“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)?
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
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.
“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)?
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
"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.