“At the Battle of Mohacs, 14,000 Hungarian soldiers died, 1,000 nobles were killed, and 2,000 captured prisoners were executed.”
‘Standard’ (tggp) history is presented in the wiki and similar ‘believable’ sources. It was entrenched in our consciousness the maxim that Christian Europe was at war against the powerful Turkish Islamic empire, when Turkey, through the Balkans, began to conquer Hungary and endanger Austria. But, the reality was a bit different - Christian Europe (France, England, Poland, the Venetian Republic and the Vatican with Pope Clement VII) formed a Turkish coalition in the 16th century and enabled Suleiman the Magnificent to conquer Hungary. Why? Well, very simply - that Turkey would, since then, threaten German countries every year. Again, why? So that the Germans would not have the strength to conquer countries on other continents and that this ‘civilizational’ business would remain, mostly, for the English and the French. And when the Serbs, with the uprising and with the help of Austria, expelled the Turks from the Serbian lands three times, the English and the French attacked Austria in the west and sent their troops to the Turks through the port of Thessaloniki.
I appreciate the detail in this post and your clarification of the Huns vs. the Magyars. I am half Hungarian myself and always assumed the English word Hungary derived from the Huns.
I had my Hungarian grandmother tested by 23&me a few years ago. A Budapest native from the upper class, she described her ancestry as a mix of old stock Hungarian nobility and 18th/19th century German immigrant. Her results largely confirmed that Hungarian/German mix, but it also estimated that she is 0.3% Siberian. Their chromosome painting feature shows this ancestry as coming from two segments on chromosome 3. Curiously, I seem to have inherited one of these segments, but 23&me shows this on my profile as likely Mongolian/Manchurian instead.
Is it possible their test could pick up ancestry going back to the Magyar or Mongol invasions? Or would this have to come from a more recent eastern ancestor (maybe via a Russian immigrant)?
hard to assess the date. the main issue is hungary absorbed lots of turks in the middle ages...but so did russia. the key would be the segment around it. does it match russian or not?
i'd be curious about if tatar/chuvash ppl are showing mongolian/manchurian
Just checked this and the DNA around her two "Siberian" segments is labeled by the 23&me chromosome painter as German funnily enough, not even Eastern European. So, scratch the Russian immigrant theory. She does have another little piece on another chromosome (0.1%) that is labeled as "Broadly Northern West Asia" (I am not sure how they define that - the Caucasus?). This is also beside a German segment.
Interesting & informative article as ever Razib, thanks. Total aside observation that occurred to me:
> We - me-mi
"We" is "mia" in modern Bavarian, one of the few common words that isn't obviously similar to other German dialects. Magyar borrowing? Probably not, but maybe
German language is a fairly young language (even younger than English) and it was influenced by much older Serbian language which is older than Hebrew, ‘ancient’ Greek and Latin. English language has thousands of Serbian words (bellow I mentioned ‘ghost’). English WE in Serbian is MI and probably this similarity came from this.
I hadn't heard that theory before. I know modern German is descended from High German, which is confusingly from the more southern (and thus mountainous) part of Germany, whereas Amish speak a Low German dialect from the Low Countries near the North Sea. I also know that there are some rather large dialectical differences between, say, Swiss German and what's spoken in Germany, which one wouldn't expect from a young country. I guess it can be hard for many English speakers to understand the Scottish, but then Scots is considered to be a different but related language.
No worries. I do not expect to trust me, just employ your own brain. It is a long journey in front of you and I am a little bit jealous on your upcoming learning experience and the accompanied satisfaction for pushing the envelope. I may suggest asking Razib which is the indigenous haplogroup in Europe, which is the oldest Euro culture/language accompanied with them at for e.g. 10,000 BC and backpedal from there. You can compare this finding with modern Euro population. Or, you can start from ‘standards’, but beware of moronic editions (which you have just cited) because they are sometimes called ‘standards’. Bon voyage!
It is kind of fascinating disappeared. In some countries a military elite shows up and sets the cultural pattern for an unrelated population, such as Hungary. I guess Russia is the flip case, where the military elite adopted the language of the peasants. There are sorts of cases. E.g. India where the Indo-europeans from the steppe brought their languages and genes to the party and stayed. England is sort of a layer cake. The Germanic invaders imposed their language and Celtic disappeared from England proper, but when the French speaking Normans arrived, their language was swallowed by the local language.
Are there any regularities in these situations or are they all just so stories?
‘Hungarians as the ghost of the Magyar confederacy’ – another interested piece of Eurohistory and as usual, distorted as many others’, too. The comment should be much longer than the Intro text but let skim few details and ask few logical questions. First, some could explain the origin of the word ‘ghost’ which is actually a Serbian word GOST which found its way as many other (how and when) to the English language. Just a hint that it originated since Lepenski Vir and it can be used in a discussion about Yamnaya i.e. sc IE language.
The text does not say who lived in central Europe and consisted an uninterrupted line from Mt Olympus to Baltic. Who lived in Pannonia, the most fertile part of Europe? We have impression that this space was uninhabited, and that Magyars came to surprisingly empty land. Immediately to answer this – Serbs lived there and were a majority of population in today’s Hungary until 1848!!!! This fact was not mentioned in the text. There were mentioned some sc. ‘Slavic’ peasants? There were no Slavics, Serbs were there. The first king Stephen (Stevan, Istwan) was a Serb and his crown with Serbian inscriptions is still in a Budapest Museum. Many other rulers were Serbs, too, for e.g. Janos Hunyadi. The greatest Hungarian poet was a Serb – Sandor Petofi aka Aleksandar Petrovic. Atila was a Kiev prince, all his brothers and sisters had Serbian names and all his commanders were Serbs. He was buried in Belgrade. Today, his name is very frequently given to Hungarian kids.
The text does not say about arrival of Asian Bulgars which got permission by Serbian king to settle in Bessarabia, today’s Romania. Many decades after that they crossed the Danube into today’s Bulgaria where indigenous Serbs lived. Bulgars accepted the language and Christianity from locals. One correspondence btw the East Roman Emperor (sc. Byzantium) and a Roman Pope uncovered their plan not to repeat the ‘Bulgarian mistake’ where Serbs assimilated Bulgars and prepared a different strategy for Hungary. Because we have such discrepancy btw Hungarian genetics and linguistics. It is interesting the conflict in Transylvania btw Hungarians and Romanians. Actually, this is a conflict btw Hungaryzed and Romanised Serbs, where Jesuits worked for hundreds of years (East Latin Project) to change the mind of Romanians, convince them that they are Latin and educated thousands of youths in Paris, teaching them an artificial Romanian language. The plan was to separate Serbs from the future Russians and prevent their exit to Mediterranean. Everything what we read today, including the current situation in Afghanistan is a part of this politics. It is interesting that no Goths were mentioned in this text (except Gothic churches in Paris). What’s happened with them? On the map we can see Andalusia, the province which got the name after Serbian tribe, Vandal(usia)s. Some other time, we will explain other toponyms on this map, Burgundia, Svab, Karinthia, Lusitania, Cordoba, etc.
Of course there were Slavics where there were Serbs, because Serbian is a Slavic language. Although I don't know of anyone but you claiming Hungary was populated by Serbs prior to the Magyar conquest.
Ok, who lived in today’s Hungary before Magyars came in 896AC? Their Academy found that their migration lasted for 4 years and they have a very rich folklore and tales related to this trip. The term ‘Slavic’ is used from the 6-7th c.AC. ‘Slavics’ for example do not have any trace of such folklore. Who lived in former Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Baltic, Germany? The ethnic border btw Germans and sc. ‘Slavs’ was on the river Rhein (Germans lived in today’s France, ‘Slavs’ lived in today’s Germany). The first ‘Slavic’ language was Russian from the 8th c.AC, others much later. All ‘Slavic’ languages evolved from Serbian language, which itself, evolved from Vinca language (and came to SA where became local Sanskrit). Who were indigenous people in Europe, when and where from the future Germans came to Europe (unless they were indigenous people?)?
Slovaks, Russians, Polish, Czechs, Lusitanian Serbs, Romanians, Pomeranians, modern Serbs and other Slavics originated in Vinca. They had the common language, genetics and mythology. This language was Serbian (you can call it ‘Indo-European’) and it is several thousands of years old. The future Slavics migrated in all directions from Vinca. Much later, from them evolved separate nations, Russians in the 8th c.AC, Slovaks just recently. Btw, ‘Raseni’ or ‘Rasi’ (followers of the goddess Reasa, i.e. Rasa, [=eng. Race]) are an alternative name for Serbs and from this name originated names for Russians and Prussians, who are also former Serbs. I use the term ‘Serbs’ for ancient Vinca people because they spoke the Serbian language and the modern Serbs are only one outfit of them, who (together with Lusitanian Serbs), preserved the original name.
This appears to be a non-standard view of yours, and it's odd that you object to Razib using the term "Slavic" rather than following your idiosyncratic naming. I mean, if some ancient language is the source of all modern Slavic language, isn't it incorrect to identify that with a modern language? Italian is not Latin, after all.
What is the ‘standard’? Many history falsifications are still ‘standards’. I do not object the term ‘Slavic’ after the 7th c.AC, but it cannot be used for earlier periods, for e.g. when Aryans came to SA. The modern Serbian language is a direct descendant of Vinca language. When exactly the ancient Vinca language, which was developing during the Ice Age and thousands of years after that, can be named ‘Serbian’? It is a bit longer story, I may write about this, but I propose that would be a moment when a consonant group SRB was created (Srb or Srbin is how Serbs call themselves and their language). The beginning of the proto-language was a creation of minimum consonant groups (one or two consonants) and from there, by creating new words which used these consonants as kernels, modern languages were created. It is possible to see which languages were organically and directly created from this proto-language and which are artificial so as Latin and sc. ‘ancient’ Greek are. Sc. ‘Indo-European’ i.e. Yamnaya language could not be a language which influenced all Euro and many Asian languages. I wrote about this. We simply do not know where Yamnaya people lived before 3100BC and where and when this, sc. IE language had its Proto-phase which probably had to be minimum several thousands of years long. I already presented some things when I was writing about the meaning of Rg and Veda.
“At the Battle of Mohacs, 14,000 Hungarian soldiers died, 1,000 nobles were killed, and 2,000 captured prisoners were executed.”
‘Standard’ (tggp) history is presented in the wiki and similar ‘believable’ sources. It was entrenched in our consciousness the maxim that Christian Europe was at war against the powerful Turkish Islamic empire, when Turkey, through the Balkans, began to conquer Hungary and endanger Austria. But, the reality was a bit different - Christian Europe (France, England, Poland, the Venetian Republic and the Vatican with Pope Clement VII) formed a Turkish coalition in the 16th century and enabled Suleiman the Magnificent to conquer Hungary. Why? Well, very simply - that Turkey would, since then, threaten German countries every year. Again, why? So that the Germans would not have the strength to conquer countries on other continents and that this ‘civilizational’ business would remain, mostly, for the English and the French. And when the Serbs, with the uprising and with the help of Austria, expelled the Turks from the Serbian lands three times, the English and the French attacked Austria in the west and sent their troops to the Turks through the port of Thessaloniki.
I appreciate the detail in this post and your clarification of the Huns vs. the Magyars. I am half Hungarian myself and always assumed the English word Hungary derived from the Huns.
I had my Hungarian grandmother tested by 23&me a few years ago. A Budapest native from the upper class, she described her ancestry as a mix of old stock Hungarian nobility and 18th/19th century German immigrant. Her results largely confirmed that Hungarian/German mix, but it also estimated that she is 0.3% Siberian. Their chromosome painting feature shows this ancestry as coming from two segments on chromosome 3. Curiously, I seem to have inherited one of these segments, but 23&me shows this on my profile as likely Mongolian/Manchurian instead.
Is it possible their test could pick up ancestry going back to the Magyar or Mongol invasions? Or would this have to come from a more recent eastern ancestor (maybe via a Russian immigrant)?
hard to assess the date. the main issue is hungary absorbed lots of turks in the middle ages...but so did russia. the key would be the segment around it. does it match russian or not?
i'd be curious about if tatar/chuvash ppl are showing mongolian/manchurian
Just checked this and the DNA around her two "Siberian" segments is labeled by the 23&me chromosome painter as German funnily enough, not even Eastern European. So, scratch the Russian immigrant theory. She does have another little piece on another chromosome (0.1%) that is labeled as "Broadly Northern West Asia" (I am not sure how they define that - the Caucasus?). This is also beside a German segment.
Interesting & informative article as ever Razib, thanks. Total aside observation that occurred to me:
> We - me-mi
"We" is "mia" in modern Bavarian, one of the few common words that isn't obviously similar to other German dialects. Magyar borrowing? Probably not, but maybe
German language is a fairly young language (even younger than English) and it was influenced by much older Serbian language which is older than Hebrew, ‘ancient’ Greek and Latin. English language has thousands of Serbian words (bellow I mentioned ‘ghost’). English WE in Serbian is MI and probably this similarity came from this.
I hadn't heard that theory before. I know modern German is descended from High German, which is confusingly from the more southern (and thus mountainous) part of Germany, whereas Amish speak a Low German dialect from the Low Countries near the North Sea. I also know that there are some rather large dialectical differences between, say, Swiss German and what's spoken in Germany, which one wouldn't expect from a young country. I guess it can be hard for many English speakers to understand the Scottish, but then Scots is considered to be a different but related language.
"In 942, a contingent of raiders even arrived in the northeastern corner of Spain . . ." Did they interact with the Vikings?
would you say that the average hungarian has any magyar ancestry/admixture, even if minuscule? if so, how much?
@ T2GP
No worries. I do not expect to trust me, just employ your own brain. It is a long journey in front of you and I am a little bit jealous on your upcoming learning experience and the accompanied satisfaction for pushing the envelope. I may suggest asking Razib which is the indigenous haplogroup in Europe, which is the oldest Euro culture/language accompanied with them at for e.g. 10,000 BC and backpedal from there. You can compare this finding with modern Euro population. Or, you can start from ‘standards’, but beware of moronic editions (which you have just cited) because they are sometimes called ‘standards’. Bon voyage!
It is kind of fascinating disappeared. In some countries a military elite shows up and sets the cultural pattern for an unrelated population, such as Hungary. I guess Russia is the flip case, where the military elite adopted the language of the peasants. There are sorts of cases. E.g. India where the Indo-europeans from the steppe brought their languages and genes to the party and stayed. England is sort of a layer cake. The Germanic invaders imposed their language and Celtic disappeared from England proper, but when the French speaking Normans arrived, their language was swallowed by the local language.
Are there any regularities in these situations or are they all just so stories?
‘Hungarians as the ghost of the Magyar confederacy’ – another interested piece of Eurohistory and as usual, distorted as many others’, too. The comment should be much longer than the Intro text but let skim few details and ask few logical questions. First, some could explain the origin of the word ‘ghost’ which is actually a Serbian word GOST which found its way as many other (how and when) to the English language. Just a hint that it originated since Lepenski Vir and it can be used in a discussion about Yamnaya i.e. sc IE language.
The text does not say who lived in central Europe and consisted an uninterrupted line from Mt Olympus to Baltic. Who lived in Pannonia, the most fertile part of Europe? We have impression that this space was uninhabited, and that Magyars came to surprisingly empty land. Immediately to answer this – Serbs lived there and were a majority of population in today’s Hungary until 1848!!!! This fact was not mentioned in the text. There were mentioned some sc. ‘Slavic’ peasants? There were no Slavics, Serbs were there. The first king Stephen (Stevan, Istwan) was a Serb and his crown with Serbian inscriptions is still in a Budapest Museum. Many other rulers were Serbs, too, for e.g. Janos Hunyadi. The greatest Hungarian poet was a Serb – Sandor Petofi aka Aleksandar Petrovic. Atila was a Kiev prince, all his brothers and sisters had Serbian names and all his commanders were Serbs. He was buried in Belgrade. Today, his name is very frequently given to Hungarian kids.
The text does not say about arrival of Asian Bulgars which got permission by Serbian king to settle in Bessarabia, today’s Romania. Many decades after that they crossed the Danube into today’s Bulgaria where indigenous Serbs lived. Bulgars accepted the language and Christianity from locals. One correspondence btw the East Roman Emperor (sc. Byzantium) and a Roman Pope uncovered their plan not to repeat the ‘Bulgarian mistake’ where Serbs assimilated Bulgars and prepared a different strategy for Hungary. Because we have such discrepancy btw Hungarian genetics and linguistics. It is interesting the conflict in Transylvania btw Hungarians and Romanians. Actually, this is a conflict btw Hungaryzed and Romanised Serbs, where Jesuits worked for hundreds of years (East Latin Project) to change the mind of Romanians, convince them that they are Latin and educated thousands of youths in Paris, teaching them an artificial Romanian language. The plan was to separate Serbs from the future Russians and prevent their exit to Mediterranean. Everything what we read today, including the current situation in Afghanistan is a part of this politics. It is interesting that no Goths were mentioned in this text (except Gothic churches in Paris). What’s happened with them? On the map we can see Andalusia, the province which got the name after Serbian tribe, Vandal(usia)s. Some other time, we will explain other toponyms on this map, Burgundia, Svab, Karinthia, Lusitania, Cordoba, etc.
Of course there were Slavics where there were Serbs, because Serbian is a Slavic language. Although I don't know of anyone but you claiming Hungary was populated by Serbs prior to the Magyar conquest.
Ok, who lived in today’s Hungary before Magyars came in 896AC? Their Academy found that their migration lasted for 4 years and they have a very rich folklore and tales related to this trip. The term ‘Slavic’ is used from the 6-7th c.AC. ‘Slavics’ for example do not have any trace of such folklore. Who lived in former Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Baltic, Germany? The ethnic border btw Germans and sc. ‘Slavs’ was on the river Rhein (Germans lived in today’s France, ‘Slavs’ lived in today’s Germany). The first ‘Slavic’ language was Russian from the 8th c.AC, others much later. All ‘Slavic’ languages evolved from Serbian language, which itself, evolved from Vinca language (and came to SA where became local Sanskrit). Who were indigenous people in Europe, when and where from the future Germans came to Europe (unless they were indigenous people?)?
How can Russian be the first Slavic language if all Slavic languages evolved from Serbian?
I've seen the claim that the people in Hungary before the Magyars were Slovaks.
Slovaks, Russians, Polish, Czechs, Lusitanian Serbs, Romanians, Pomeranians, modern Serbs and other Slavics originated in Vinca. They had the common language, genetics and mythology. This language was Serbian (you can call it ‘Indo-European’) and it is several thousands of years old. The future Slavics migrated in all directions from Vinca. Much later, from them evolved separate nations, Russians in the 8th c.AC, Slovaks just recently. Btw, ‘Raseni’ or ‘Rasi’ (followers of the goddess Reasa, i.e. Rasa, [=eng. Race]) are an alternative name for Serbs and from this name originated names for Russians and Prussians, who are also former Serbs. I use the term ‘Serbs’ for ancient Vinca people because they spoke the Serbian language and the modern Serbs are only one outfit of them, who (together with Lusitanian Serbs), preserved the original name.
This appears to be a non-standard view of yours, and it's odd that you object to Razib using the term "Slavic" rather than following your idiosyncratic naming. I mean, if some ancient language is the source of all modern Slavic language, isn't it incorrect to identify that with a modern language? Italian is not Latin, after all.
What is the ‘standard’? Many history falsifications are still ‘standards’. I do not object the term ‘Slavic’ after the 7th c.AC, but it cannot be used for earlier periods, for e.g. when Aryans came to SA. The modern Serbian language is a direct descendant of Vinca language. When exactly the ancient Vinca language, which was developing during the Ice Age and thousands of years after that, can be named ‘Serbian’? It is a bit longer story, I may write about this, but I propose that would be a moment when a consonant group SRB was created (Srb or Srbin is how Serbs call themselves and their language). The beginning of the proto-language was a creation of minimum consonant groups (one or two consonants) and from there, by creating new words which used these consonants as kernels, modern languages were created. It is possible to see which languages were organically and directly created from this proto-language and which are artificial so as Latin and sc. ‘ancient’ Greek are. Sc. ‘Indo-European’ i.e. Yamnaya language could not be a language which influenced all Euro and many Asian languages. I wrote about this. We simply do not know where Yamnaya people lived before 3100BC and where and when this, sc. IE language had its Proto-phase which probably had to be minimum several thousands of years long. I already presented some things when I was writing about the meaning of Rg and Veda.