Turkey in europe

[Quildavyr]

He also used it to frighten young Mehmed II for life.... Correct me if i'm wrong, but he put all the caputured Ottoman Soldiers on impalers.

Impale is right word.
Our sources say,he impaled Bulgarians,Turks,Greeks.Mehmet II punished him.

 

[Mirc]

Impale is right word.
Our sources say,he impaled Bulgarians,Turks,Greeks.Mehmet II punished him.

Impaled Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks? Maybe. He wasn't impaling based on nationality. He was impaling spies, criminals, and his enemies in war (which were mainly Turks). That's a bit of a one-sided view, what you've got there.

 

[Quildavyr]

Impaled Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks? Maybe. He wasn't impaling based on nationality. He was impaling spies, criminals, and his enemies in war (which were mainly Turks). That's a bit of a one-sided view, what you've got there.

He was impaling the ottoman crew Is this mention ok?

 

[Verbose]

Oooh, you guys have so nicely planted your foot in it!

This kind of historical bickering is precisely why defining Europe with reference to past history is a crap idea. European history, there's too damn much of it, everyone has a version of their own, and they're all at cross puposes with each other.

So, Winner can come up with a Grand Version of the point of European history which serves his purposes. Fine. It looks pretty consistent. Too bad it's an arbitrary delineation of things, like all history. Others can do that too, according to some other paramentes. Which means anyone who tries it needs to be aware that he will be attempting to ram his version down the throat of some other nation or group of nations. The EU catch-phrase of "United in deversity" is there for a reason.

And attempst at fiddling with a superhistorical definition has already occurred. The French (oooh, the French again!) tried to include an official European history in one of the treaties. And would you believe it, it read almost exactly like a French history! It started with Charlemagne...
At that point the Danes, who can be quite witty, put out their own "official" version of "European history", this time beginning with "Gorm the Old", legendary iron-age king of Denmark.

In this thread alone, if in a joking fashion, we have established that the Swedes and the French are "traitors" for historically consorting with the infidel Turk. And it's extendable. It might as well include most the protestant nation. So then the British, the Scandinavians, the north Germans, the Dutch (dunno' abiut the Belgians, maybe not) are out as well.
And what do you know, we end up with a kind of "European history", at least the one we supposedly should count above all the other options, which pretty much divvys the place up along then lines of the entire mess cause by the dismembering of Charlemagnes inheritence! We can call the remaining in-crowd "the Habsburg Group" or somesuch.

And I do realise that the conflict with the Ottoman empire is still accorded present day relevance in a certain part of Europe. I'm just saying that if I would latch on to my historical Swedish roots in a similar fashion, I should be all about riding into battle alongside my honourable Turkish allies to kill all of you darn heretics!

Which would be totally daft.

And what about the division between Christian west and Muslim east? That would seem natural and necessary right? Except of course that there's this set of circumstances which fascinate intellectual historians.
For all the religious conflict, Europe and the Middle East from the inception has a perfect historical record of seeing eye to eye in the basic philosophical world view. The religious issues are just foam on the surface by comparison to the legacy of the ancient Greeks and Romans, with a large chunk taken from the old Hebrews thrown in for good measure.
By that standard the Christian and Muslim world form a historical unity. By such a count the border appears with sub-Saharan Africa, India and China (and even then it's blurred). The actual divider between Europe and the Middle East then is recent, and has to do with the rise of a secular scientific world view in the last three or four centuries.
I'm not saying it's a less arbitrary choice of putting an historical cleavage point as to what might go into European vs. non-European, but it's not a more arbitrary choice than to draw it between Christian and Muslim either.

Becuase, face it, history is much too open-ended to provide a definition which is not in the end arbitrary. The meaning of history is the one we provide, here and now.

History is not a reason for defining who's in and who's out here. It's an excuse.

 

[Italian Celtic]

Vlad sticked Bulgarians? What exactly do you mean? Do you mean that Vlad Tepes impaled Bulgarians? Because that's wrong. And he learned impaling... guess where!! In the Ottoman Empire! Where the method was wide-spread.

Scuse me

are we speaking about Vlad Dracula or is a impression?

Huns =/= Hungarians. Huns were not homogenous, they were not only one kind of people. They were Finnic, Mongolic, Turkic and Uralic people. The ruling class had a Turkic system, but they were rather related to the Mongols than to the Turks today (for example, all the chronicles mention them having "oblique eyes").

Hungarians are something totally different to them. They are hardly related to the Huns or Magyars at all, which is obvious from everything, including their appearance (blond-haired blue-eyed people, not really your typical central Asian). Their language is not European, but that's all that's not European in them.

1) Turks and Mongolian have the same origins. The population of central asia and mongolia have the same look (yellow skin and small eyes). Ancient Huns and Turk were racially related with Mongolians but they mixed with other people and they take the modern look. The only trace of their origins is the same Altaic language (which is differnt from uralic language). Bulgarians, Macedonians, Ukrainians and the majority of Eastern/Central europe people have a genetic link with mongolian people too.

2) Hungarian are proud to be Hunns. I heard the story of some hungarians wanted EU to recognize thier status of Attila's descendants


However stop with this historyjacking.

 

[Mirc]

Scuse me

are we speaking about Vlad Dracula or is a impression?

No. Vlad Dracula is an imaginary character.

2) Hungarian are proud to be Hunns. I heard the story of some hungarians wanted EU to recognize thier status of Attila's descendants

Some Hungarians are proud to be Huns, some Englishmen are proud to be Vikings, or Romans, or Celts, that doesn't mean it's true. Not at all, actually. If you want, I can present you tens of articles where (Hungarian, among other) historians prove that this is a totally false myth.

 

[Italian Celtic]

Some Hungarians are proud to be Huns, some Englishmen are proud to be Vikings, or Romans, or Celts, that doesn't mean it's true. Not at all, actually. If you want, I can present you tens of articles where (Hungarian, among other) historians prove that this is a totally false myth.

Post them!!!

 

[Mirc]

Post them!!!

Haha, I don't have the patience right now to look for too many, but here are some quick examples:

The Hungarian chroniclers mention seven tribes, while the Turkish word onogur (from which the name Hungarian was derived) means "ten arrows," probably referring to a confederation of ten tribes.

http://www.oszk.hu/kiadvany/hsr/2000/notes.htm (Hungarian site)

There were seven Magyar tribes, but other elements were part of the federation, including three tribes of Turkic Khazars (the Kavars). Either because of this fact or perhaps because of a memory of earlier conditions, this federation was known to its neighbours as the On-Ogur (literally “Ten Arrows” or “Ten Tribes&#8221. From the Slavic pronunciation of this term, the name Hungarian is derived, with the initial H added because they were thought to be descendants of the Huns.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-34784/Hungary
Britannica Online Encyclopedia

the name "Hungary" does not come from the Central Asian nomadic invaders called the Huns, but rather originated from a later, 7th century Bulgar alliance called On-Ogour, which in Old Turkish meant "(the) Ten Arrows"

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

Western historians and chronicles, however, have given the Magyars different names: Hungarus in Latin, Unbarn in German, Hongrois in French, Ungherese in Italian, Ungroi in Greek and finally, Hungarians in English. All these names are derived from the name Hun-Ogur or Onogur used since the fifth century as a reminder of the Magyars' long association with Turkic-Onogur-Hun peoples. Onogur means "ten tribes"; thus the word Hungarian (onogur-ungur-ungar). An examination of Hungarian racial elements shows a composite people. The main components are Turanoid (Turkic-Onogur), East Baltic (Finno-Ugric) with traces of Caucasian, Anatolian, Dinarian, Mediterranean and Alpine racial types.

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hunspir/hsp56.htm
(Hungarian site, again)

Identification. Hungarian derives from Onogur, a Bulgarian-Turkish tribe's self-name. Between the sixth and eight centuries C.E., both the Hungarian tribes and the Onogurs lived just northeast of the Black Sea.

http://www.everyculture.com/Ge-It/Hungary.html

When the Magyars settled in the Hungarian plain they raided far and wide in Europe for about sixty years until finally defeated by the German king Otto I. During this period the Magyars took into their alliance a smaller tribe of non-Magyars called the Onogurs. The Onogurs were better known to the other people of the region and they applied the name Onogurs to the whole Magyar confederation. This is how the Magyars came to be known as Ungarn in German and Hungarians in English.

http://www.applet-magic.com/hungary.htm

Origin of name:

from Turkish Onogur: ten tribes, referring to tribes which later settled in Hungary

http://www.statoids.com/uhu.html

Here, seven Magyar tribes are believed to have joined forces with three Kavar tribes to create the Onogur or “Ten Arrows” alliance, which is believed to be the origin of the word Hungary.

http://www.gotohungary.co.uk/article/118/A-Potted-History

Hungary originates from Turkish word ‘Onogur’ meaning ten arrows, reflecting seven Magyar and three Khazar tribes who united in the region of Transylvania and ultimately settled in Carpathian basin. That area became Hungary of that time.

http://nation.com.pk/magazines/splus/2007/4-nov/lighterside.html

The domestic names of Hungary (for example: Magoria, Magor, Magerorzag) can only be found in written sources dated from Hungary. The majority of the names used abroad originate from the Onogur name of people, such as Hungaria, Hongrie, Hungarlandt, Ongaria, Ongrie, Ungaria, Ungern, Ungheria, Ungria, Ungrie, Vngern Land, Unkuriya. Sometimes - in the usual manner of early medieval times - it was called by the names of former states that used to have some connections to this territory.

http://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01993/html/index6.html

It's now pretty well accepted that the name comes from a group of Magyar-like tribes called the Onogur.

http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/book-4404

The name "Hungary" [...] probably comes from the name of a later, 7th century turkic alliance called Onogur.

http://www.canadiancontent.net/profiles/Hungary.html


Do you need more?

 

[Italian Celtic]

Do you need more?

No thanks!!!!!

My only mistake was "some Hungarians" because like wikipedia says

Spoiler :

Because the Huns who invaded Europe represented a loose coalition of various peoples, it is possible that Magyars were part of it.

Magyars is the real name of Hungarians and their language confirm their common origins with huns/turks!!!

The blonde hair of some hungarians is the effect of a large racial mix, and doesn't mean they are european.

The blonde hair doesn't make a people "european"

Do you need more?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Of course blonde hair doesn't mean european. Blonde hair evolved as a way to attract the other sex. It is common throughout the world including europe, Lebanon, Iran, native Australians, central africa, and a few other dozen places.

the mongols/huns/onogurs/turks/ at that time that lived near the black sea and mixed with the hungarians could've had some blondes to.

Edit:

Here's a blonde boy from Vanuatu, a pacific island.

Spoiler :

 

[Italian Celtic]

No. Vlad Dracula is an imaginary character.

I don't think mate

see here

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

 

[TheLastOne36]

I don't think mate

see here

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

and there's this:

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

Mirc you don't know one of your countries most famous kings?

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

I don't think mate

see here

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

Thats a fictional character it even says so in the link.

 

[Quildavyr]

I think,Verbose's opinion about history is right.It is an excuse

 

[Mirc]

I don't think mate

see here

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

In which link it clearly says it is fiction....

No thanks!!!!!

My only mistake was "some Hungarians" because like wikipedia says

Spoiler :

Magyars is the real name of Hungarians and their language confirm their common origins with huns/turks!!!

The blonde hair of some hungarians is the effect of a large racial mix, and doesn't mean they are european.

The blonde hair doesn't make a people "european"

Do you need more?

Spoiler :

"Large racial mix" meaning they mixed with someone that now makes up about 90% of their population. Of course blond hair doesn't make someone European, but they obviously are. Ask ANYONE.

I'm not going to debate any more of this totally flawed history, so I'm out of this discussion. Sorry but I'm not going to get banned over getting angry on a silly discussion like this.

 

[Pannonius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Dracula
I consider Vlad III. to be one of the great heroes of Romania, of SE Europe region, and of whole Europe. His "nom de guerre" means "son of the Dragon", a reference of his fathers membership in the prestigious Order of the Dragon. To me, prince Vlad is the inspiration and a model knight. God bless him.
It is sad that he is made into a monster by a certain elements in the West Europe. He was no crueler than the average european prince of the period, and most certainly a saint compared to the Ottoman hordes. To voivode Vlad III.:

 

[Quildavyr]

I cant understand your hatred.If you were mishandled by a Turk,get yourself a psychologe.No offence,just try to help.

 

[Pannonius]

I cant understand your hatred.If you were mishandled by a Turk,get yourself a psychologe.No offence,just try to help.

So having respect for a european hero is hatred now?

 

[Bill3000]

So having respect for a european hero is hatred now?

No, but your moral relativism is hypocritical.

 

[Mirc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Dracula
I consider Vlad III. to be one of the great heroes of Romania, of SE Europe region, and of whole Europe. His "nom de guerre" means "son of the Dragon", a reference of his fathers membership in the prestigious Order of the Dragon. To me, prince Vlad is the inspiration and a model knight. God bless him.
It is sad that he is made into a monster by a certain elements in the West Europe. He was no crueler than the average european prince of the period, and most certainly a saint compared to the Ottoman hordes. To voivode Vlad III.:

I agree, and I can't see for the life of me how that post is hatred. But what I wanted to point out is that Dracula has never existed. Even your link redirects to "Vlad III the Impaler", his Romanian name was Vlad Ţepeş (pronounced "Tsepesh"). The name you are speaking of, which means "of the dragon", (since his father was member of the Order of the Dragon, as you said) is Drăculea, while "Dracula" is simply an invented name to make him look devilish.