Hungary - A Forgetten Culture?

[Nitram15]

Not really.

You know, that's quite a tight statement. Can you explain? But please, don't write things like "there is no truth in the Greek Mythology either", that's an empty statement, and doesn't worth clicking the "Submit Reply" button. Just because you don't believe in our myths (and I didn't believe in our legends as well, so we're on the same side ), then give me a better explanation. Honestly, I'm skeptic with the official theory about the Hungarians, and currently, most of the Hungarian researchers of the topic think that the Finno-Ugric myth (oops, I wanted to say "theory") cannot be completely true, but there is simply no other acceptable explanation of our origin, therefore they have to accept.

 

[TheLastOne36]

You know, you guys did have some very very similar and direct cousins in Russia at some point.

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

 

[Nitram15]

You know, you guys did have some very very similar and direct cousins in Russia at some point.

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

Friar Julian was just a man, an explorer, who had this idea. But then I could put here a link about Sándor Kőrösi Csoma, one of the greatest Hungarian explorers, he thought, that the Hungarian origins should be found in Tibet, or somewhere in Central Asia, and he had a journey from Hungary to Tibet. Unfortunately, his expedition was unsuccesful, just like other " Hungarian origin searchers' ". There are also theories, that we could be originated to Mesopotamia, to king Menrot or Nimród in Hungarian. It also has a legend, but as others have stated, legends have nothing truth in them, which is I think paradoxic, or else why would anyone create a myth without a base, without some kind of truth? And please don't tell me, that "Grimm tales are mere fairy tales, they don't contain truth.", or such things. Of course not, the Grimm brothers however written those tales with a reason, they are completely artificial.

 

[Leoreth]

You know, that's quite a tight statement. Can you explain? But please, don't write things like "there is no truth in the Greek Mythology either", that's an empty statement, and doesn't worth clicking the "Submit Reply" button. Just because you don't believe in our myths (and I didn't believe in our legends as well, so we're on the same side ), then give me a better explanation. Honestly, I'm skeptic with the official theory about the Hungarians, and currently, most of the Hungarian researchers of the topic think that the Finno-Ugric myth (oops, I wanted to say "theory") cannot be completely true, but there is simply no other acceptable explanation of our origin, therefore they have to accept.

Erm, it's you who made the bold universal statement that all legends hold a grain of truth, so why should the burden of proof lie on me?

There is the legend that the Norwegian royal line descends from Odin, does that contain a "grain of truth" as well? Not unless you believe trivialities like "people descend from another" or whatever are content that can be derived from legends.

Everyone and their little dog derived their ancestry from stuff out of ancient history in the Middle Ages, just for the prestige and legitimacy that comes with it. Heck, you could even go back right to Vergil and his "Romans are Trojans" narrative. Legends are legends, not historical fact, and just by nature of being legends are not true in any meaningful way.

I'd also like to hear your criticism of the Finno-Ugric theory.

 

[Nitram15]

Erm, it's you who made the bold universal statement that all legends hold a grain of truth, so why should the burden of proof lie on me?

There is the legend that the Norwegian royal line descends from Odin, does that contain a "grain of truth" as well? Not unless you believe trivialities like "people descend from another" or whatever are content that can be derived from legends.

Everyone and their little dog derived their ancestry from stuff out of ancient history in the Middle Ages, just for the prestige and legitimacy that comes with it. Heck, you could even go back right to Vergil and his "Romans are Trojans" narrative. Legends are legends, not historical fact, and just by nature of being legends are not true in any meaningful way.

I'd also like to hear your criticism of the Finno-Ugric theory.

Yes you've got a point, i have to admit. But the term historical fact is like weather forecast in the past. The further you go, the less you can be sure about. And because history's such flexibility, it can be distorted and misexplained. About the finno-ugric theory: I have no criticism about the topic, I'm just skeptic about it, just like people around here are skeptic about different theories. There are several theories about Hungarians are from Central Asia, or Mesopotamia (as I've mentioned before) but those are simply theories, "legends", in other words.

Unfortunately I forgot the name of the famous researcher of the topic, I once was on one of his presentations, and he could give tons of evidence why the finno-ugric theory is just a finno-ugric myth. But when i'll remember about his name, i'll tell it to you.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Friar Julian was just a man, an explorer, who had this idea. But then I could put here a link about Sándor Kőrösi Csoma, one of the greatest Hungarian explorers, he thought, that the Hungarian origins should be found in Tibet, or somewhere in Central Asia, and he had a journey from Hungary to Tibet. Unfortunately, his expedition was unsuccesful, just like other " Hungarian origin searchers' ". There are also theories, that we could be originated to Mesopotamia, to king Menrot or Nimród in Hungarian. It also has a legend, but as others have stated, legends have nothing truth in them, which is I think paradoxic, or else why would anyone create a myth without a base, without some kind of truth? And please don't tell me, that "Grimm tales are mere fairy tales, they don't contain truth.", or such things. Of course not, the Grimm brothers however written those tales with a reason, they are completely artificial.

FYI, Poles along with half of Europe have legends and myths where they are descendent from the Sumerians/Mesopotamians. I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

We do know however that Magyars migrated from Russia into Europe like Slavs, Turkics and other peoples. I'd much rather believe that Friar Julian did go on this expedition and found people he could communicate with in Hungarian. Why would he lie about that? He was right about the Mongols.

 

[Nitram15]

FYI, Poles along with half of Europe have legends and myths where they are descendent from the Sumerians/Mesopotamians. I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

We do know however that Magyars migrated from Russia into Europe like Slavs, Turkics and other peoples. I'd much rather believe that Friar Julian did go on this expedition and found people he could communicate with in Hungarian. Why would he lie about that? He was right about the Mongols.

Yes, you're right, i have to admit, i've already said in my previous post. Myths are myths, they shouldn't be trusted. But read my previous post to understand my skepticism. And actually, I'm quite tired to write that much...

 

[Algeroth]

FYI, Poles along with half of Europe have legends and myths where they are descendent from the Sumerians/Mesopotamians. I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

You do? I've never had such legend.

 

[Masada]

Yeah, most are obscure. The Lebor Gabála Érenn for instance claims that the Irish originated in Egypt. Jordanes' Getica claims that the Goths come from Scandinavia, sacked Troy and Ilium, and messed around in Egypt for a while. The Historia Brittonum has the English descending from Trojans. Virgil's Aeneid has the Romans claiming Trojan ancestry as well. The Chronicle of Fredegar has the Franks being descendants of Troy as well. Even Iceland claimed a Trojan origin via the Prose Edda. The Trojans for their parts were meant to be of Mesopotamian origin.

 

[Winner]

Oh, thanks. I see now, but I guess I'll never understand its logic. BTW, was there any other multi-ethnical territory in the Czech and/or Slovak language which had such a different name?

Hm, no, I don't think so. Usually we just referred to multi-ethnic states by the name of the dominant group, which is quite common occurrence in any language.

We do know however that Magyars migrated from Russia into Europe like Slavs, Turkics and other peoples.

Except the Slavs didn't migrate *from* Russia. Slavs most likely originated in an area stretching from eastern Poland to north-east Ukraine. They spread *to* Russia (and half of Europe) in the early medieval period.

 

[Winner]

double post, sorry.

 

[Lord Baal]

Except the Slavs didn't migrate *from* Russia. Slavs most likely originated in an area stretching from eastern Poland to north-east Ukraine. They spread *to* Russia (and half of Europe) in the early medieval period.

I'd always heard that the likely origin of the Slavs was the Upper Caucasus? Not doubting you, I'd just like a source for my own interest.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I'd always heard that the likely origin of the Slavs was the Upper Caucasus? Not doubting you, I'd just like a source for my own interest.

Same. I assumed that area Winner referred to is merely the area where Slavs diverged into subgroups. (Where White Serbia(or Croatia?) is from and where in the legend, Lech, Czech and Rus originally came from.)

 

[Winner]

I'd always heard that the likely origin of the Slavs was the Upper Caucasus? Not doubting you, I'd just like a source for my own interest.

Same. I assumed that area Winner referred to is merely the area where Slavs diverged into subgroups. (Where White Serbia(or Croatia?) is from and where in the legend, Lech, Czech and Rus originally came from.)

No. Or rather it depends on your definition of "Slavs", because North-of-Caucasus is roughly the area whence Indo-European peoples originally came from (according to one hypothesis). Slavs as a linguistically separate group formed in the area I described. Slavic and Baltic languages used to form a dialect continuum, with the Baltic languages area stretching from the Baltic sea (duh) to much of modern-day Belarus. South of them were the early Slavs. It's of course difficult/impossible to pinpoint their origin exactly, but this is as far as I know the theory that's most consistent with archaeological and linguistic data.

Lech, Czech, Rus legend is just a medieval reflection of the popular awareness that Czechs, Poles and Eastern Slavs were linguistically related to each other.

EDIT: a few maps to make illustrate this better:

Spoiler :

 

[Domen]

The Upper Caucasus is not Russia anyway.

 

[Lord Baal]

The Upper Caucasus is not Russia anyway.

Parts of it are.

 

[innonimatu]

What I want ot know is why we refer to the Magyars as 'Hungarians' when 'Magyars' is a perfectly acceptable term in both English and Magyarland?

They are called Magyars in many languages - including those of many of their immediate neighbours. In Czech, we say "Maďarsko" (Maygyar-land). The standard English term - Hungary - should properly be translated as "Uhersko" or "Uhry", which is the Czech name for the Kingdom of Hungary as it existed for most of its history. This term is now largely archaic outside the field of history.

Tradition? Most languages use words sounding like "Hungary", for example in portuguese the name for the kingdom in 1643 was "Ungria", I just stumbled on that yesterday. The term used in all of western Europe must have derived from some medieval latin name for the kingdom of Hungary. What surprises me is that some languages in eastern Europe use a different name.

 

[TheLastOne36]

In Polish it is Węgry if you were curious.

Russian is similar I think, something like Vyengriya.

 

[madviking]

In Polish it is Węgry if you were curious.

Russian is similar I think, something like Vyengriya.

Well no, in Russian it's Венгрия.

 

[Nitram15]

Well no, in Russian it's Венгрия.

I don't know much about Russian language, but I can read the Cyrillic words, and isn't 'Венгрия' the same as 'Vyengriya'?

Tradition? Most languages use words sounding like "Hungary", for example in portuguese the name for the kingdom in 1643 was "Ungria", I just stumbled on that yesterday. The term used in all of western Europe must have derived from some medieval latin name for the kingdom of Hungary. What surprises me is that some languages in eastern Europe use a different name.

Probably because in Eastern Europe, Christianity (and thus the Latin language) arrived much later than in West and in Hungary. And since they didn't speak Latin, they called us 'Magyars' as we called ourselves. This isn't much surprising.

It's a question like: Italy is called Italia, Italie, Italien, etc., and in Hungarian why it is called 'Olaszország' (spelling: olasorsaag), which roughly means 'Italian Country'?