? Do you also believe Zagreb deserves to be in Hungary?

It is sickening that some people believe an oppressive regime such as Hungary had any claim on those foreign people nearby.


And for the others that are reading this, keep in mind I'm just answering a post. I did not start this debate.

Oh man, Hungarians arguing history and national identity with Romanians?

*Grabs popcorn*

Believe me nothing tops the epic Macedonian debates we used to witness here ;)

I'm just back from Budapest where I spent 3 days in a business strip.

I don't know if all the hungarians are as nice as my customers there, but I spend 3 very nice days :beer: :cheers:

I'm just back from Budapest where I spent 3 days in a business strip.

I don't know if all the hungarians are as nice as my customers there, but I spend 3 very nice days :beer: :cheers:

Hungary and Poland have very similar histories; they were both superpowers in eastern europe at one point or another, and they were both subsequently divided up by their neighbors. Indeed, at one point, they were in personal union, with Wladyslaw II being both King of Poland and King of Hungary. Even during the Communist era, there were parallels in their history. The Hungarian Revolution in 1956 happened because there was a much more successful political protest in Poland the month before, for instance.

So the question is: why does everyone know about Poland, but nobody about Hungary?

I don't think it's because of any Romanian conspiracies. I think it's simply because Poland is far larger, and whereas there are countless Polish-Americans, there are very few Hungarian-Americans.

Also, I do not buy the language argument.

Yes, there are difficult things about the Hungarian language. There are nearly 20 noun cases, there is vowel harmony, and there are the ty and gy sounds, which are entirely impossible to say by non-Hungarians.

But there are also difficult things about, say, Russian or Polish. In Hungarian, at least there is no grammatical gender. In Polish and Russian, not only do nouns have gender, but VERBS have gender also!! And those consonants with accent marks over them in Polish are also very hard for non-Poles to pronounce. And let's not forget that Russian is an entirely different alphabet. Knowledge of an easier Indo-European language are not going to help you with that.

So I think that Slavic languages are equally as difficult to learn as Hungarian.

And we, HUNGARIANS saved Europe against the Turkish occupation.
The Noon bell
During the Siege of Nándorfehérvár (modern-day Belgrade) in 1456, Hungarian nobleman John Hunyadi defended the city against the onslaught of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II. During the siege, Pope Callixtus III ordered the bells of every church to be rung every day at noon, as a call for believers to pray for the defenders of the city. However, in many places, news of the victory arrived before the order, and the ringing of the church bells at noon thus transformed into a commemoration of the victory. The Pope didn't withdraw the order, and Catholic churches still ring the noon bell to this day.


OK, I am going to intervene in this conflict on the side of the Romanians. :p

The argument can be made that for all the things that Janos Hunyadi did against the Turks, his son did two things to make it easier for the Turks to conquer southeastern Europe. How much time did Matyas spend fighting other Christian countries and weakening the Balkans, the Austrians, and others?

Moreover, when the Turks were at Vienna, who was fighting on their side against Austria and Poland? Imre Thokoly and the Hungarians.

Hungary has a glorious history. Much more glorious than Austria, which didn't really exist until 15th century.
Hungarians stopped Mongolian invasion, they lost the battle of Muhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muhi) and they suffered a great deal under short Mongol occupation, but they effectively prevented Mongol meddling in European affairs.
They were independent country until the end of the WWII, although they were effectively incorporated into Habsburg empire. Hungarian aristocrats made a great deal of trouble to Habsburgs. They didn't allow counter-reformation for instance.
In 1867 they forced partition of Austrian empire, since this occasion known as Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ruler of the empire was the King of Austria and King of Hungary at the same time, but Hungary was quite independent in internal affairs.

Budapest almost outshine Vienna in late 19th century.

They were the first to stand up to Soviet dictatorship in 1956.

They have Nobel laureate in literature, Imre Kertesz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Kert%C3%A9sz)

Very interesting history, much of it on wikipedia. Hard to find good english literature about this subject though. Even here, in Slovenia, which is Hungary's neighbor.

Hungary has a glorious history. Much more glorious than Austria, which didn't really exist until 15th century.
Hungarians stopped Mongolian invasion, they lost the battle of Muhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muhi) and they suffered a great deal under short Mongol occupation, but they effectively prevented Mongol meddling in European affairs.

In what sense did they "prevent Mongol meddling" in Europe? By having the flower of their nobility, as well as their king, slaughtered in one of the most uneven battles of that era? Subotai absolutely humiliated the Hungarians at Mohi.

I'm not an expert on the Mongols, granted, but the accepted wisdom is that it was Mongol politicial inefficiency, as well as the geographic difference between the central asian steppe (which ends in Hungary) and the rest of Europe that stopped the Mongols from going further.


They were independent country until the end of the WWII, although they were effectively incorporated into Habsburg empire. Hungarian aristocrats made a great deal of trouble to Habsburgs. They didn't allow counter-reformation for instance.


You conveniently leave out the part where Hungary allied with Nazi Germany. Few dictators have killed more people in a shorter amount of time than Ferenc Szalasi.


In 1867 they forced partition of Austrian empire, since this occasion known as Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ruler of the empire was the King of Austria and King of Hungary at the same time, but Hungary was quite independent in internal affairs.


Yes, during which time they systematically oppressed Slavic and Romanian populations under their control.


Budapest almost outshine Vienna in late 19th century.


I have no retort to this one. I've never been there, but I've heard only good things about Budapest.


They were the first to stand up to Soviet dictatorship in 1956.


East Germany stood up in the early 50's and was crushed by Soviet tanks. Poland stood up in 1956 too, the month before Hungary.


They have Nobel laureate in literature, Imre Kertesz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Kert%C3%A9sz)


They also have a lot of famous mathematicians and economists (Janos Harsanyi won the Nobel in Econ), as well as the inventor of the Hydrogen Bomb, Edward Teller. Hungary has certainly produced more brilliant people per capita than any other country in the region, I'll grant you that.

The moral of the story: like any other country, Hungary has good history and bad history. It has glorious things in its past and deeply embarrassing things in its past. I don't think it's correct to either over-romanticize it or to condemn it.

>SeleucusNicator: You are absolutely right in every point of your post. I still think Hungary has a glorious history. Much more interesting than, hm, Slovenia, for instance. Or Slovakia. Or Moldavia. Or even Serbia.
Every country has dark sides of it's history, no doubt about it. I just wanted to point out that Hungarian history is wrongly overlooked.

Okey, thing about Muhi does bother me a bit. Yes, Hungarians did lost the battle, but not as badly AFAIK. Besides, they remained independent, whilst Kiev Russia did not. And Kiev and Hungary are not very far away. Nor are the landscapes that different. In fact, Hungarian Pusta resembles Mongolian steppes much more than Zaporozhje and Pridnjeper in Ukraine. So I don't really buy your arguments about Mongolian weaknesses. I could be terribly wrong though, I'm not really expert historian neither.

I know this is almost a year old, but I have recognized this only now. And I have to say something as well.

First of all to answer on this:
"Historic Hungary"? You could say that in 1989, the "Historic Russia" was dismembered. Hungary was a country that managed to overpower most of its neighbors in the industrial age (except for Austria, obviously) and so it started conquering around. It was an oppressive regime, anti-orthodox and anti-minority.
In my opinion industrial times are the 19th century, 20th cnetury I'd call modern time. And I think this is quite usual. So please, show me where the hell Hungary should have conquered anything in the 19th century? It was part of Austria / Austro-Hungary and had almost no influence on the foreign politics. How should it be possible to conquer anything then? If you mean 1848/49, then well, there was no conquest, it simply was a war of independence. I start to understand that german phrase "you must be from Walachia" meaning "you have no idea about what you are doing / talking" or "you are retarted"...
And I am not wondering that the only one that vetos the statement that a Hungarian has invented the biro is a Romanian. That is exactly the problem: you are taking away our history.
There is no evidence that romanian continuity theory is truth, that's why it's called a theority. It's even heavily doubted in western sources (well, they don't have to be right, I come back on this later...). The part of the Dacians teritory that have been conquered by the Romans was less then 20% of whole Dacia. And it has been only for around 150 years and it was an military outpost. That's what I read in independent sources. So tell me: why should a nation give up completely it's own language while there is still land that is free, where people can speak there own language. In only 150 years. And only because of some soldiers? Was it that poor? Don't get me wrong: I don't say Romanian is not derivating from latin. But it's much more likely that Romanians immigrated later. You don't even have an own word for Transylvania! The word Transylvania is from latin sources, it appears in many languages. If it would be Romanian it would have changed, at least slightly, after all these centuries like all Romanian words. And ardeal is derivated from Erdély which is unquestionable Hungarian.
I am not a nationalist. I don't support nor do I defend it that Hungary joined war on Germanys side. Even if Hungary would have restored it's territory, it would have been a dirty victory. It may have even damaged Hungary, because of loss of proudness. In a special way I thank you for abasing us. You are teaching us what it means and being proud to be Hungarians. You make us stronger! However, I support the idea of referendum about independence of former hungarian territory. Let the people decide to whom they want to belong. And I support independence of the Székler land where Hungarians are in absolute majority. But I also see that it is necessary to accept the new ethnic situation. At the time of and shortly after the hungarian conquest, most territories may have been ethnically hungarian. But it is no more and it doesn't make sence to subjugate slovaks, croatians, sloveniens etc. We wouldn't win anything. But the current borders are inacceptable as well. It's the same as it was before Trianon, only the roles have changed... Next I'll come back to the topic, I just wanted to resist the Romanian propaganda instead of keeping silent and accepting it, as every Hungarian should..


However, I come back to topic now. It's true that the world forgot Hungarys culture. And I disaggree that there are only few important Hungarians. You only don't know that these people were / are Hungarians or of hungarian ancestry. Just some examples:
- Houdini
- Tony Curtis
- János / John Neumann
- Joschka Fischer (former german politican)
- Joseph / József Pulitzer, you may know the Pulitzer Prize
- Nicolas Sarkozy / Sárközy
- Albrecht Dürer
- Ignác / Ignaz Semmelweis...
I think this is enough for the moment. Not enough, our history even gets overwritten by foreign historians. Some time ago I have read in a (german) google online book about the german view on the hungarian history. There they mentioned several books about hungarian history and declared all of them that have been written by Hungarians, are waste because their authors aren't impartial. Of course all the other (german) books were "the best you can get" according to them... And all you can read about Hungarians early history propagates the finn-ugric theory (I know there is an own thread about this). It's simply arrogant and brazen. I don't say the finn-ugric theory is completly wrong. Hungarians are related to Finns, but rather distant. I also don't say that Hungarians are related to Huns is right in any case. I think there is a relation between them, just read this source (http://mek.oszk.hu/05300/05301/05301.pdf), but I'd say we are more like brothers then like father and son. There are also similarities between Turkish and Hungarian, basically grammer and words. Did you know that there are around 300 words that are similar in Finnic and Hungarian and 1500 that are in Turkish and Hungarian? Some sources write about these words that they are a word pool of unknown origin, but they are turkic. And this can not be explained by the Turkish occupation or by accident (grammer). Turks were enemy, why should someone take over words from his enemy? Turks were also rather tolerant, so they didn't forced the inhabitant of the conquered territory to convert or to learn there language. I am also sure they don't really had a real administration that would make it necessary to speak Turkish. Last but not least most of that words are older and can be found in texts from before Turkish occupation. Well, there is an other thread about this, so I won't go further in this here. All I wanted to say is, that the western world tries to teach us an dogmatic theory while there are enough things that disagree with it. So well, for now I have finnished. I hope it was not too boring...

Okey, thing about Muhi does bother me a bit. Yes, Hungarians did lost the battle, but not as badly AFAIK. Besides, they remained independent, whilst Kiev Russia did not. And Kiev and Hungary are not very far away. Nor are the landscapes that different. In fact, Hungarian Pusta resembles Mongolian steppes much more than Zaporozhje and Pridnjeper in Ukraine. So I don't really buy your arguments about Mongolian weaknesses. I could be terribly wrong though, I'm not really expert historian neither.

Yes, the Pannonian plain is certainly steppe-like and easy for Mongols to navigate (hence the relative ease of their victory at Mohi), but once you get past Hungary the landscape changes. Hence, my argument was that the inability of the Mongols to get past Hungary (not the Mongol inability to conquer and annex Hungary) was due in large part to geography, and not to the Hungarians being particularly competent defenders. Remember also that while Hungary was not annexed to the Mongol empire, some historians estimate that as much as 1/3rd of the Hungarian population was killed by Mongols.

The Mongol failure to annex Hungary itself probably has more to do with the fact that (1) Mohi was a part of a retaliatory raid to punish Bela IV for accepting Kuman refugees and it is not clear that there even was an intent to conquer; and (2) the entire Mongol offensive was called back because of political instability in Mongolia.

There are also similarities between Turkish and Hungarian, basically grammer and words. Did you know that there are around 300 words that are similar in Finnic and Hungarian and 1500 that are in Turkish and Hungarian? Some sources write about these words that they are a word pool of unknown origin, but they are turkic. And this can not be explained by the Turkish occupation or by accident (grammer). Turks were enemy, why should someone take over words from his enemy? Turks were also rather tolerant, so they didn't forced the inhabitant of the conquered territory to convert or to learn there language. I am also sure they don't really had a real administration that would make it necessary to speak Turkish. Last but not least most of that words are older and can be found in texts from before Turkish occupation. Well, there is an other thread about this, so I won't go further in this here. All I wanted to say is, that the western world tries to teach us an dogmatic theory while there are enough things that disagree with it. So well, for now I have finnished. I hope it was not too boring...

Just a few comments on the relationship between Hungarian and Turkish:

According to mainstream Linguistics and Anthropology, there have been TWO times in the past 1500 years when Turks and Hungarians were in close contact. First, when the Magyars migrated into Central Asia from the proto-Uralic homeland (around 500 CE, iirc) they lived among the Turks who were already there. Many Hungarian words for Central Asian type things (especially relating to horses and horseback riding) would have been borrowed at this point. The Magyars were also allied with a Turkish group for much of this time; in fact, as one poster explained in this thread, the word "Hungarian" comes from the name of an alliance of Turkish tribes that the Magyars joined.

And then of course there is the century and a half when Hungary was part of the Ottoman Empire. Many conquered people borrow words from their conquerors, no matter how much they hate them. You can see this in Africa, India, South America, and virtually anywhere else there has been a significant conquest.

Considering that the current model of Ugro-Finnic development says that Hungarian and Finnish diverged 10,000 years ago, and that during the last 1500 years Hungarians and Turks have been in close contact twice, its no surprise that more Hungarian words are direct borrows from Turkish than from Finnish. But this is not how genetic relationships between languages are determined. Genetic relationships are determined by systematic correspondences between words and by systematic correspondences between sound and grammar systems. And by these metrics, Hungarian is unmistakably Uralic. The last time an actual Linguist published a paper suggesting that Hungarian is NOT Uralic was 1913.

I know this is almost a year old, but I have recognized this only now. And I have to say something as well.

First of all to answer on this:

In my opinion industrial times are the 19th century, 20th cnetury I'd call modern time. And I think this is quite usual. So please, show me where the hell Hungary should have conquered anything in the 19th century? It was part of Austria / Austro-Hungary and had almost no influence on the foreign politics. How should it be possible to conquer anything then? If you mean 1848/49, then well, there was no conquest, it simply was a war of independence.
I agree with the fact that nothing was conquered by Hungary in the 19th and 20th century. You're just making ONE huge mistake.... I said OVERPOWER, and not CONQUER. The mistake on my part is the inclusion of the word "so". The conquests were done before, the overpowering was continuing in the 19th/early 20th century. I agree that my wording can make it seem like I meant that the conquests were done in the 29th/20th century.

I start to understand that german phrase "you must be from Walachia" meaning "you have no idea about what you are doing / talking" or "you are retarted"...
Nope, no generalization or collective insult here, move along... :rolleyes: I shouldn't bother any more.

There is no evidence that romanian continuity theory is truth, that's why it's called a theority. It's even heavily doubted in western sources (well, they don't have to be right, I come back on this later...).

The part of the Dacians teritory that have been conquered by the Romans was less then 20% of whole Dacia. And it has been only for around 150 years and it was an military outpost. That's what I read in independent sources. So tell me: why should a nation give up completely it's own language while there is still land that is free, where people can speak there own language. In only 150 years. And only because of some soldiers? Was it that poor? Don't get me wrong: I don't say Romanian is not derivating from latin. But it's much more likely that Romanians immigrated later. You don't even have an own word for Transylvania! The word Transylvania is from latin sources, it appears in many languages. If it would be Romanian it would have changed, at least slightly, after all these centuries like all Romanian words. And ardeal is derivated from Erdély which is unquestionable Hungarian.
I am not a nationalist. I don't support nor do I defend it that Hungary joined war on Germanys side. Even if Hungary would have restored it's territory, it would have been a dirty victory. It may have even damaged Hungary, because of loss of proudness. In a special way I thank you for abasing us. You are teaching us what it means and being proud to be Hungarians. You make us stronger! However, I support the idea of referendum about independence of former hungarian territory. Let the people decide to whom they want to belong. And I support independence of the Székler land where Hungarians are in absolute majority. But I also see that it is necessary to accept the new ethnic situation. At the time of and shortly after the hungarian conquest, most territories may have been ethnically hungarian. But it is no more and it doesn't make sence to subjugate slovaks, croatians, sloveniens etc. We wouldn't win anything. But the current borders are inacceptable as well. It's the same as it was before Trianon, only the roles have changed... Next I'll come back to the topic, I just wanted to resist the Romanian propaganda instead of keeping silent and accepting it, as every Hungarian should..
Just tell me if you want to go into the debate of whether Romanians migrated into Transylvania or had their ethnogenesis there. Just please, tell me. I'm serious.

The last time an actual Linguist published a paper suggesting that Hungarian is NOT Uralic was 1913.
Well, this is not true. At least in Hungary texts have been published, in the 90s or after 2000, that this is not necessarily true. They could be of altaic origin, like Turks and met the Finns later. This could also explain why there are more similarities between Turkish and Hungarian then between Finnic and Hungarian. On the other hand I never mentioned that whether the Hungarians are of uralic origin or not. I don't want to go that deep, because this is more or less hypothetic. No matter if there are some genetical "proofs". Hungarians are also told to have a mongoloid gen marker. Do Finnic have? I don't know. However, all I said is, that there can be a relation between Huns Turks and Hungarians. To proof that this can be correct I posted the link to a word list.

@Mirc: You can tell me what you want, bro. The Romanian continuity theory is a theory and independent sources (having nothing to do with Hungary or Romania) say it is unlikely. And the most important thing: there is no evidence that dispel all doubts. It's like Darwins theory. I believe in it, but it remains a theory (although this theory is very likely), so I can't say it's the unquestionable truth. Amen.

Okay..... ooookay.

The part of the Dacians teritory that have been conquered by the Romans was less then 20% of whole Dacia.
Wrong.

You are probably referring to Decebalus' Dacia, the one that Trajan conquered in 106 AD. First of all, it was around 33%, not under 20% (that's a gross exaggeration, that's cutting off more than a third of the actual percentage). Easily calculable by measuring the surface between the borders that we know that the Romans used.

However you should know that Decebalus' Dacia was only a part of the original Dacia, of Burebista's Dacia from 82 BC. That Dacia was 1/2 larger than the one of Decebalus, and the parts that were in it and that were not in Decebalus' Dacia were completely in the Roman Empire (from the Danube to the southern Balkan mountains in Bulgaria). That's a consequence of the fact that Decebal was not able to unite the number of people that Burebista did. That leaves us with roughly 50% of Burebista's Dacia under Roman control at 106 AD, when the northernmost parts of the Roman province were conquered.

And it has been only for around 150 years and it was an military outpost.
That's again wrong and I have no idea where you got that from. The 150 years is true, but I'll come to that later if you wish to debate this point further. I'm referring to the last part here.

Dacia was not a senatorial province, was not a military outpost, it was not a client state either. It was an imperial province, under the same level of administration of today's Spain, Portugal, France...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RomanEmpire_117.svg

So tell me: why should a nation give up completely it's own language while there is still land that is free, where people can speak there own language.
They did not! Those Dacians living in the "Dacia Felix" (free Dacians, never an united organized state since the suicide of Decebal) were simply slowly destroyed and moved away by the migrators, long after the "unfree Dacia" was not a Roman province any more. Just as well as it happened, for example, with the Greeks living in the middle Balkans, which got, in time, moved and assimilated by the successive migrations of Slavs and Turkic peoples.

Only those inside conquered Dacia (which comprised today's Transylvania, Oltenia, Dobrogea, and contains the region of what you call Wallachia as a protectorate. BTW did I ever mention the Romanian name of "Wallachia" was "Teara Romaneasca", which means "Roman land"? Teara - Lat. terra. Romaneasca - Vulg Lat. Feminine Romanesca) were assimilated and "gave up" their language. And it's those that the Hungarians met when they arrived in Europe. Those are the disputed regions.

You don't even have an own word for Transylvania! The word Transylvania is from latin sources, it appears in many languages. If it would be Romanian it would have changed, at least slightly, after all these centuries like all Romanian words. And ardeal is derivated from Erdély which is unquestionable Hungarian.
Now that's absolute, complete, total and utter BU|_|_$#!+. Huge. Piece. of. BS.

Ardeal means "Golden Hill" in Romanian! Maybe you should accept that... *gasp* there is Hungarian propaganda too, besides the most common ones that you see! Nah, can't be true...

Ardeal - Gold Hill.
Aur - Gold, lat. Aurus (happens to be an unchanged word from the Latin root "aur-" and the closest today to Latin of all Romance languages)
Deal - Hill (word of Dacian origin, heh!)

Now, I can understand anything like a point of view. Easily. I can understand people disagreeing. But if someone comes and builds an argument based on telling me that two words of my language mean nothing in my language... that's an insult to my intelligence!!

HOW, just HOW do you explain the toponymy remaining that same? How do you explain that the same large river that was called Argessos by the Romans is called Arges in Romanian, the one called Samus is called Somes, the one called Marissia is called in Romanian Mures, the one called Alutus is called Olt, the one called Pyretus is called Prut, the one called Dierna is called Cerna, the town called Petrodava is called Piatra Neamt, the town called Clus is called Cluj (Hungarian transformed the name into Kolozsvar, you might know it by that name ;)) Danube is called "Dunare" which is derived from an obscure form of the Vulgar Latin name "Donaris", how, just HOW could those names remain the same if the Romanians came from the south much, much later than right after Roman colonization???? How, was it a miracle?? Those people just HAPPENED to call the same rivers/towns/regions with the same names as the ones used by the Romans??? Did the rivers migrate too from the south? :lol:


And how, just HOW can you refute all those arguments???
Look (see next post):

* Constantine the Great assumed the title Dacicus Maximus in 336 just like Trajan did in 106, suggesting the presence of Dacians in Dacia even after the Aurelian withdrawal of 270-275.[2][3][4]

* The similarity between the current Romanian traditional clothes and the Dacian clothes, as depicted on Trajan's Column. Examples of similarity include embroidery of clothing[5] and the wearing of opinci sandals[6] as portrayed on the Arch of Constantine

* The name for a type of fuel, "pacura", is derived directly from the Latin "picula". This particular fuel can only arises naturally north of the Danube, particularly in Transylvania, where it was used by the Romans and Dacians. This word is not used in any other Romance languages, surviving only in Romanian. [7]

* Romanian is the only Latin language to keep the true original grammar of the Latin language.[8] One example is the neuter gender preserved only in Romanian from Latin and the lack of articles. Another example is the preservation of Declension.

* Romanians share the name Vlach/Voloch and Olah/Olasz with the Italians meaning the Hungarians and Slavs thought are one and the same populace [9]

* There is no historical document which attests to some sort of migration of Romanians from the Balkans to the North.[citation needed] For there to be more then 10 million Romanians in the north and less than 1 million in the South means that this supposed "migration" would have been huge, almost as big as the Slavic migrations, yet no one ever mentioned it in history. This is particularly perplexing as this migration supposedly happened from the Byzantine Empire who were the most advanced people of that era, noticing even populations as small as a tribe of 500 Cumans. [10]

* Dacian toponyms were kept; examples are the names of some rivers (Samus - Someş, Marisia - Mureş, Porata - Prut), the names of some cities (Petrodava - Piatra Neamţ, Abruttum - Abrud) and most important in the name of Carpathian mountains, name which is directly derived from the Dacian tribe of Carpians or Carpodacians [11][12]

* While the Romanians north of the Danube were not mentioned earlier than the Xth century, neither is another Latin populace, the Romanche of Switzerland, and neither are the Albanians, yet no one would conclude that these people were somehow absent from the world before this time[13]

* The Hungarian word for Christmas, Karacsony, is derived directly from the Old Romanian word for Christmas “Cracion” which is itself derived from the Latin “creation” meaning “birth.”[original research?] Hungarian phonology elongates the vowel sound between “cr”, resulting in “car”, and since the “C” produces a hard “K” sound, the letter is changed in Hungarian spelling.[original research?] Phonology then also caused the “ci” to be replaced by “cs”, while still retaining the “ch” phoneme, and finally, a “y” is attached at the end in order to have the word be more homogeneous with the already-existing Hungarian vocabulary.[original research?] This indicates that the Hungarians were already in contact with the Romanians when they were Christianized. [14]

* Almost all Romanian religious terms are inherited directly from Latin which means Romanians were christianised in the Latin language [15]

* The colonists came from different provinces of the Roman empire. They had no common language except for Vulgar Latin. In this multi-ethnic environment, Latin, being the only common language of communication, might have quickly become the dominant language. American history furnishes similar examples, with the overwhelming dominance of Standard English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese in different parts of the Americas, with insignificant dialectal differences.

* Some morpho-syntactic, lexical and phonetical regional differences within Romanian indicate that in certain regions of Romania the language preserved more Latin substance than in the rest of the country.[16] The boundaries of these linguistic areas coincide quite exactly with the borders of the ancient Roman province of Dacia, encompassing modern Transylvania, Banat and Oltenia.

* The existence of a stronger Latin heritage in the territories of the ancient Roman Dacia is explained by the intense Romanisation of these territories, which formed core areas of Romanian. The uninterrupted and isolated existence of a Romanised population living there ensured a conservative transmission of this Latin heritage across generations. From these core areas Romanian spread over the Carpathians, meanwhile losing a little of its Latin substance. The general dissemination into Romanian of words of Magyar origin supports the theory of the Romanian diffusion from Transylvanian core areas across the Carpathians.

* Numerous archaeological sites prove the continuity of Latin settlements north of the Danube after the evacuation of 271, including:
o Daco-Roman ceramic artifacts from the 5th-6th centuries, found at: Bratei, Soporu de Câmpie, Verbiţa, Sǎrata Monteoru
o Christian tombs and objects found at: Cluj-Napoca, Alba-Iulia, Biertan, Dej
o Many inscriptions in the Latin language: inscriptions on silver ring from Micia, ceramic objects from Porolissum, brick found at Gornea, inscription on bronze object found at Biertan (reading "EGO ZENOVIUS VOTUM POSUI").
o Walls erected in the 4th century at Sarmizegetusa

* If the Romanians had been living alongside Albanians before the Xth century, they would have more in common than a few words: they would have a communal language (as affirmed by the Bulgarian linguist Decev). The phonological disunity between the shared words also evidences that these words are inherited from a common sub-stratum (Thraco-Illyrian)[clarify] and not the result of having a shared geographical region of origin [17]

* The name Vlach is a name for Romanians used only by the Southern Slavs. The Eastern Slavs call Romanians Voloch which fits Eastern Slavic phonology. If the Eastern Slavs met the Romanians after the Southern Slavs (which would have happened had the Romanians originated South of the Danube) they would have called Romanians Vlach as well, borrowing the name from the Southern Slavs. The use of the word Voloch shows that the Eastern Slavs encountered the Romanians separately, before the Southern Slavs gave them the Vlach name, and thus, must have been north of the Danube before the Slavic migrations.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

* The lack of Germanic elements in Romanian is due largely to the low level of interaction between the Goths and Romanians, as well as the low population of Goths living in the area. The Goths were also present South of the Danube in even greater numbers, and were even brought in by the Romans as refugees, so placing the Romanians South of the Danube does not provide them with any shelter from Gothic influence. From this we conclude that the adoption of Gothic elements in Romanian would have had more to do with the type of interaction between the Goths and proto-Romanians, and not with whether they did or did not live in the same geographic region.[18]

* The lack of documents pertaining to the existence of Romanians North of the Danube before the Xth century is largely due to the fact that the Byzantines, outside of the borders of the Byzantine Empire only recorded populations which they felt had some important political interaction with the Byzantines. For instance, the Avars, after being defeated and greatly weakened, are not mentioned at all north of the Danube between the years 626-743 even though their presence is visible through archaeology. Since the proto-Romanians were under Barbarian domination, they were of no political consequence to the Byzantines, and at best were only mentioned in a few documents before the Xth century. As their political importance grew (with the foundation of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, interaction with the Pechennegs etc.) so too did the number of Byzantine documents mentioning them.[18]

* The argument that "Colonization of Dacia was not long enough for Romanization to occur" is easily refuted by the fact that acculturation does not have to happen through conquest, and the evidence that the Dacians and Getai were very willing to adopt foreign cultures and languages. For instance, even though Greeks never retained a position of political dominance over the Dacians, there are records that many Dacian tribes had learned to speak Greek just by interacting with the Greek colonies at the coasts of Pontus Euxinus (the Black Sea). At the latest, Dacian and Roman interactions started in 44 B.C., when Burebista sent military aid to Caesar’s enemies.[18]

* The absence of Romanians in Hungarian documents before the XI and XII century is that the Magyar state was not developed enough to ensure such high measures of population control, such as censuses or judicial documents. However, many Romanian judicial terms are of Magyar origin, implying that the Romanians were present when these terms were first applied and used by the Hungarian state. The Romanians in Transylvania needed to understand the Magyar judicial system in order to use it, and this explains how such words diffused throughout the Romanian language. If Romanians had not been present in Transylvania before the XII century, then such an absorption would not have been possible, and the terms would have been replaced by Slavic or Greek terms.[18]

* In the earliest documents which affirm the existence of Romanians in Transylvania, all the documents refer to the Romanians living in dense forests. A "charta" given to the Saxons by the Hungarians, the region of Fagaras is called "silva Blacorum et Bissenorum (forest of Vlachs and Pechennegs)[/b]. If the Romanians were pastoral migrants from the South, why would they run with their sheep into dense forests? The geographical location of Romanians in Transylvania is more reflective of a populace fleeing into the forests before the invading migratory horsemen. The archaeologist Andrei Popa, now deceased, has also confirmed the presence of numerous other "Vlah sylvae" within Transylvania before they were reorganized in Comites. This same symptom of Romanians living in dense forests is also found south of the Carpathians. Regions like Codrul Vlasiei derive from Vlasca, meaning "Land of Vlachs" in Slavic languages. Vlasi is the plural term for Vlach so we can conclude that this dense forest (codru) would have been the home to the Romanians South of the Carpathians as well, and is once again reflective of a populace trying to flee from horse-bound invaders. The particular use of the word "Vlasi" is an early term, and reflects on the fact that this name was given at a time when Romanians and Slavs had only mingled slightly.

* The Slavic elements in Romanian are present only in particular words, and not in the grammatical structure or the phonology and structure of words in Romanian. This indicates linguistically that by the time the Slavs mingled with the Romanians, the Latin element in the Romanian language was already solidified, and only a super-stratum of Slavic words, many of which are synonyms for Latin words, could be added.[18]

* The hydronyms and toponyms in Romania and throughout Transylvania are predominantly carried over from antiquity. Names like Somes, Mures, Abrud, Dunare, Prut, Nistru, all are adaptations of the original Latin, Greek, or Dacian words. Slavic toponyms and hydronyms are present in Romania, but these are present in many parts of Eastern Europe as well. Many hydronyms and toponyms in mainland Greece are also Slavic, but this does not imply that Slavs were the sole people to populate Greece or Romania.

* The first ruler of Transylvania to be formally recognized by the Kingdom of Hungary was Leustachius, who had the title of “Voievod of Transylvania” as written in G. Wenczel’s Codex Diplomaticus (“Leustachius, waywoda Transilvaniae”). The position of “Voievod” as a formal administrative position was only preserved by the Romanians in the Middle Ages. Transylvania was the only region under the Hungarian crown which kept this administrative rank as the highest rank attainable, rather than being re-organized into Comites as the other regions of Hungary were, by using the title of Voievod, it is evidenced that the Hungarian crown was somehow necessitated to recognize an older political institution in Transylvania. Romanians had used the title of “Voievod” before Transylvania was conquered by the Hungarians and continued to use it afterwards in Wallachia and Moldova, only Romanians retained this title others adopting King, Tzar or Khan.[18]

* The Hungarian word for Christmas, Karacsony, is derived directly from the Old Romanian word for Christmas “Cracion” which is itself derived from the Latin “creation” meaning “birth.” Hungarian phonology elongates the vowel sound between “cr”, resulting in “car”, and since the “C” produces a hard “K” sound, the letter is changed in Hungarian spelling. Phonology then also caused the “ci” to be replaced by “cs”, while still retaining the “ch” phoneme, and finally, a “y” is attached at the end in order to have the word be more homogeneous with the already-existing Hungarian vocabulary. This indicates that the Hungarians were already in contact with the Vlachs when they were Christianized.
* The word Olah does not derive from the Slavic word “Vlah” as replacing the “v” with an “o” has no etymological or phonological explanation. During the Middle Ages, the word “Olah” was used both when referring to Romanians as well as Italians, which shows that the Romanians were very similar to Italians in terms of language, and that the Magyar tribes had encountered both ethnic groups at roughly the same time, in the late 9th and early 10th century, when the Magyars raided Northern Italy. The word “Olasz” now used for all Latinate people except Romanians is a recent phenomenon.[18]

* The Romanian batran, meaning “old”, is significant as it does not derive from the Latin equivalent “vetus” (in Italian, Vecchio, in French, Vieux etc.); instead it derives from the Latin word veteranus, referring to a Roman Legionary after he is released from military duty. The reason for this is because of the procedures of Roman colonization. When a village was Romanized, the veterans of the Roman Legion had an important role; because military service was long (twenty-five years), a large part of these Roman legionaries were married, the wives and children having to live nearby the military camps, named canabae. Since many of the legions and auxiliary troops of Rome were to maintain their position permanently in Dacia, it is evident that many of the wives of the soldiers would be indigenous, Dacian. At their release from military service, the legionary was named veteranus, and he would obtain (if he did not have it before) the right to citizenship for himself and his entire family, as well as a piece of land to cultivate. The children of the veterans and the Dacian women were Roman citizens and spoke Latin, but the majority would have known Dacian, their maternal tongue. The children of these children, the grandchildren of the veterans, would be totally Romanized. In two, maximum three generations, the followers of these mixed marriages forgot their indigenous language. Thus the number of veterans in Dacia would have been considerably large, which is why an elder is referred to through exactly this word, batran, derived from veteranus, having been modified through Romanian phonetics. In essence, the system of veteranus would be critical in the Romanization of Dacia, as elderly vetarans, who had now gained rights to property, would have no reason to leave what they had worked for over 25 years to attain. The case here is not about a single wave of veterans under Trajan, but for a continuous series of settlements of veterans which wanted to remain in Dacia.[18]

* The river Tarnava is evidence of the co-existence between the Slavs and Romanians in Translvania described by the chronicler Nestor. Tarnava derives from Slavic trunu, or nail. Since the Hungarians used a different name for the river, “Kukulo”, it would have been impossible for Romanians to use the Slavic name for the river had they arrived after the Magyars (and according to Hungarian history, with a Magyar majority in Transylvania). In such a situation the Romanian name would have been derived from Hungarian, but the fact that it is of Slavic origin attests to Slavs and Romanians living together around the river before the Magyars.
o Another important river is Bistrita. Another Slavic word, however influenced by Romanian. Bistrita in Slavic means “the fast one”, in Romanian, this translates into “repedele”. Today, however, the river is officially Bistrita, but known as Repedele by the locals. There are many other instances were the Slavic name replaces the original Romanian name, such as for Nucet, now known as Cozia (from Slavic koza, goat).
o Barsa. According to the linguist Sextil Puscariu, this name would derive from the verb “labarta”, dissimilated into “rabartsa”. It is of Traco-Illyiric origin, so it would be impossible for the Romanians to have preserved it had they not originated from such a sub-stratum, and in the geographical region around Barsa. We can conclude that it was taken from the very ancestors of the Romanians. In Geto-Dacian names we also find the radical “bars”.
o The river Cerna. Although “cerna” in Slavic means “black”, the river’s waters are clear. The Romanian form is surely influenced from the Latin name Tierna and influenced by Slavic phonetics.
o The river Barzava. Another word of Geto-Dacian origin, from the radical bere or berez, meaning white, and its suffix bis, or vis. Possibly also named after a nearby Dacian city, Berzobis.
o Turda. The origin of this word is Turri-Dava, from Latin. The name then would be formed from Turris – tower – and dava – citadel.
o Abrud. The origin of this name comes from Latin Abruttum, a synonym for gold.[18]

* The majority of Romanian words assumed to be of Dacian origin are not shared with Albanian. Therefore, it is impossible to assume they were adopted from the Albanians or that the Vlachs lived among the Albanians before the 10th century.[18]

* The notion that the withdrawal of Dacia in 271 was a total evacuation is false and cannot be attained from contemporary written sources, nor archaeology or demographics. Hungarian historians have tried to misrepresent the writings of Eutropius and Flavius Vopiscus, saying that when these two authors wrote of a withdrawal from Dacia, they meant a complete abandonment and relocation. The Latin language does not have definite and indefinite articles (no equivalent of the word “The”), and is by default set to the partitioned, indefinite (mentioning a population only speaks of a portion of it, and not all). If there is a need to switch to the definite, in other words, to express themselves precisely and in totality, the use of the adjectives totus or omnis was done historically. As neither Eutropius, nor Flavius Vopiscus, nor any other author mentioning the withdrawal uses these words, it is clear that they had never intended to speak of the whole Roman populace North of the Danube, but rather, only a fraction of it, of an indefinite quantity.[18]

* The logistical requirements of a complete withdrawal from Dacia, that is to say, a complete evacuation. In order for the Romans to have evacuated all of the colonists from Dacia (which would have been massive given the extensive colonization due to critical resources found in Dacia), a track of every city, village, cottage, and citizen must have been kept, and their evacuation carefully recorded. However, no single logistical document referring to this withdrawal has ever been found. No census of how many colonists were withdrawn. There are no catalogues of who was moved and when. It is also important to note that such a massive migration of a sedentary population has never been recorded in World History. There is no historical precedent for such a logistical operation. [18]

* Ernst Gamillschag has attested that the Romanians have preserved the Thracian word for the Danube, “Donaris/Donare” which means “The big river” even though the Albanians and Aromanians use the Turkish word “Duna.” He writes “The old name for the river would have disappeared from the Daco-Roman vocabulary had they only returned to their old homeland centuries after they left. The name “Donaris” was borrowed by the Romans who mixed with the Dacians, and this word has been well preserved.”[18]

* Romanization could not have been possible South of the Jirecek Line, which runs through Bulgaria, Serbia, and the upper part of Albania, as that region was historically Hellenized, whereas only regions to the North of this line were Romanized (this due to the strong standing of Hellenic culture South of this line). The formation of the Romanian people South of this line (in modern Albania) is nigh impossible. .[18]

* An early 13th century biography of St. Olaf of Norway, now preserved in the 14th century manuscript Flatejarbok, mentions Vlachs (Blokumenn) as being Sviatopolk’s allies (in the early XIth century).[18]

* The survival of the Romanians North of the Danube is not surprising especially when we consider another example of such survival, in Wales. When the Romans left Britain, a certain portion of the Roman population was resettled at Brittany in France, but some remained. These people became known as the Welsh, which is a Germanic word for Latin-speakers, and is also the root-word for the term “Vlach”. When we consider the current geographical region of Wales, we find them behind the only mountains in Roman-occupied Britain, where Roman culture was still preserved (though with extremely strong Celtic influences). These mountains acted as an effective shield against the Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Picts, Angles, and other barbarians which ravaged the country. When we consider the topographical realities of Transylvania, it is impossible to assume that no trace of Roman civilization could have survived there while it did in Britain. The Carpathians at Transylvania dwarf the Welsh mountains, and Transylvania also has the advantage of having dense forests, and a very hilly topography. Some historians (both in antiquity and modern times) have described it as looking like a natural fortress. [18]

* The notion that “Vlachs” were colonized in Transylvania in the 13th century by Ladislaus IV the Cuman, king of Hungary loses its credibility when we look at the documentation for this “colonization.” Of the 217 documents pertaining to Transylvania during the reign of Ladislaus IV, none of them mention this colonization. Comparatively, we have 19 documents referring to the 25 year long colonization in Transylvania of the Teutonic Knights, an event which happened 50 years before the “Vlach colonization.”

* inherited Albanian words (Ex: Alb. motër 'sister' < Late IE ma:ter 'mother') shows the transformation Late IE /a:/ > Alb /o/, but all the Latin loans in Albanian having an /a:/ shows Latin a: > Alb a. This indicates that the transformation PAlb /a:/ > PAlb /o/ happened and ended before the Roman arrival in the Balkans.

[edit] Archaeological Evidence

* Archaeological digs throughout Transylvania and Romania have discovered many clay pots dating from the IV, V, VI, and VII centuries. What makes these pots particularly interesting is that they were made using the potter's wheel, an invention which no migratory people had when the came through Romania. The only population which could have produced these pots is one which had sufficient contact with the Roman and Hellenic world to adopt this style of making pots. We know the Slavs did not adopt this style until much later because pots made without the use of the potter's wheel are also found throughout Romania during this time.[18]

* The thousands of old Roman coins dating from the IV, V and VI centuries found on Romania are peculiar because they are a) made of bronze and b) show the portrait of contemporary emperors on them. The first part affirms that these coins were not valuable, meaning that they were common currency. There is no way such coins could have found their way into Romania through tribute or trade between the Romans and barbarians because the Goths, Avars, Huns, and others would only accept gold coins and items as tribute, as bronze coins had little value or use to them. The material indicates that these coins were used as a common bartering currency for low-value items (like food or iron) by a poor populace. Their number, and the diverse locations that they've been found in, indicates that this populace was large, and spread all over the country. The second aspect reflects the historical fact that there was significant communication between this proto-Romanian populace and the Roman Empire, enough to allow for the accurate re-minting of coins. Even if the coins were imported by the proto-Romanians from the Romans, it still is evidence of significant contact between the Romans and the Romanians North of the Danube.[18]

* Vasile Parvan discovered two documents in Transylvania dating from the IV century which mentions a Goth "king" who referred to himself as "jude" over his populace, an administrative title preserved also by the Romanian principalities in the Middle Ages. This king chose the title because it must have had some significance to the people he presided over, otherwise there would have been no point in using it as opposed to some proto-Germanic word like "Herzog." Since this title was only relevant to Romanians, it is clear that this king must have presided over the proto-Romanians.[18]

* Latin documents, although rare, are still present after the withdrawal of the Roman administration. Their presence affirms the existence of a populace that could understand Latin, while the rarity reflects the trend of ruralization of the proto-Romanians, caused by the frequent Barbarian raids on the cities in the former colony of Dacia.[18]

* At the supposed site of relocation of these colonists, that being Moesia, of which only a small upper part was renamed as Dacia. In this region, there is no recording of any drastic increase of population, something which would definitely have resulted from such an influx of refugees. When the Goths sought refuge in the Eastern Roman Empire to escape the Huns, their presence is clearly attestable in cesspits, cemeteries, and archaeological relics. The relocated Dacian colonists however, did not leave any impression at all. There is no sudden growth in cemeteries, nor in cremation urns discovered. There is no expansion of cities and towns in the 3rd century, and no new towns are created. This leads to one of two conclusions: Either the newly relocated colonists made sure to only cremate themselves and simply throw away their ashes into the wind, consume as little as possible, smash every pot they had, and be homeless for the rest of their existence; or, such a massive relocation never happened. [18]

* A Daco-Roman necropolis was discovered in Sibiu belonging to the local population, which had, among the objects buried with the deceased, ceramic objects of Roman cultural origin, coins from the time of Antonius Pius (138-161) and Septimius Sever (193-211) and vases made in the Dacian style.[18][32]

* During the 5th-7th centuries houses all over Romania are noted as having "vatra" ovens, being ovens made of clay and surrounded by stones. These ovens could not have belonged to the Slavs who had a different style of construction, and is noticeable in Dacian-occupied areas in Romania during the 1st-3rd century. Traditional Roman ovens were also discovered in the same area as these "vatra ovens."[33]

* The cultural elements and styles of archaeological artefacts discovered over the period of the 3rd-5th centuries show a clear material and stylistic continuity, indicating continuous habitation by the same people. The cultural character of the findings remains the same until the 6th century, with the arrival of the Slavs.[34]

* The following locations show continuous Daco-Roman habitation from the 3rd to the 5th century[35]
o Mines: Baia de Cris, Tincova, Ruda, Alun, Hunedoara, Baita Cib, Fizes, Cabesti, Videim, Albac, Bistrita de Sus, Vidra, Cimpeni Lupsa, Salciua, Podeni, Potaissa, Baisoara, Valea Ierii.
o Monetary thesauri: Bicasi, Pilu, Carei, Copalnic, Soimuseni, Doba Mica, Simieu Silvaniei, Porolissum, Babiu, Gurani, Sintna, Arad, Pecica, Cenad, Horia, Biled, Carani, Jimbova, Checea, Unip, Faget, Debra, Deva, Huedoara, Sepes, Ungureni, Apulum, Seica Mica, Seica Mare, Sura Mare, Sibiu, Ocna Sibiului Soars, Lasiea
o Daco-Roman and Roman settlements: Taga, Soporu, Band, Lechinta, Ludus, Cipau, Brateiu, Seica Mica, Biertan, Sighisoara, Sinpaul, Morada, Ineu, Pilu, Biharia, Berca, Mediesu Aurit, Apa, Dej, Rascruci, Napoca, Baciu, Sebes, Hatg, Deva, Debra, Apulum, Gura Vaii, Cazanesti, Hateg, Faroia.
o Major Cities and forts: Deva, Haţeg, Hunedoara, Sighişoara, Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, Bistriţa, Bicasi.
o Bridges: Apulum


There's no way those archeological findings were put by someone there! There's no way they teleported from the south of the Danube either. You are talking about stuff like rivers, forests, mountains, and cities with large fortifications. THOSE THINGS DO NOT MOVE.

However, I support the idea of referendum about independence of former hungarian territory. Let the people decide to whom they want to belong. And I support independence of the Székler land where Hungarians are in absolute majority. But I also see that it is necessary to accept the new ethnic situation. At the time of and shortly after the hungarian conquest, most territories may have been ethnically hungarian. But it is no more and it doesn't make sence to subjugate slovaks, croatians, sloveniens etc. We wouldn't win anything. But the current borders are inacceptable as well.
Bolded part: that's how the nazis started too.

Irredentism won't get us anywhere. If I claim northern Bukovina and Bugeac back from Ukraine, would anyone listen to me? They were almost completely Romanian until WW2... And together they form a larger part than the area inhabited by the Szekelys today. I don't because there is no convenient way of making an ethnic split in an average European country today.

Why? Well, the ethnic breakdown goes like this: you have a town that's 98.something% Romanian and 0.2% Hungarian 4 km away from a town like Odorheiu Secuiesc (Szekelyudvarhely, IIRC), which has the highest Hungarian density in Romania and is something like 98.3% Hungarian and 0.2 Romanian, and 6 km from those two you have a town that's 60% Hungarian and 40% Romanian, and 5 km from there you have a town that's the other way around.... You think splitting would be fair? YOU COULD NOT make a proper "will of the people" because the people are simply too bonded with each other and mixed in a too small space! And I don't think you should do it, either. I doubt it would be good for anyone, in fact, save for some "historic conscience" or another artificial concept like that.

What's my solution to that? Well, in my opinion, there's only one solution. Further European integration, until reaching the goal of a federal EU state under one flag, one economy, one territory, and government. Compromise from everyone is the only path to understanding! NOT splitting. That is going AWAY from the tendency of mutual understanding and respect. I don't think that those people living in a heavily mixed area (like my girlfriend for example) are so incapable of understanding each other that they must split right now. But we've been discussing facts in these posts, and this last paragraph is made of opinions. So I should stop talking about that.

Edit: Double post, same minute, same everything. Disregard this.

Hungarians are also told to have a mongoloid gen marker. Do Finnic have?


Of course modern Hungarians are going to have a mongoloid genetic marker! They were invaded by the Mongols! And by the Tatars later! Moreover, if the Avars or Huns were mongoloid, then the Hungarians would have assumed mongoloid genetic material when they assimilated with the people living in Pannonia in 1000 CE (as those people would have previously interbred with Mongoloids). There's also the possibility that the admixture with Mongoloid elements happened in Central Asia in the previous 500 years.

Plenty of groups in Eastern Europe have a mongoloid genetic markers, and even Mongoloid features. I have Ukranian friends who look like they were born in Asia, because there is such a heavy Tatar contribution to their gene pool.

Also, on the Transylvania debate:

You guys seem to be ignoring the possibility that:

(1) Vlachs originally lived in Transylvania;
(2) the Vlachs were driven out by Moravian Slavs;
(3) Moravian Slavs were driven out by the Magyars
(4) the Vlachs slowly migrated back

I think this is fairly close to what happened; Vlachs used to be much more common in southeastern Europe.

BTW,

Have there been any substantial linguistic or genetic studies done on these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob-Ugric

(2) the Vlachs were driven out by Moravian Slavs;

There's your problem. Well, there are more problems, but that's the most obvious one.

Where were they driven? The migration theory doesn't claim that they were driven out, but that they originated from the already-conquered Balkanic lands of Rome. You have a couple of possibilities. 1) they were driven west, into today's Hungary. Very unlikely. Because then, as the Hungarians arrived in Transylvania, it would mean an independent mutual exchange of population (Hungarians going into Hungary from Transylvania and Romanians going into Transylvania from Hungary) which would be an unique even in history. 2) they were driven south, into the Byzantine Empire. Impossible. The Byzantines wrote down every migration that came into their territory. 3) they were driven north, into today's Ukraine. Again very unlikely, because it would mean that the Vlachs from Transylvania lived in the northern plains... first problem with this is that I've never heard anyone claim Romanian presence in Ukraine, and second: coincidentally, Romanian every word connected to mountains is preserved from Latin... while the ones for plains are not. Going by today's normal URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat]urheimat[/URL]-locating strategies, that goes against logic.

Another problem is preservation of Tranylvanian names from Latin. If Vlachs ever left Transylvania en masse, we would never have the names Marissia, Samus, Clus, Alba Iulia (which was capital of Transylvania for some time! Find me a more Latin-sounding name than that....) DIRECTLY inherited from Latin. We would have Slavic, Hungarian forms, not Latin ones like we do! Again, unless they took the rivers with them, those Romanians coming "back" in Transylvania COULDN'T have used the SAME name for the SAME river/town/mountain. That would have been a miracle. They would have had to take on the names from the people who lived there! The fact that there are Latin names there obviously tells us that there were ALWAYS Romance-speaking peoples in close proximity to those places!

Well, Mirc, I've looked up the german page about the romanian continuity theory as this is the source I could find most fastly. Well, it writes some things that support this theory, but also some that doesn't. However, you know that everyone can edit these articles in Wikipedia. Who knows who wrote them...

To be honest I haven't read anything you've written since it is very much. The wikipedia articles says that these names you've mentioned can be reimported or reported by a third group (that has disappeared). In contrast to what you wrote, these names seem to be mostly rivers names. So it could be, that the cities have been founded later. Archological founds are from before the 4th century, after this time there seems to be simply nothing. Evidences for vlach population that are accepted by international historians are not older than from 12th century. And there seems to be some similarities between Albanians and Romanians (it doesn't meantion which, sorry) supporting the theory that Romanians came from the south. As for the word karácsony my word dictonary says that it comes from slavic. Well, these last thing is not a big thing, even if it would be derivated from Romanian or Roman. Magyars weren't christians at first and latin was the language of the educated people. Bibles were written in latin at that time. I wouldn't wonder if it comes from latin, but that doesn't proofs anything. And about Ardeal, well, you explanation sounds too constructed to me, although I can't say it is wrong. However, Ardeal and Erdély sounds very similar, it would be a great accident... And please don't ry to explain me Erdély comes from Romanian, it comes from Erdö elve which is Hungarian. BTW: I found a romanian source that disagrees with the romanian continuity theory, but I don't think that I'll find it again. I'll try tomorrow.

However, all this leads back to the point I have mentioned before. It's a theory. It can be true, but it doesn't have to be. You can now give more arguments that may be true, or maybe not. I have recently read an interesting signature of a user of civfanatics: it's no evidence, it's a webpage. We can go on with this, but none of us is a historian (or are you?) and even if, I don't think we can find evidences that are fully unquestionable. And lastly it isn't and it never was my intention to teach you your own history. That would be brazen. I'll be honest: I am no professional in romanian history. All I said I have read anywhere and I try to read independent sources. I just wanted to show you that your theory is no dogma, there can be other explanations. Therefore you are free to think about it what you want, but you should be careful if you want to claim it is the one and only truth.
However, I still say that the current borders are okay. Well, Transylvania, even the Székler land, may be mixed, but imagine the parts that want would suddenly belong to Hungary. Would there be any difference then now? Only sides have changed. And of course, it was the will of the majority. If you wanted to compare me with nazis, then I have to say that's insulting. I am not a nazi. Only because they would say the same sentences doesn't mean I'd start to kill people. I actually don't care for what they said. I am thinking about a topic and saying my thoughts. If the nazis would say something similar, then it's not my fault and it doesn't necessarily means that I am wrong. On the other hand let me say, that an argument like this is not a good style of discussion and shows you are out of arguments.

@SeleucusNicator: Tatárs are Mongols. And they have occupied Hungary for only one year. Pregnancy takes 9 months as you know. So the Tatárs would have had hard to work to get enough genes into Hungarian gene pool and on all over Hungary to make these genes remaining over centuries. If it would have been only one special group of Hungarians that have that gene marker, the guys who tested the games would have filtered that out or would have stated that point. In short: a weak explanation IMO.

Couldn't some have left and others not?

Tatars continued to raid Hungary for a long time after Mohi.

And, again, if either Huns or Avars were mongoloid, then you do not even need Mongol DNA infusions to explain why modern Hungarians have mongoloid genetic material. Any invading group absorbs a significant about of substrate population genetic material.

Tatárs are Mongols. And they have occupied Hungary for only one year. Pregnancy takes 9 months as you know. So the Tatárs would have had hard to work to get enough genes into Hungarian gene pool and on all over Hungary to make these genes remaining over centuries.
To make someone pregnant, however, takes considerably less time...;):p

My ancestry is partialy Hungarian. I know a decent bit about their territorial history. Nothing about their culture though. When I go to wikipedia i notice that I don't look anything like the Hungarians in the pictures. :(

Dammit cool3a2, stop necroing threads.

Archological founds are from before the 4th century, after this time there seems to be simply nothing.
Um, not really. :) Read that part of my spoiler.

Evidences for vlach population that are accepted by international historians are not older than from 12th century.
Maybe, but the phrase in Romanian "torna, fratre, torna" was recorded in the 7th century AFAIK, and even the Gesta Hungarorum mentions Vlachs in many instances, like the famous words "cum blachis in montibus" (with the Vlachs in the mountains).

And there seems to be some similarities between Albanians and Romanians (it doesn't meantion which, sorry) supporting the theory that Romanians came from the south.
Or Albanians from the north, or both from another place, or were just in contact, or the supposed similarities are just a result of the similarity between Ilyrians and Dacians, which were both Romanized afterwards.

As for the word karácsony my word dictonary says that it comes from slavic. Well, these last thing is not a big thing, even if it would be derivated from Romanian or Roman. Magyars weren't christians at first and latin was the language of the educated people. Bibles were written in latin at that time. I wouldn't wonder if it comes from latin, but that doesn't proofs anything.
Maybe, but out of curiousity, what Slavic word does it give as an etymology? :) Just want to compare it with the Romanian sources and see if I can find anything.

And about Ardeal, well, you explanation sounds too constructed to me, although I can't say it is wrong. However, Ardeal and Erdély sounds very similar, it would be a great accident... And please don't ry to explain me Erdély comes from Romanian, it comes from Erdö elve which is Hungarian.
Look, I'm not trying to explain anything about the Hungarian word. But if the Romanian word would be derived out of Erdely, it would become Erdei or Erdai! Maybe even Ierdei. Never Ardeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_to_Romanian_sound_changes
1) most obvious transformation that occurred in ALL words in Romanian: loss of intervocalic L (which doesn't support that little "Ardeal" word). So Erdely would become Erdei.
2) (possible transformation) diphtongisation of E -> Erdei would become Erdeai (usually shortened to Erdai in modern Romanian)
3) Iotacisation -> insertion of an I before any beginning E. That would become Ierdei or Ierdai, and that happened in ALL Romanian words save for 19th century loanwords from French, English, etc.

Alternatively, if the final "I" would have been transformed into a nonvocalic I, the transformations would have been:

- Erdely -> Erdeli
- Erdeli -> Erderi (Rhotacism)
- Erderi -> Erder
- Erder -> Ierder.

Thus by Romanian phonological rules, from Erdely you would have got either Erdei, Ierdei, Ierdai, Erder or Ierder. Absolutely no way it could have resulted in Ardeal.

BTW: I found a romanian source that disagrees with the romanian continuity theory, but I don't think that I'll find it again. I'll try tomorrow.
There are many, most are in the early 20th century. :) I know a couple, too. Never been convinced by their arguments however.

It's a theory. It can be true, but it doesn't have to be. You can now give more arguments that may be true, or maybe not. I have recently read an interesting signature of a user of civfanatics: it's no evidence, it's a webpage. We can go on with this, but none of us is a historian (or are you?) and even if, I don't think we can find evidences that are fully unquestionable.
I agree that nothing in history can ever be considered definite truth. :) And no, I'm not a historian, I'm a musician. I just love history and culture in general.


If you wanted to compare me with nazis, then I have to say that's insulting. I am not a nazi. Only because they would say the same sentences doesn't mean I'd start to kill people. I actually don't care for what they said. I am thinking about a topic and saying my thoughts. If the nazis would say something similar, then it's not my fault and it doesn't necessarily means that I am wrong. On the other hand let me say, that an argument like this is not a good style of discussion and shows you are out of arguments.
Nah, not at all, you missed my point entirely.

I was trying to shoot down the idea of irredentism and adjustment of borders over ethnic breakdowns (which will change, one way or another, faster than the borders can adapt, see Kosovo for example). THAT idea, that I should belong in the same country with everyone who speaks my language and we should kick out whoever does not, that idea is what I was trying to stop by that small rather unexplained comparison. Not aimed at you. Aimed at an idea. :) Don't take it personal at all. I think you have debated in a better and more polite way than 99.999999% of the debates on the Internet.

Couldn't some have left and others not?

Yeah, of course it could have happened. But that doesn't solve the problems of the Rosslerian theory of migration.

Vlachs indeed are known to have migrated (although later) in the 14th century, out of Wallachia and Transylvania, along the Carpathians, where they formed the Moravian Vlachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Vlachs), in today's eastern Slovakia. Another group migrated to the west, which arrived in Italian-controlled peninsula of Istria (today's Croatia) where they formed the Istro-Romanians, which speak the closest relative to Romanian today (and which are going extinct as we speak, with 45 speakers left in 2006). Of course, none of those were massive migrations, nothing like what Rossler and the like usually attempt to prove. :)

Because you have asked here are the possibly related words to karácsony:
- Kračun - serb-croatian, slovak
- kracsun - ukrainian
both derivated from the ancient slavic word korcsun.

@Sharwood: if you mean resurect by necro, then why not? It seems there are some people interested in this. Well, I could start a new one, but I think things would go worse if there are tons of threads about the same topic. However, since the thread about finn-hungarian relationship got closed, I have to start a new one. Let's see if the admin does like that more.

Because you have asked here are the possibly related words to karácsony:
- Kračun - serb-croatian, slovak
- kracsun - ukrainian
both derivated from the ancient slavic word korcsun.

@Sharwood: if you mean resurect by necro, then why not? It seems there are some people interested in this. Well, I could start a new one, but I think things would go worse if there are tons of threads about the same topic. However, since the thread about finn-hungarian relationship got closed, I have to start a new one. Let's see if the admin does like that more.

BTW: you may be right that the mongoloid gene marker can be from different originis. However, if you say it might be of avar or hun origin, then this is not necessary an argument against mines. I know what you think now, just go for the other thread and look what I have written there before you write any answer here. However, you said Hungarians have uralic genes before (or did I mixed up something?). If you say that the mongol gene marker can be from a different origin (and you might be right) you can say the same about uralic genes in Hungarian gene pool.
I never heard about more Mongol invasions (or tatárjárás) into Hungary then one. However, this can be due to leak of knowledge from my side. I lived in Germany my whole live and german school doesn't tell you much about Hungary. So all I know is from readings and from what my father told me. However, I would be surprised if there were more than one, since it would have been much harder for the Hungarians to build a state. There would have been chaos all over the time, but the only chaos I heard about was because of conflicts about who will be the next king.

An to come back to that pregnancy thing, yeah, making someone pregnant doesn't takes so long. But it might take several trials to be successful and you have to do this all over the country to have it widespread over the whole country and that it can be found centuries later. One year is too short for this. And if they were able to spread their gene out all over Hungary why they did disappear. They must have been enough to take over the country for a longer time.

I've got no problem with you starting new threads, and the odd necro isn't so bad. But bringing back two year old threads within minutes of one another is very annoying.

Well, I have found the two interesting threads only now, because I usually don't look at this part of the forum. And I only started two, not tons of threads. And one of them was only one year old, sir. However, it seems there is still interest in both threads so I really can't find a reason why to not continue the existing threads. I don't want to be harsh, but it is also not my problem if it annoys you. There are people that feel like me, otherwise they wouldn't have posted here (although we went quite far away from the actual topic, but this is not my fault alone). And let me ask a question: would you find it less annoying if I wold have started two new threads? What if there is someone else in another year and does the same? And again and again... I find it annoying that there are tons of threads about what Hitler did or what would have been if he wouldn't. Instead I would suggest to create one thread with the title: "What Hitler did and what would have been if he didn't".

I too am annoyed at the number of Hitler threads. But the fact is, if there were life in these threads, they wouldn't have died in the first place.

Well, maybe I'll get only 2 or 3 posts here and then everything is quite again. But I don't see a problem there. No need to beef or to even close the thread if someone posts here. That's what it is for, to post here. And I post here anyways, no matter if I do it in a new thread or in the old one. I am a free man who only wants to use a (barely advertised) thread, that's all. Closing a thread only because it is old is dictatorship IMO. However, I'd rather like to discuss on the topic, not about romanian continuity theory and not about how old this thread is.

There was a time when I was really interested in Hungary actually, largely thanks to The English Patient and interest in Austrian history. LOL! I even contemplated learning Magyar but obviously it didn't eventuate.

Isnt possible that vlachs simply lived with moravian slavs together until magyar invasion? Something similar as northern-western Slavs in area of todays eastern Germany. After invasion of Magyars Vlachs should become leading ethnicity thanks assimilation as it was with "german" slavs. Without killing or driveing out?
Edit:Sorry, I have missed page. I think we realy should aim more on hungarian history, on romanian one in other thread.

I agree that we would heavily threadjack this thread with a debate as large as this, so we shouldn't debate this here, since the idea is well more than enough for a separate thread. :) (on a Romanian forum I'm at, a topic called "origin of the Romanians" has over 500 pages, with 30 posts a page, and with origin theories going as far as Ireland or India :lol:)

(I asked before starting the continuity debate exactly because I knew what was gonna happen)

I agree that we would heavily threadjack this thread with a debate as large as this, so we shouldn't debate this here, since the idea is well more than enough for a separate thread. :) (on a Romanian forum I'm at, a topic called "origin of the Romanians" has over 500 pages, with 30 posts a page, and with origin theories going as far as Ireland or India :lol:)

(I asked before starting the continuity debate exactly because I knew what was gonna happen)
Oh I can take the Rumanians further back than that. I'm pretty sure that you all came from ape-like ancestors who migrated out of Africa between 50,000-150,000 years ago;)

Well, maybe I'll get only 2 or 3 posts here and then everything is quite again. But I don't see a problem there. No need to beef or to even close the thread if someone posts here. That's what it is for, to post here. And I post here anyways, no matter if I do it in a new thread or in the old one. I am a free man who only wants to use a (barely advertised) thread, that's all. Closing a thread only because it is old is dictatorship IMO. However, I'd rather like to discuss on the topic, not about romanian continuity theory and not about how old this thread is.This forum is a dictatorship. A benovelent (sp?) one but a dictatorship nonetheless. :p

CFC is the private property of TF and he has kindly allowed all of us free usage of it. Still you have to respect the rules he put in place, since you're partying on his property.

And one of the those rules is not to resurrect old threads. Not only because it is annoying ( I thought some of those old pals have come back), but oftentimes the people who have posted in it before are gone. Some of us also don't want to look at our old posts, which we have no recollection of ever posting (it happens, if you have been here for more than 7 years :p).

We'd prefer if you start a new thread. Starting fr a clean slate, so to speak.

And pls move the Romanian discussion to a new thread, if you guys want to move off in that tangent and leave this thread as a Hungrarian discussion (which I didn't close because there's more substantial new material here).

I know this is offtopic again, I just say it to bring it to an end. I accept your act then, although I don't think it is a good rule. Maybe an old thread should be closed or even deleted automatically then, if this is technically possible. I am sure that not everybody reads the rules, so a "resurection" of threads could happen again and again.

Ok, my two cents (as a Hungarian):

- Hungary did not stop the Tatars in the 13th century because we were so cool. They left to elect the next khan (I know it's an oversimplification, but so is the claim). Hungary did not stop the Ottomans either. Hungary was just at the end radius of the effective Turkish warfare machine at that time: see the unsuccessful sieges of Vienna. I know that it is an important part of HU identity and emphasized in some history books ("we were the protectors of Europe"). It's still not true though.
- Our debate (over Transylvania) with the Romanians is pretty much useless. Obviously you can find hawks on both sides.
- The current Hungarian PM being a "liar pig". Sure. Just like all our PMs since 1990 with no exception. We're talking about Eastern European politicians, what should we expect?
- Hungarian studies in universities are overlooked because the country is small and a cultural oddball in the region. There are Slavic Studies programs in many places - most Hungarians would upset to see the country being part of that though. And a small country does not justify spending money to set up such independent programs. Would there be demand for that? Probably not. Size of course is an issue of economies of scale. Small countries can still be interesting, friendly, fun or whatever.
- Hungary has a long history and gave many great intellectuals to the world (most of them as expatriates though...). Just like many other countries. But many Hungarians are still fighting the Kulturkampf, arguing for cultural superiority, which is an understandable overcompensation for Trianon. I personally never believed in that. I do not live in Hungary though. :)

Well, on some of your points I have a slightly different opinion:

About that Turk thing I'd like to add something: I have seen a documentation on tv recently. They have explained the battle of Mohács. The turkish canons were hidden on hills with trees on both sides of a valley. The Sultan himself and some of his Janissary went through the valley to trap our army. In the end they were successful as we know. However, it was a risky tactic. Between our soldiers and the Sultan there were only 20 metres. In a special sense it was a closer battle as most people think. From this distance it should have been possible to hit him with an arrow or a spear ot whatever. If the Sultan would have died, we may have won the battle...

You may be right that all of our pm's were lyar (including Orbán). I guess every politican is, it's simply part of their job. However, there is a difference in the quality of the lies of our pm's. What Gyurcsány did and does breaks all records. It's not an everyday thing that a government delays the release of the economic data after the votes and that he says something totally different just before and after the elections. I mean there were maybe a week between his contradictory statements. And you can not claim seriously that he didn't know these economic datas, that's simply his job. Even if he doesn't knows them exactly, he should be able to estimate them. If you think it would be a good idea to simply wit for the next elections to replace him, then think about the following: if we let him win (he would even he will loose the next elections) then this whole thing, this terrible tactic etc, would become a normal situation. I mean even if the Fidesz (whom I would vote for if I could) would lie in that dimensions it wouldn't be good. Furthermore Gyurcsány does a terrible job, no matter if he lies or not. Just one example what MSZP did: when they signed the papers for entering the EU in Athens, Hungary was at the top of the new members. When we really entered it, we were at the end. There was only one single year between. As last thing I'd like to say, every normal man would have resigned.
Orbán on the other side may have lied to us as well. But remember what he did during the last phase of communism. Remember that speech he hold during the re-burials of Nagy? It was dangerous for him. The comunist government could have done bad things to him, they would have had the power for it. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to make Orbán the pm candidate of the Fidesz again. It should be someone who brings "fresh blood" into this job.

But many Hungarians are still fighting the Kulturkampf, arguing for cultural superiority, which is an understandable overcompensation for Trianon. I personally never believed in that.
I don't think there is really something like Kulturkampf like you described it. Hungarys culture isn't superior to any other, it is just different. This difference is beautiful and we have to keep it at any cost. If we don't, we aren't worthy to and we will not survive as nation. Our culture is what makes us Hungarians. The thing with Trianon is, that those of us, that live outside Hungarys borders now, are in grave danger to loose their identity, to loose their own culture. That's why autonomy for them is the least we should reach. Look at the Germans of Transylvania. They were a big group there that have highly influenced the history of Transylvania. Now they are almost extinct. Isn't it sad? All this culture is about to get lost for all times... We should avoid that the same happens to our people. Of course there are people, without hair, that shout things like "mindent vissza", that want to undo Trianon completely. Well, those are simply mad and you shouldn't take them serious. There are such people in every country. However, what did Gyurcsány for the "határon túli magyarok"? Nothing. That's his greatest crime.

We don't need to be forgotten although we are a small country.
Small countries can still be interesting, friendly, fun or whatever.
Aren't we? It's just that we don't advertise it. If we would have a competent pm who brings us out of this crisis, we could make Hungary more interesting for tourists. We already have great food. Look at Britain. They are a great nation, but they don't have great food (sorry guys... :D). We would beat them easily! It's just that nobody knows... That's our problem.
We should concentrate on something. Like sports. We were great in soccer in past times, weren't we? We could play a role in the world this way. People would remember us.

If the Sultan would have died, we may have won the battle...


I'm not sold on the issue that one battle changes everything. If we win at Mohacs, we would have failed five or ten years after anyway. Hungary was bound to fail because of the domestic troubles of the country.


You may be right that all of our pm's were lyar (including Orbán). I guess every politican is, it's simply part of their job. However, there is a difference in the quality of the lies of our pm's. What Gyurcsány did and does breaks all records. It's not an everyday thing that a government delays the release of the economic data after the votes and that he says something totally different just before and after the elections. I mean there were maybe a week between his contradictory statements. And you can not claim seriously that he didn't know these economic datas, that's simply his job. Even if he doesn't knows them exactly, he should be able to estimate them. If you think it would be a good idea to simply wit for the next elections to replace him, then think about the following: if we let him win (he would even he will loose the next elections) then this whole thing, this terrible tactic etc, would become a normal situation. I mean even if the Fidesz (whom I would vote for if I could) would lie in that dimensions it wouldn't be good. Furthermore Gyurcsány does a terrible job, no matter if he lies or not. Just one example what MSZP did: when they signed the papers for entering the EU in Athens, Hungary was at the top of the new members. When we really entered it, we were at the end. There was only one single year between. As last thing I'd like to say, every normal man would have resigned.
Orbán on the other side may have lied to us as well. But remember what he did during the last phase of communism. Remember that speech he hold during the re-burials of Nagy? It was dangerous for him. The comunist government could have done bad things to him, they would have had the power for it. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to make Orbán the pm candidate of the Fidesz again. It should be someone who brings "fresh blood" into this job.


I remember Orban from the late 1980s, I was personally there and I think whatever good he did, he erased it in 1998 and 2002 when he polarized the Hungarian public so much. I have to vomit when I think of what he became. And that's the difference: Gyurcsany and the socialists are corrupt cronies from the beginning but I do not expect anything else. Orban and the Fidesz on the other hand had the chance and they blew it because they wanted power so much. They are not better than let's say Fico in Slovakia.
And I think that once somebody is a liar then that person is a liar and that's it.


I don't think there is really something like Kulturkampf like you described it. Hungarys culture isn't superior to any other, it is just different. This difference is beautiful and we have to keep it at any cost. If we don't, we aren't worthy to and we will not survive as nation. Our culture is what makes us Hungarians. The thing with Trianon is, that those of us, that live outside Hungarys borders now, are in grave danger to loose their identity, to loose their own culture. That's why autonomy for them is the least we should reach. Look at the Germans of Transylvania. They were a big group there that have highly influenced the history of Transylvania. Now they are almost extinct. Isn't it sad? All this culture is about to get lost for all times... We should avoid that the same happens to our people. Of course there are people, without hair, that shout things like "mindent vissza", that want to undo Trianon completely. Well, those are simply mad and you shouldn't take them serious. There are such people in every country. However, what did Gyurcsány for the "határon túli magyarok"? Nothing. That's his greatest crime.


I'm all for keeping the Hungarian culture in our "near abroad" population. I regularly visit Romania due to my work, and I think that many of the problems are overblown by extremists in both sides. Also, once the Hungarian parties in Hungary stop intervening and making this issue simply part of their campaign in Hungary the situation improves. And this is the Hungarian right wing's big responsibility. You say that Gyurcsany did nothing for the Hungarians near abroad and that is correct. On the other hand what Orban did is actually worse. There is no need to export the Hungarian domestic campaign to Romania or Slovakia. But since the Fidesz runs a populist-nationalist platform they need to do this. And to paraphrase you: that's their biggest crime.


Aren't we? It's just that we don't advertise it. If we would have a competent pm who brings us out of this crisis, we could make Hungary more interesting for tourists. We already have great food. Look at Britain. They are a great nation, but they don't have great food (sorry guys... :D). We would beat them easily! It's just that nobody knows... That's our problem.
We should concentrate on something. Like sports. We were great in soccer in past times, weren't we? We could play a role in the world this way. People would remember us.


I agree a 100 %. I do not see that competent person in the arena though. But we have the elements of becoming "not forgotten" again. This is a great country led by criminals and morons. :)

It would be cool make some Hungarian history quiz in CFC. Isnt that also way to remind great times of Hungary?
I think that Slovak Fico is worst central european PM todays. I personally like Czech PM, but majority of czechs dont like him as Hungarians dont like their one.

I don't believe Orbán polarized Hungary more or even as much as Gyurcsány. There are different opinions all the time, that's normal for a democrazy. And you can't say Gyurcsány doesn't want power. However, only because you are disappointed by Orbán this is not necessarily a reason to vote for Gyurcsány nor is it a reason to protect him. You can simply vote nobody. Also, just before the first election (with Medgyessy) they promised everybody everything. Well, they really did what they promised, but this was the major reason why we are in that situation now. They discarded our money! And why did they? For power, to become elected. Are they better then the Fidesz? In the Fidesz' time at least the economic situation was okay.
We can't even be sure that Gyurcsány was an elected PM ever. He came to power to replace Medgyessy, without election. And who knows how the last elections would have ended under normal circumstances. He may have, but we don't know. While we don't know he is not a legitimate PM. Those elections simply don't count.

I also don't think if the situation in Romania for example would improve if we would start to don't mind for those people. It would get worse. People there would slowy be romanized or would leave their home. Just think of the Transylvanian Germans again. Germany didn't imnd them, see what happened?

If you call Fidesz populist, what do you call the MSZP? They say what people want to hear all the time. If they really do that is another question. Just remember the last elections. They promised everything to everybody. After they won the elections and published the economic data, they did the whole opposide. And they do the same again and again. That's populistic if you promise everybody everything. The Fidesz on the other side started votings to give Transylvanian Hungarians the hungarian citizenship. Unfortunately the voting was after MSZP won the elections. However, the Fidesz didn't only promised, but also did something. And the economic situation was better then it is now. So no reason to prefer Gyurcsány instead of the Fidesz, even if the Fidesz isn't perfect.

But we have the elements of becoming "not forgotten" again. This is a great country led by criminals and morons.
100% correct. This is why Gyurcsány has to go. Someone else may be able to change this.

BTW: You said we can't expect more from eastern european politicans in your last post. I don't think we are damned to have bad politicans because we live in eastern europe. It is also up to us to change this, we have to be more political and what ever foreign press says: demonstrations are also good. However, Szechenyi said "Every nation has that kind of government that the nation is worthy to have. If a nation is worthy to have a better government than it has, it will revolt." That's maybe not the literal translation, but it should be close to it. So if we have a bad government, we may be worthy to have it, maybe only because we don't change it...

@REDY:Yeah, an hungarian history quiz would be cool...

BTW: Here are some further actors of hungarian heritage (maybe useful for a quiz?):
- Adrien Brody
- Peter Falk (Columbo)
- Rachel Weissz, that's the leading actress of the first two "The mummy" movies

I don't believe Orbán polarized Hungary more or even as much as Gyurcsány. There are different opinions all the time, that's normal for a democrazy. And you can't say Gyurcsány doesn't want power.


I never said that.

However, only because you are disappointed by Orbán this is not necessarily a reason to vote for Gyurcsány nor is it a reason to protect him. You can simply vote nobody.


Which is exactly what I do since 1994.

Also, just before the first election (with Medgyessy) they promised everybody everything. Well, they really did what they promised, but this was the major reason why we are in that situation now. They discarded our money! And why did they? For power, to become elected. Are they better then the Fidesz? In the Fidesz' time at least the economic situation was okay.


They can thank it to Lajos Bokros. The economy was ok when Orban came to power and was crap when he left.


We can't even be sure that Gyurcsány was an elected PM ever. He came to power to replace Medgyessy, without election. And who knows how the last elections would have ended under normal circumstances. He may have, but we don't know. While we don't know he is not a legitimate PM. Those elections simply don't count.


This is no argument, sorry. You should read what the constitution and the law on election says. Legitimacy goes to the party and not the individual.


I also don't think if the situation in Romania for example would improve if we would start to don't mind for those people. It would get worse. People there would slowy be romanized or would leave their home. Just think of the Transylvanian Germans again. Germany didn't imnd them, see what happened?


Again, this is not what I said. I never said do not mind those people. I said do not generate the same political polarization. Do not create satellite Hungarian organizations just because your candidate (Tokes) was unable to take over the RMDSZ from the inside. Hungary can and should pay attention to Hungarians near abroad without directly being involved.
The Germans are an entirely different case.


If you call Fidesz populist, what do you call the MSZP?


Populist. :) Exactly because of what you wrote. And exactly like the Fidesz. If you think that I support the MSZP then you are gravely mistaken. I do not support either because neither has done anything for anybody else but their own criminal buddies.


The Fidesz on the other side started votings to give Transylvanian Hungarians the hungarian citizenship.


Which was the stupidest idea ever. Overly nationalistic just to boost up their voter base. It was unfeasible, legally leaking and had nothing to do with anything but pure political greed.


BTW: You said we can't expect more from eastern european politicans in your last post. I don't think we are damned to have bad politicans because we live in eastern europe. It is also up to us to change this, we have to be more political and what ever foreign press says: demonstrations are also good. However, Szechenyi said "Every nation has that kind of government that the nation is worthy to have. If a nation is worthy to have a better government than it has, it will revolt." That's maybe not the literal translation, but it should be close to it. So if we have a bad government, we may be worthy to have it, maybe only because we don't change it...


I agree. And I'm sure that there will be plenty of angry people on the street on October 23. But it is more difficult to figure out how to deal with the masses who vote for these cronies all the time. People are not very smart, they buy all the crap a politician promises them in the campaign, and they tend to vote for "culture war" reasons (see fascists vs. communists). Maybe if the country does a better job educating people than we won't have a bunch of morons who react to call words as opposed to actual programs.

I agree that a quiz would be great. Vrylakas can put one together for us. :)

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

It would be cool make some Hungarian history quiz in CFC. Isnt that also way to remind great times of Hungary?
I think that Slovak Fico is worst central european PM todays. I personally like Czech PM, but majority of czechs dont like him as Hungarians dont like their one.

I agree and I might even say that Fico is worse then Meciar (and that is a challenge!)

I tend to agree....Meciar is responsible for more hate and corruption when Fico is clear example of communist populist destroying anything what should benefit country in long-term. What is bad that we have similiar politician - Jiří Paroubek.

About that Turk thing I'd like to add something: I have seen a documentation on tv recently. They have explained the battle of Mohács. The turkish canons were hidden on hills with trees on both sides of a valley. The Sultan himself and some of his Janissary went through the valley to trap our army. In the end they were successful as we know. However, it was a risky tactic. Between our soldiers and the Sultan there were only 20 metres. In a special sense it was a closer battle as most people think. From this distance it should have been possible to hit him with an arrow or a spear ot whatever. If the Sultan would have died, we may have won the battle...


The Serbs killed the Sultan at the Battle of Kosovo. How did that work out for them?

IMO, the Hungarian military of that period was inherently flawed. The Ottomans were so successful because they had developed one of the world's first professional, trained infantry forces (the Janissaries). The Hungarian army at Mohacs was, iirc, almost entirely composed of cavalry. Trained infantry is going to beat cavalry almost every time; look at the Battle of Varna for another good example of that from Hungarian history.

The economy was ok when Orban came to power and was crap when he left.
This is not what I can remember. As I said Hungary was the economical strongest of the new eu member when they signed the papers in Athens. I am also sure that my grandparents were quite satisfied with the situation then. However, it is much worse now.


I don't believe Orbán polarized Hungary more or even as much as Gyurcsány. There are different opinions all the time, that's normal for a democrazy. And you can't say Gyurcsány doesn't want power.
I never said that.
Then I got you wrong, sorry.


We can't even be sure that Gyurcsány was an elected PM ever. He came to power to replace Medgyessy, without election. And who knows how the last elections would have ended under normal circumstances. He may have, but we don't know. While we don't know he is not a legitimate PM. Those elections simply don't count.
This is no argument, sorry. You should read what the constitution and the law on election says. Legitimacy goes to the party and not the individual.
Well, let's say we don't know if Hungarys people ever wanted him as president. You elect a member of the parliament and those elect the PM. For the first time Gyurcsány became PM, there was no election with participation of the ordinary people, so my statement remains true for this. When Gyurcsány kept his position he manipulated the election by delaying the publishment of the economic data. We can't know if people would have voted for the member of the parliament they did for. If they wouldn't have, then there may have been different members of the parliament, probably more from the Fidesz. In this case the parliament wouldn't have elected Gyurcsány for PM. The election itself was invalid because Gyurcsány manipulated as I have described it before. It may not be invalid from the view of the law, but morally and realisticly invalid. You see, what I said was maybe simplified but true.


I also don't think if the situation in Romania for example would improve if we would start to don't mind for those people. It would get worse. People there would slowy be romanized or would leave their home. Just think of the Transylvanian Germans again. Germany didn't imnd them, see what happened?
Again, this is not what I said. I never said do not mind those people. I said do not generate the same political polarization. Do not create satellite Hungarian organizations just because your candidate (Tokes) was unable to take over the RMDSZ from the inside. Hungary can and should pay attention to Hungarians near abroad without directly being involved.
The Germans are an entirely different case.
No, you haven't. I have exaggerated it. The point is, that it is important to make this thing to a part of the campaign, because it is an important part of the foreign policy. This is also something people should consider when they vote. On the other hand I know the situation in Germany very well (since this is the land where I live). It's all about money, directly or indirectly. If politics of a country is only about money, then there is certainly something wrong, because there are much more important things in live (and thus in politics) then money. In this sense we can be happy that we have problems like that, problems that touch us as nation. And to come back to what I said, if you don't make this part of you foreign policy or you don't make it a part of the campaigns, it is a sign for not mind for them very much.
I also don't think that the Germans are an entirely different case, it is at least similar.


The Fidesz on the other side started votings to give Transylvanian Hungarians the hungarian citizenship.
Which was the stupidest idea ever. Overly nationalistic just to boost up their voter base. It was unfeasible, legally leaking and had nothing to do with anything but pure political greed.
No, it wasn't stupid. You said you don't live in Hungary, I do not either. My father is an Hungarian, my mother is a German. I was born here in Germany, but travelled to Hungary in almost every vacation to visit my family. I learned the language (of course not perfectly but fairly), the history and the culture (although the history and the language are both part of the culture...). From the view of the law I was also both, German and Hungarian, I was a double citizen (don't know if there is such a word in english, kettes állampolgár in hungarian). But according to the laws I would have to decide for one citizenship once I am adult. I would have decided for the german, because it is the country where I live (although I could imagine to go to Hungary). Luckily the law has changed at the same time as when Hungary entered the EU. You can't imagine how happy I was when I recognized that I can keep both citizenships, I can't explain you why. But I can imagine that romanian Hungarians feel the same way. It's a difference if you say "I am of hungarian heritage" or if you say "I am Hungarian" and for myself I only feel to be a complete Hungarian if I have the citizenship. In my opinion those that have voted against this proposal are betrayers, sorry if you feel affronted by this.

I don't say that the hungarian army was superior or at least equal to the turkish at that time. I also didn't want to say that the hungarian leaders planned it that way. I only wanted to say that they also had a bit bad luck. We also don't know what would have happened if the Sultan would have died there. Maybe their army would have collapsed (wouldn't have happened for the first time in history that an army would have done after its leader died), maybe not.

I think we are getting closer, or at least the debate is quite civilized. :)

Well, let's say we don't know if Hungarys people ever wanted him as president. You elect a member of the parliament and those elect the PM. For the first time Gyurcsány became PM, there was no election with participation of the ordinary people, so my statement remains true for this. When Gyurcsány kept his position he manipulated the election by delaying the publishment of the economic data. We can't know if people would have voted for the member of the parliament they did for. If they wouldn't have, then there may have been different members of the parliament, probably more from the Fidesz. In this case the parliament wouldn't have elected Gyurcsány for PM. The election itself was invalid because Gyurcsány manipulated as I have described it before. It may not be invalid from the view of the law, but morally and realisticly invalid. You see, what I said was maybe simplified but true.

The party can put anybody in the PM seat as long as they have the majority. Whether we like it or not, that's the law. Gyurcsany did manipulate the campaign, but from a manipulation viewpoint it's not different than promising anything just to get elected which was done by pretty much everybody since 1990. And "morally invalid" is a dangerous category as it is a subjective one. I'm not saying that the law is good or anything. Most of the fundamental laws are tied to a 2/3 majority so that neither party can change it with a simple majority. Theoretically it is a good thing since none of the parties can be trusted. But occasionally it is a bad thing since we have some bad laws that should be changed (like the law on local governments) but we cannot since the two big parties will not reach an agreement simply because they hate each other.


No, it wasn't stupid. You said you don't live in Hungary, I do not either. My father is an Hungarian, my mother is a German. I was born here in Germany, but travelled to Hungary in almost every vacation to visit my family. I learned the language (of course not perfectly but fairly), the history and the culture (although the history and the language are both part of the culture...). From the view of the law I was also both, German and Hungarian, I was a double citizen (don't know if there is such a word in english, kettes állampolgár in hungarian). But according to the laws I would have to decide for one citizenship once I am adult. I would have decided for the german, because it is the country where I live (although I could imagine to go to Hungary). Luckily the law has changed at the same time as when Hungary entered the EU. You can't imagine how happy I was when I recognized that I can keep both citizenships, I can't explain you why. But I can imagine that romanian Hungarians feel the same way. It's a difference if you say "I am of hungarian heritage" or if you say "I am Hungarian" and for myself I only feel to be a complete Hungarian if I have the citizenship. In my opinion those that have voted against this proposal are betrayers, sorry if you feel affronted by this.

I'm all for dual citizenships (I'm a Hungarian citizen living in the US for the past few years) as long as it is a feasible construct. In the referendum case it was all about short term political gain. Obviously the MSZP campaigned against it for the same political reasons dressed as financial issues ("it would cost Hungarian taxpayers a lot" they said). I am simply against discussing this idea on the basis of cynical political mathematics from either side.