On the origins of the Magyar presence in Transylvania:

[Getwulf]

On the origins of the Magyar presence in Transylvania:

I have never been convinced of the Magyar/Hungarian claims to Transylvania. Not because of nationalism or because I believe in the Daco-Romanian theory, which I don't. Rather I don't believe the Hungarian claims to Transylvania for the following reasons...

1. I have never seen any archeological evidence of the building techniques of the Magyars and/or Huns.

According to the Hungarian theory we have to assume that a group of nomadic warriors went through a significant cultural revolution from nomadic pastors and raiders to city building, sedentary dwellers in less than 100 years or so. This is hard to accept because I fail to see their motives for doing so and I fail to understand how they would have become civic engineers overnight.

2. There is a complete and total failure to explain what happened to the city dwellers before the arrival of the Magyars.

Yes what we call "Transylvania" had cities long before the "Romans" arrived nevermind the Huns... See Apulum, Potaissa, Napoca... and others...

3. Pretty much all of the major cities in Transylvania are built on older cities.

As is the case with Alba Iulia formely known as Apulum since before "Roman" times and others etc...


Please discuss this topic without any nationalist bias and stick to the subject. Stay away from insults and do not provoke other members. I'm actually curious about Magyar history and I would like to know the Hungarian point of view on these subjects. For the most part as a Romanian I do not have a lot of exposure to Hungarian history.

Regards,

Getwulf of Dacia

[Odovacar]

1. I have never seen any archeological evidence of the building techniques of the Magyars and/or Huns.

I dunno what huns have to do this. Hungarians only claim the following things:
-There was no daco-romanian presence in tr. when magyars arrived, and there is no daco-romanian continuity.
-Transylvania was part of the Hungarian Kingdom between 1000-1526, then a ottoman vassal princedom till attached to the Austrian Empire.

Following from this: Transylvanian history was shaped by hungarian history, and the hungarians are a major factor in Transylvania's past, and an existing factor in it's present.

According to the Hungarian theory we have to assume that a group of nomadic warriors went through a significant cultural revolution from nomadic pastors and raiders to city building, sedentary dwellers in less than 100 years or so. This is hard to accept because I fail to see their motives for doing so and I fail to understand how they would have become civic engineers overnight.

Not really. The magyars simply conquered Hungary. The subjugated people continued to live where they lived. Only difference was that now they paid their tax to the magyars.
Many cities in Hungary were built before the magyars (Bratislava for example), or in the Middle Ages by foreign settlers (saxon cities in Northern Hungary, Transylvanian saxon cities)

(Just a side note: According to daco-romanian theory we jump from even more weird conclusions to reach absurdities. I hope you aware of that. )

Your notion about civic engineers is uncomprehensible.
Since medieval cities were not made by any plan, just houses built near each other. Of course, buildings could be constructed by foreign architechts as well.
Most of the magyars, especially the early magyars, did not live in cities. They settled down in villages.
City life was frowned upon till the late middle ages and beyond.

2. There is a complete and total failure to explain what happened to the city dwellers before the arrival of the Magyars.

3. Pretty much all of the major cities in Transylvania are built on older cities.

Pretty much all the cities in Transylvania have no continuity between roman and dacian age and middle ages...Just like pretty much all of the hungarian cities with not one exception.
Therefore they do not use the roman names indicating that these cities were newly settled by a new populace after the cataclysm of Völkerwanderung.

Tr. was invaded many times, and no doubt, city dwellers were the first targets of every invader.

As is the case with Alba Iulia formely known as Apulum since before "Roman" times and others etc...

Alba Iulia which was called Alba Iulia because it's roman populace ddn"t live to see the bolgarian age, yet alone the geipda, I guess.

Therefore, to summarize: I have little idea about what you speak of.
If you are arguing: magyars couldn't build Transylvania..I say, yes, they didn't at all. Just conquered it.

[Getwulf]

Not really. The magyars simply conquered Hungary. The subjugated people continued to live where they lived. Only difference was that now they paid their tax to the magyars.
Many cities in Hungary were built before the magyars (Bratislava for example), or in the Middle Ages by foreign settlers (saxon cities in Northern Hungary, Transylvanian saxon cities)

(Just a side note: According to daco-romanian theory we jump from even more weird conclusions to reach absurdities. I hope you aware of that. )

Your notion about civic engineers is uncomprehensible.
Since medieval cities were not made by any plan, just houses built near each other. Of course, buildings could be constructed by foreign architechts as well.
Most of the magyars, especially the early magyars, did not live in cities. They settled down in villages.
City life was frowned upon till the late middle ages and beyond.

Well your point of view is refreshing to say the least. I'm not a believer of the Daco-Romanian theory. I'm more of an old school "Wallachian". In other words I believe the old Romanian historians like V. Parvan rather than the new Commie-nationalists. According to V. Parvan the first people in Transylvania were the "Agathyrsi" and cities like Napoca were built by the Scytho-Iranic "Napaei". However, one does have to wonder at the fact that the new settlers chose to build their cities in exactly the same places where the "old dwellers" used to live. As for the use of engineers are you aware of the fact that "Masons" were pretty much used for every castle? In Transylvania we have a big problem between the 5th C AD and the 8 th C. AD... This is a gap that can't be explained. We also have the Avars who settle Banat somewhere around... ohh let's say 8th C. AD...!? I can't remember the actual date but what I do remember is that they adopted the Byzantine form of writing.

[Odovacar]

However, one does have to wonder at the fact that the new settlers chose to build their cities in exactly the same places where the "old dwellers" used to live.

We have to consider, that the ruins existed in many places and the locations were well suitable for settling.

As for the use of engineers are you aware of the fact that "Masons" were pretty much used for every castle?

But hungarians had no castle untill the 11th century. Until to the mongol invasion there were just a dozen or little more stone castle in Hungary. The hungarian "castles" which were the headquarters of the later comes (ispán) were wooden-earth fortifications.

In Transylvania we have a big problem between the 5th C AD and the 8 th C. AD... This is a gap that can't be explained. We also have the Avars who settle Banat somewhere around... ohh let's say 8th C. AD...!? I can't remember the actual date but what I do remeber is that they adopted the Byzantine form of writing.

More about it later...

[Romano-Dacis]

Alright, I think everyone here gets the point: Hungarians and Romanians don't like each other.

Can we just stop threads like this? I'm pretty certain we aren't going to discover anything new in this one.

P.S. The arguments you presented are factually inaccurate. The Romans built every single city on a new site in Dacia. Even when names were kept the sites themselves were brand-new. I suggest you read Dacia Romana by Adrian Husar or Dacia Felix by Adrian Bejan if you're not sure of this.

Continuity in Dacia has nothing to do with the urban populace. The cities were abandoned eventually; they were like magnets for invaders. However, the provincials never left the area.

[Odovacar]

Alright, I think everyone here gets the point: Hungarians and Romanians don't like each other.

In about 80 procent, yes.

Can we just stop threads like this? I'm pretty certain we aren't going to discover anything new in this one.

I wish we could.

Continuity in Dacia has nothing to do with the urban populace. The cities were abandoned eventually; they were like magnets for invaders. However, the provincials never left the area.

The first part of the sentence is what we claim, and we can agree in that. The second part is what you claim, and it's not the question here, since Getwulf already declared he doesn't believe in daco-romanian theory (rather in geto-romanian) therefore that discussion would be irrevelant.

Threads about romanian-hungarian political issues are a pure waste of time.
Threads about Transylvania though aren't bad idea if we consider that TR. is only known for most people as "Dracula's home" and some vampire land. This is a horrific injustice for such a geographically beautiful, historically rich place.

Some new things to consider for the OP:
According to kristo's research, the arriving magyars did little to consolidate their power up to the late 10th century. TR. was not suitable to nomadization. Therefore they didn''t settle in great numbers down. They sent the later joined tribes to guard the borders.

It was in 1003 when King Stephen the Holy first conquerd North-Tr from Gyula, his kinsman, then Stephen moved on to conquer South-Tr which belonged to Kean, the leader of "the bolgars and slavs" as the chroniclers named him.
Gyula himself seems to be half-slavic as his slav subjects named him "Prokuj"

[Getwulf]

Some new things to consider for the OP:
According to kristo's research, the arriving magyars did little to consolidate their power up to the late 10th century. TR. was not suitable to nomadization. Therefore they didn''t settle in great numbers down. They sent the later joined tribes to guard the borders.

It was in 1003 when King Stephen the Holy first conquerd North-Tr from Gyula, his kinsman, then Stephen moved on to conquer South-Tr which belonged to Kean, the leader of "the bolgars and slavs" as the chroniclers named him.
Gyula himself seems to be half-slavic as his slav subjects named him "Prokuj"

Who is Gyula...? I have not heard of him. Do you know anything about Gelu and Menumorut...? Their names are obviously indicative of a "Scythian" origin but the Romanians claim that they are Romanians which I find incredibly hard to accept. As for "Kean" I have never heard of him either.

I also have to mention that excluding the Gothic presence from history is also apalling. I actually consider the Goths to be the most influential in forming Romania. Now I know you think I'm crazy but the historical reality is different. We have a clear Gothic-Dacian-Gothic-Slav-Turkic-Romanian... evolution in most of Romania.

[Odovacar]

Who is Gyula...? I have not heard of him. Do you know anything about Gelu and Menumorut...? Their names are obviously indicative of a "Scythian" origin but the Romanians claim that they are Romanians which I find incredibly hard to accept. As for "Kean" I have never heard of him either.

Gyula was a tribal chieftain in North Transylvania. He was Stephen's uncle, as Stephen's father, Géza married Sarolta, from Gyula's family. Gyula was defeated in 1003, and imprisoned until 1015 when he escaped into Poland. Stephen allowed his wife to follow him later.

Kean was a bulgaro-slavic tribal leader in Alba Iulia region, rebellious against Stephen and his father in the past, a bulgarian ally. He was defeated after Gyula.

"Gelu and Menmarot" are names first appearing in the work of Anonymus. Hungarian historians consider them fictional persons, like the slavic "Salanus" leader.
The name Gyalu was likely made from a place name. Salanus was made from "Zala" for example. Menumarot's name is very strange, although it's intelligible in early magyar, (mén=horse, marót=moravian, slavic) we have not a likely explanation, especially as he couldn't be a moravian leader at all.

That is what we think currently.

[Getwulf]

Gyula was a tribal chieftain in North Transylvania. He was Stephen's uncle, as Stephen's father, Géza married Sarolta, from Gyula's family. Gyula was defeated in 1003, and imprisoned until 1015 when he escaped into Poland. Stephen allowed his wife to follow him later.

Kean was a bulgaro-slavic tribal leader in Alba Iulia region, rebellious against Stephen and his father in the past, a bulgarian ally. He was defeated after Gyula.

"Gelu and Menmarot" are names first appearing in the work of Anonymus. Hungarian historians consider them fictional persons, like the slavic "Salanus" leader.
The name Gyalu was likely made from a place name. Salanus was made from "Zala" for example. Menumarot's name is very strange, although it's intelligible in early magyar, (mén=horse, marót=moravian, slavic) we have not a likely explanation, especially as he couldn't be a moravian leader at all.

That is what we think currently.

Allright, very interesting.

So another question... Who are the present day Avars...? Do you think that they are the Szekely/Secui...?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Stop posting threads about this topic. It can't be discussed civilly.