Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Room In Budapest ??? (second attempt at posting) (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Hunyadis ethnicity (mind)  73 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Csodaszarvas /es turul (mind)  4 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Csodaszarvas /es turul (mind)  4 sor     (cikkei)
5 USA/Hungary - OMRI Daily Digest No.148, Aug/1/95 (mind)  107 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Vlasi (was: Re: Re:Nestor & Vlachs I) (mind)  254 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Vlasi (was: Re: Re:Nestor & Vlachs I) (mind)  247 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: no comment! question (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Room In Budapest ??? (second attempt at posting) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hello Everyone,
	I am from New Jersey, USA.  I am going to Hungary in a couple of
for my cousins wedding.  After the wedding, I am going travelling by train
through out europe.  I would like to start the trip in Budapest.  If
anyone has any info on hostels or and affordable pensions in Budapest
please e-mail any info  or post a reply. 
				Thanks in advance
				Laszlo Istvan Skoda
+ - Re: Hunyadis ethnicity (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

T.Kocsis writes:

>>It seems to me that there is a general agreement on the issue of
>>ethnical discrimination in 15th century Hungary. According to the
>>conventional wisdom being Olah was not a crime in that epoch and,
>>hence, I doubt Cilli was accusing Hunyadi of something
>>just by stressing his Wallachian origin.

>There is only two problem: The Cilley family was not Hungarian
>but Styrian and they were newcomers in Hungary similarly as
>Hunyady. The rise of the family - more exactly Hermann Cilley
>- begun under Sigismund.

I don't see any problem. The real issue here is the trustworthiness
of Cilli's testimony. You suggest that Cilli, driven by envy and
hate, lied about Hunyadi's ethnicity and, therefore, Hunyadi
was not born in Wallachia. Correct?

Now, even if one assumes that Cilli really thought he can get
the edge against Hunyadi by "badmouthing" him it does not mean
that he was lying. Just stressing Hunyadi's true Wallachian origin
was also an effective tool of denigration _IF_ ethnical
discrimination was a reality in 15th century Hungary. But, this
was not the case. Moreover, before lying about a well-known
figure, and Hunyadi was a well-known figure, Cilli should
had realized that it can bounced back against him.

Wasn't Cilli an "immigrant" also? The king was not Hungarian
and many other nobles were non-Hungarians. The social uplift
of Cillis, Hunyadis, and many others proves that someone's
ethnical origin was not important. Therefore, I don't see
any reason to dismiss Cilli's unambiguous testimony that,
as he put it, "IT IS KNOWN [meaning that it was not a secret
known only by the Cillis] that this Janos Hunyadi was
born in Wallachia..."

>>Even if in 1409 Hunyadi was only in his teens, according to
>>the epoch's standards, he was already an adult. However,
>>to constrict Hunyadi's birth date between 1395 and 1400 based on
>>his teasing of Capistrano (i.e., Hunyadi called him Old Fart :-),
>>is inadmissible. You can not dismiss Vitez's letter, actually
>>Hunyadi's own testimony that in 1448 he was over 60 years old,
>>and build on fiction. It is safer to confess ignorance.

>another quote which also supports the younger age, from
>"Post hec dominus comes Biiztricensis, qui tot tantosque sue iuven-
>tutis primevo a tempore bellorum exegerat labores, nondum senec-
>tutis etate demolitus, sed continuo armorum gestamine curarumque
>directione fatigatus et viribus exhaustus ibidem egrotavit..."

So one should put in the balance Hunyadi's own testimony,
that in 1448 he was over 60 years old, against Thurcozi's
statement, that Hunyadi was still a relatively young man when
he died, and Piccolomini's claim that Hunyadi was younger than
Capistrano (born in 1386)

I cannot gues what "relatively young" meant for Thurcozi,
maybe just that Hunyadi was still in good shape, but I know that
1448-60=1388 and that 1388>1386, meaning that there is no
contradiction between Piccolomini's and Hunyadi's statements.

Focus Tamas, focus! The only way to prove wrong my reasoning
is to provide an alternative interpretation for Vitez's letter.
So far, none of your quotes supports the conclusion that Hunyadi
was born between 1395 and 1400. Moreover, given that the first
document mentioning the Hunyadis is dated 1409, even if Hunyadi
was born in 1400 it does not mean that he was not born in


Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: Csodaszarvas /es turul (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

READ THE FOLLWING EXCELLENT BOOK: Fodor, István. In Search of a New 
Homeland; The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. 
Buapest: Corvina, 1975.
+ - Re: Csodaszarvas /es turul (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

READ THE FOLLWING EXCELLENT BOOK: Fodor, István. In Search of a New 
Homeland; The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. 
Buapest: Corvina, 1975.
+ - USA/Hungary - OMRI Daily Digest No.148, Aug/1/95 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

*** Greetings from the Hungarian-American List ***
      ***      http://mineral.umd.edu/hungary/       ***
      ***       mailto:          ***

the UN Security Council condemn the recent Croatian military offensive
in Bosnia failed to gain the support of other council members, Western
and Russian media reported on 31 July. Instead of adopting the Russian
proposal, the council simply reiterated earlier appeals for all sides in
the conflict to cease hostilities. Acting Russian delegate to the UN,
Vasilii Sidorov, blamed the U.S. for the council's failure to explicitly
condemn Croatian actions, which he said gave the "green light" to a
further escalation of hostilities by Croatia. -- Scott Parrish

FINN0-UGRIC MINORITY CONGRESS OPENS. The second congress of the Finno-
Ugric peoples began on 31 July in Kudymkar (a city in the Komi-Perm
autonomous district, 200 km north of Perm), Radio Rossii reported on 31
July. The Finno-Ugric languages include Hungarian and Finnish, groups
thought to have come from the Urals where Finno-Ugric groups still live.
Representatives from Finland, Estonia, and Hungary attended the
congress. The congress will consider a resolution on bringing legal
protection of human rights in Russia in line with international norms.
The document noted that despite the existence of legislation on
languages, attempts to implement such legislation in many regions have
been sabotaged. A resolution has also been proposed to give indigenous
peoples rights to land held by their ancestors and to compensation for
damages to land caused by industrial development. It is the fifth time
such a large gathering of Finno-Ugric peoples has been held. -- Alaina

Romani youth who was set alight and beaten by skinheads on 21 July in
Central Slovakia (see OMRI Daily Digest, 25 July 1995) died in the
hospital on 31 July, TASR reported. The Slovak government the same day
officially condemned the attack--10 days after it took place. But Jan
Slota, leader of the Slovak National Party, said he believed that high
"Gypsy" crime rates were the cause of such "truly unacceptable"
incidents. Human rights organizations in Slovakia and abroad had
expressed outrage over the event and criticized the state's inaction.
Romani representatives on 30 July sent an open letter to Slovak citizens
saying that by not officially condemning the attack, the state was
silently condoning it, TASR reported the same day. The Romani
representatives warned that if the government does not negotiate with
them, they will stage demonstrations within a month. -- Alaina Lemon

Ministry spokesman on 31 July announced that Hungary will receive some
$132 million worth of military equipment from Russia this year in lieu
of cash debt repayments, MTI reported. Peter Haber said the Hungarians
will be given 97 armored personnel carriers, 20 rocket launchers, an
unspecified number of rockets, and MiG-29 jet engines. Earlier in July,
the Russians agreed to supply $58 million worth of military equipment to
the Hungarian Border Guards. -- Doug Clarke

delegation headed by Sheila Widnall, secretary of the Air Force at the
Defense Department, ended a two-day official visit to Romania on 31
July, Radio Bucharest reported. Widnall stressed the "constructive
character" of her talks with Romanian Defense Minister Gheorghe Tinca,
Secretary of State for Defense Ioan Mircea Pascu, and Air Force Chief-
of-Staff Maj. Gen. Ion Sandulescu. She also said that the U.S. is
interested in expanding cooperation with Romania within the framework of
the Partnership For Peace program. -- Dan Ionescu

ROMANIAN NATIONALIST LEADERS MEET. The National Board of Directors of
the nationalist organization Vatra Romaneasca (Romanian Hearth) met in
Targu Mures on 29 and 30 July. Adevarul on 1 August reported that the
gathering was in response to the meeting organized by the World
Association of Hungarians in Debrecen on 27 July. Vatra Romaneasca
leaders called on the Romanian government to suspend negotiations with
Hungary over a new bilateral treaty until Budapest distances itself from
what was described as "irredentist provocations." They also insisted
that Romania not accept the inclusion of the Council of Europe
Recommendation No. 1201 either in the treaty itself or as an annex. --
Dan Ionescu

YUGOSLAVIA. The Sofia daily Pari on 1 August reported that U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke said the previous day the
U.S. has asked Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Greece to tighten the
embargo against rump Yugoslavia. The request comes at a time when
Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece are considering a joint initiative to
further ease the embargo. Bulgarian Foreign Ministry spokesman Radko
Vlaykov told RFE/RL's Bulgarian Service that so far, the U.S. has not
submitted an official request to Bulgaria. Standart cited an unnamed
senior diplomat as saying that "calls to tighten the sanctions actually
mean that we are not enforcing them as we should." -- Stefan Krause
[As of 1200 CET]
[As of 12:00 CET]
Compiled by Victor Gomez
Compiled by Jan Cleave

This material was reprinted with permission of the Open Media 
Research Institute, a Prague-based nonprofit organization.

       Copyright (C) 1995 Open Media Research Institute, Inc.
                    All rights reserved.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been generated automatically. In case of errors, please,
          contact the administrator of the Hungarian-American List 

         Thank you for reading the Hungarian-American List !        
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ - Re: Vlasi (was: Re: Re:Nestor & Vlachs I) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, "Jeliko" > says:
>> Moreover, in my opinion, your quotes failed to prove that the
>> Franks controlled the area occupied by the Magyars at the beginning
>> of the 10th century.
>Liviu, I hope you have no problems with the Latin texts quoted. :-)

Well, for most of the cases I felt like you had opened randomly the
book and then posted somthing, the quotes were so unrelated to the
point you were trying to make. Maybe is not a bad idea to provide next
to the Latin quote your own translation so that I can be sure that we
are understanding the same thing.

>I sure
>think they are pretty clear in their showing who were subject to whom.

I can only agree, the sources are extremly clear and they prove my case.
The overall picture indicates that, at the time of the Magyar arrival,
Moravia was de facto independent. I don't know what illustrates this
more clearly than the fact that the Franks hired the Magyars to help them
with the war against Sviatopolk and that the Magyars got their conuntry
not from the Franks but from the Moravians.

The Moravians dealt with the Franks more or less on terms of equality,
and this de facto equality was acknowledged by the east Frank rulers,
who concluded a number of peace treaties with the Moravians (874, 885,
890, and 901)

The Moravians were capable of large-scale incursions across the
Frankish border, and the military organization of the south-east
frontier was changed at regular intervals to cope with the treat.
The Moravian rulers were powerful enough to intervene in the feuds
within Frank royal and noble families. Frankish nobles, rebelling
against their emperor, went into exile among the Moravians, hopping
for their support. Sviatopolk even acted as godfather to his namesake,
the illigitimate son of Arnulf of Carinthia.

More relevant is, maybe, the fact that in religious matters the Moravians
rejected the Frankish church and asked for missionaries (and political
support, of course) from Constantinopole, first, and then from
Rome. Methodius was consecrated archbishop against the Frankish wish.
And, above everything, as both the Dalmatian and papal
sources indicate, Sviatopolk was crowned "king in Roman fashion"
(see Presbyter Diocleas' Regnum Sclavorum) Pope Stephen V, in a letter
dated near the end of 885, was addressing to Zventopolco in his quality
of regi Sclavorum, thus officially recognizing his royal status.
The Chronicon of Regino, also, gave him the title rex Marahensium

Bottom line: Sviatopolk built a state de jure political independent,
he was recognized by Rome as king of the Slavs, and his realm was
ecclasiastically subordinate to the pope but independent of Franks
and Byzantines alike. Sviatoplok enlarged his realm to include
territories north of the Danube, Bohemia, northern Pannonia, possibly
even parts of Transylvania, but the heartland of the Moravian realm
was in the sotheast. The Franks failed to overcome his kingdom and,
in desperate need of help, called upon the Magyars. Pannonia was
conquered from the Moravians not from the Franks. Isn't this the
story recorded by the Hungarian tradition?

This is why, even if one ignors the insurmountable linguistic barrier
pointing against the Vlakh--Franks equivalence, Nestor's tale,
about the country conquered by the Magyars from the Vlakhs but settled
first by the Slavs, doesn't fit the Pannonian case because the Magyars
were allied with the Franks against the Slavs.

>Please read the "Conversio Bagvariorum et Carantanarum" and the Annales
>Fuldensis for 892 though 901 it is full of references for the dependency of
>what is now western Hungary to the Franks.

Thanks, but I am fully acquainted with these sources.

>(if you need copies, I can fax>)

Let me save this promise for the long-ago-promised pages sended
by Dr.Likhacev.

>> In the D.A.I Sviatopluk is definitely the central figure, and his
>> Megale Moravia is the main area afterwords settled by the Magyars.
>> The East Franks did not rule it and this is why they hired the
>> Magyars, to use them for taking over this South Slavic realm.
>Its interesting that nobody else placed them there and all other sources
>place Moravia where it still is.

A careful examination of most available Western, Byzantine and Slavic
sources that mention this principality and rulers of the 9th
century Moravia or which deal with the activities of Cyril and Methodius
there, reveals that the heartland of this kingdom was situated several
hundred kilometers southeast of the present-day Moravia. Suffice to add
here two quotes from Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 1989, published by
the American Council of Learned Societies:

p.484  MORAVIA[...]The region's history has been confused in the past
     with the history of the so-called Great Moravia, located south
     of the Danube[...], and

p.658  GREAT (or OLD) MORAVIA[...]Part of the larger patrimonial known
     as Slavonia, Moravia extended from Belgrade toward the Dalmatian
     coast and at times claimed parts of Upper Pannonia[...]

>Salzburg and Passau Diocese and particularly in Nitra and Mosaburg, which
>are some distance from the area of "south of Pannonia".

The Nitra-link was based on a very superficial interpretation of
the Conversio. Nitra was conquered by Sviatoplok only in 871, after
his victory over the Bavarian forces. Moosburg (Zalavar, south of L.
Balaton) was the fortress of Pribina and Kocel, occupied by Sviatopolk
at short time after 876.

>the good emperor says in other places: Section 42 The Turks lands start
>north of the Danube at Belegrada and also between the Danube and the Sava
>and furthermore list rivers, near which they lived, all if which are in
>what was Hungary and not the Serbian or Croatian lands.

In order to prove your point you picked up the most irrelevant part
of D.A.I. C.42 just builds up on the PRECEDENTING statements and only
adds that the Magyaras also lived in Pannonia. Moreover, to confuse the
issue, you hinted to the "list of rivers" which in reality is part of
section 40.

C.42 is just a general geographical description from Thessalonica to
the Danouvious river and the city of Belgrad. The fragment in question
reads as follow:

    "From Thessalonica to the river Danouvious where stands the
    the city of Belgrade is a journey of eight days, if one is not
    traveling in haste, but by easy stages. The Turks live beyond
    the Danouvios river, in the land of Moravia, but also on this
    side of it, between the Danouvios and Sava rivers..."

The statement that the Hungarians live "in land of Moravia" refers to
the territories both north of the Danube as visualised from Belgrad
and also south of the Danube, namely west of the Belgrad and north of
the river Sava. It is more a description of"Turkia", not of Moravia,
but nevertheless clearly states that the area was also part of the
megale Moravia of Sviatopolk.

>In Section 27; "In
>those days the Longobards lived in Pannonia where now the Turks live." The
>Avars lived along the Danube where now the Turks live in a nomad manner.

So, if in Constantine's time the Hungarians lived in Pannonia of the
Longobards, as well as in the Moravia of Sventoplok, as stated in c.13,
c.40, or 42., then Moravia must have been in Pannonia, that is, south
of the Danube.

>So even Porphyrogentitus, if
>one reads all of it is clearly placing the Hungarians
>in Hungary and not at some place south of the Danube.

Although the Magyars entered the Carpathian basin
from northeast to southwest, they conquered it from south
to north, after the 899 Italian expedition and Arnulf's death.
Pannonia was always south of the Danube and, I agree with you,
one shouldn't read only bits and pieces. Therefore, let's see
the relevant part of D.A.I:

   c.40: "But the Turks, expelled by the Pechenegs, came and
   settled in the land they now dwell in. In this place are
   various landmarks of the olden days: there is the bridge
   of the Emperor Trajan where Turkey [i.e., Hungary] begins;
   then, a three-days'journey from this same bridge there is
   Belgrad, in which is the tower of the holy and great Constantine,
   the Emperor; then, again, at the running back of the river
   [Ister], is the renowed Sirmium by name, a journey of two
   days from Belgrade; and beyond lies megale Moravia, the
   unbaptized, which the Turks have blotted out, but over
   which in former days Sphendoplokos used to rule. Such are
   the  landmarks and names along the Ister."

So, Jeliko, there is no doubt that Moravia is associated with
territories along the river Ister (i.e., Sava and lower Danube)
on a stretch between the bridge of Trajan [Turnu Severin] and
Sirmium. Furthermore, Constantine describes the rivers that are
_north_ of these landmarks:

   "...but the regions above these [landmarks], which comprehend
   the whole settlement of Turkey..."

and follows with Timisis, the yet to be identified Toutis, Morisis,
Krisos, and Titza. The enumerated rivers are defined by  Constantine
as being above (i.e., north) of the "landmarks and names", which
included megale Moravia.

>I have not the foggiest idea where he got
>the megali Moravia south of the Turkoi, (maybe he did not know either)

Maybe is time to wipe the fog, the historians suspect for almost
twenty years that Constantine was actually very exact and correct.
Constantine clearly thought that Sventopolk's Moravia was located
somewhere near Belgrad and that it it had been occupied by the
Hungarians. Modern Moravia is several hundred kilometers
from Belgrade and there is no evidence that the Hungarians
ever settled there.

And now let's skip to the most interesting part: what nations
lived in megale Moravia? Let's ckeck a rather marginal note
from Jenkins' Commentary to D.A.I. (p.62-62) According to
a less known, later Byzantine text:

     "Those living along the Danube, the Bulgars, the Moravs
      (the SERBS and VLACHS!!!!!) and the Slavs of Illyria
      have been enlightened by menas of the holy baptism about
      the middle of the 9th century during the rule of Michael
      and the patriarchate of the eminent Photius"

Let me guess who these Vlachs might be. Maybe the Franks? :-)

>> Even early Magyar traditions maintained that the Magyars had to
>> acquire their teritory from Sviatopluk, the one crowned rex
>> Sclavorum by the pope (see Chronicon Budense)                               
>Yeah, but what does this do to where his lands were.

Focus, Jeliko! It has to do with from whom the Magyars got
their land, that is, not from the Franks, as your interpretation
of Nestor would incorrectly imply, but from the South
Slavic Moravians.

>> The Magyars did not fight the East Franks initially. They spared
>> the east Frankish kingdom during Arnulf's lifetime.
>Wait a second. Regino of Prum for 899 "first they roamed the deserts of the
>Pannonians and the Avars and sought their daily food by hunting and

You must agree with me that "roamed" doesn't mean fight and "hunting
and fishing" sounds more like healing the Pecheneg wounds :-) BTW,
the Avars were the ones still living in present-day Moravia but this is
another story. Anyhow, 899 _IS_ the year of Arnulf's dead so I'm not too
sure if I got your point. But, because I'm a good sport, before I go on
I'll have assumed that you meant 889, not 899.

>Then by frequent and destructive inroads they broke through the
>borders of the Carinthians, Moravians, and Bulgarians

Regino (whose Chronicon was written in the early years of the 10th
century) had a tendency to telescope events, and thus, his dates
cannot always be trusted. For example, in this passage he stated
correctly that the Hungarians were kicked out from Ethelkoz by the
Pechenegs, though, at a date that was certainly later than 889.

However, note the order in which Regino listed those people,
implying that the Moravians were situated somewhere between the
Carintians and the Bulgarians. What is this telling you about
where was Moravia situated? North or south of the Danube?


Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: Vlasi (was: Re: Re:Nestor & Vlachs I) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, "Jeliko" > says:
>Well, the Hungarians speak "magyar", what does what language they speak has
>anything to do with what they are called.

I would say that in very many cases this is essential. Because of their
language the east Franks were called Niemtsi by the Slavs. Because of
their language the Romanians were called Vlahs by the Slavs. Everything
the Magyar case proves is that other controls are to be assumed.

>You can't argue that the
>Byzantines had more contact with the Franks than the Bulgarians or the
>Russians and still they were called Franks regardless of what language they

The point you are missing is that all the Franks were initially Germans
and, even more important, Slav--German contacts predate with several
hundred years the Byzantine--Frank contacts. Moreover, the ancestors
of the Franks were called Germans by the forefathers of the Byzantine.

>One theory is that the origin of the word is from low Latin "wallus"
>meaning *stranger*.

Whose theory!?! Let's put this issue aside forever and accept the
word of an expert. Agree?

According to Golab, Z. [1992, The Origin of the Slavs: A Linguist's
View. Slavica Publishers, Inc., Ohio], VOLXb belongs among the
Germanic loanwords in Protoslavic. More precisely, is a pre-2nd century
borrowing from Eastern Proto-Germanic and Early Gothic. VOLXb, pertains
to a PERSON OF ROMAN ORIGIN attested and is attested in all Slav languages
as the old name of ROMANCE PEOPLE, in general, or of particular ROMANCE
PEOPLE with whom the Slavs were in close contact. Examples:

Old Church Slavonic: vlaxb              Russ: volox "Walache"
Ukrainian: volox "Rumane"               Polish: wloch "Italian"
Czech: vlach "Italians"                 Serbo-Croatian: vlah "Walache"
Bulgarian: vlah "Walache, Rumane"

The source of VLAXb traces back to WALXA and the Old High Germanic WALH
i.e., "romanus" Ultimately, reflects the Celtic ethnicon "volcos" meaning,
probably, "stranger"

So, Jeliko, vlaxb is not from Latin and only long, long ago, in
Celtic it meant stranger. In ProtoGermanic already got the nuance
of "stranger speaking Latin" and by the time it entered the early
vocabulary of the Slavs was used only to denote Romance-speaking people.
In the Balkan area was introduced by the Slavs and they called Vlahs
only the Romance-speaking folks. From the Slavs perspective, the
Germans were neither Romance-speakers nor "strangers" and, therefore,
they kept calling them by the old pal-name NEMETS, menaing "deaf"

>Please remeber that
>East Frankland (Francia Orientalis) was known as Valland to the
>Scandinavians. As a matter of fact they called Italy the same way.

Yes, but as I stated already several times (apparently I'm talking
to nemets :-) in these cases the derivation is directly from German
and it doesn't reflect the Slavic mediation.

>> Theodiscus, the ancestor of the modern German word Deutsch, denoted
>> a comunity of language, as in the phrase nationes Theodiscae
>> (i.e., German-speaking people) In order to clarify this issue,
>> allow me to suggest a couple of additional readings:
>> Wright, R.(ed.), 1991, Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early
>>      Middle Ages. Routledge, London, p.262.
>All may have spoken one of the Germanic tounges, but their records and
>correspondance was kept in Latin. They called themselves the Roman Empire.

You subscribed to my arguments that the official Latin was not an
official tool for Romanization in Dacia but now you are overemphasizing
the importance of the official language. It sounds like a double standard
to me. We are not concern with how the east Franks called themselvs.
"Roman Empire" was a political ambition. Haitians once called their state
Empire but that had almost the same meaning as the adjective Roman next to
the empire of the East Franks. Our concern is the name by which they were
called by a certain group of people, namely the Slavs. And what we know
for shure is that they did not called them Vlakhs but Nemets for reasons
related to the every-day language spoken by the East Franks.

I left above one reference for you because it mentions the existance of
Germanic vernaculares, capitularies, and oaths as early as 876.

>> In 827, Bulgars operating
>> from ships on Drava, began a series of raids into Pannonia, were they
>> succeded in replacing Slavic duces, who had been loyal to the Franks,
>> with their own underlings (rectors).
>Now you are agreeing that the Salvic princes were under Frankish
>suzerainity? Why are you arguing against it in the first part of the

You seem to have a serious problem with the timeing of the events.
Yes, the Moravians were initially part of the Frankish plans concerning
the organization of the east marches but the political situation was
completely different after 870s, prior to the Magyar arrival, than it
was in 820s.

>By the way your
>latter discussion is sure ignoring your earlier thesis of where megali
>Moravia was. You can't have mM in the south, and then ignore it in the
>second part of your discussion and have the Bulgarians cozying up to the
>Franks, ignoring everybody else who lived between them.

Focus Jeliko, focus! Only if the heartland of Moravia was in Pannonia
Sirmiensis and Moesia explains why the Bulgars were interested in an
alliance with the Franks against the Moravians. A similar reasoning
explains why Rastislav asked for the Byzantine help when he felt
threatened by the Franko-Bulgarian lock. BTW, Annals regni Francorum
(a.824) mention the Moravians as living "in Dacia adjacent to to the
Danube near the Bulgarian border" (interesting, isn't it?),
complaining about Bulgar aggresion against them and requesting the
emperor's assistance.

>> This theory verge on the the burlesque. What's the problem Jeliko,
>> is your "boat" sinking? :-)
>No, but I  try to read all of the original cited texts, not only excerpts
>from them, or others secondary references.

It's very good that you read ALL the original texts but I don't think
it's indicated to ignore ALL the research done on the issue. When
you arrive at disagreement with the vast majority of the experts,
it means that there is a huge gap between your reading and your overall
comprehending of the issue. Dont't get me wrong here, I'm not trying
to lecture you, but rather I'm asking for your objectivity.
>> >>>It is incorrect to say that the Byzantine generally described the
>> Hungarians as Turkoi. The period during which the term was in use
>> hardly exceeds 50 years (Macartney, C.A., 1968, The Magyars in the
>> Ninth Century, Cambridge University Press)
>Not exactly, the sources are referring to Turkoi as attacking the
>Bulgarians and the Khazars were in the Byzantine Imperial Guard who were
>defeated before the Tourkoi were asked to help.

Oh, really!? Let's see what Constantine (c.39-40) said about this:.

     "You must know that the so-called Kavars are of the race of the
      Khazars[...]some fled and settled with the Magyars in the land
      of the Patzinaks, and they made friends with one another [...]
      they thought the tongue of the Khazars to the Magyars themselves.
      But because they showed themselves more efficient in wars and
      more manlyof the eight hordes, and leaders of war, they were
      elected the first hordes; and there is one leader [arhouta]
      among them.

Therefore, in 895, the Kavars and the Khazars, although initially the
same race (i.e., Turks), are now fighting in opposite camps. Moreover,
it seems that in the Onogur alliance the bright spot was not occupied
by the Magyars (in the list of hordes they appear only in the third
position) but by the Kavars, explaining why Leo called them all
"Turks" It is worthy of note that the army fighting in Bulgaria,
whether Kavar or Magyar, is described as having Liountinas as ruler
(arhouta); the same word previously used to describe the chief of the
Kavars. Later on, the Kovars led by Achtum are the ones conquering
Transylvania and only in 1003 is Stephan strong enough to take over

>> According to Macartney, the popular custom among the Greek
>> chroniclers was to refer to the Magyars as "Ougroi" and he argued
>> his point using examples from Leo Grammaticus, Georgius Monachus,
>> and Zonaras.<<<
>Well maybe Maccartney did not read all of the good Hamartolus. As an
>example in the section discussing  Vasul of Macedonia In this paragraph
>for the same folks we have  "Ouggoroi" once, "Ounnoi" twice and
>"Tourkoi" twice.

I strongly doubt this reference is from Hamartolus. You are confusing the

>In discussing the Byzantine/Bulgarian/Hungarian war the Hamartolus

As I said, you have a serious problem with the timing of the events.
Hamartolus died in 842 and, therefore, he did not witness the 895 war.
His chronicle was continued by Symeon the Logothete, writting almost in
the same time with Constantine. This explains the the use of "Turkoi"
in the above example.

>"Symeon captured the Khazars who served in the Imperial Guard and cut their
>noses off and sent them back to the city." Thus the Khazars (you called
>them Kavars were serving on the Byzantine side and there is no indication
>that they were part of the Hungarian invasion force

See above the discussion based on Constantine's D.A.I. I must say
that I'm very surprise you are so unfamiliar with both the Kavar
issue and Macartney work.

>As a matter of fact in the same
>paragraph Hamartolus writes: "(Nicetas Skleros) went and met with the
>rulers of the Tourkoi Arpad and and Kusan..."

The primary source for this meeting is not Harmatolus (remember, he
was dead) but Leo Grammaticus. Anyhow, Constantine is better informed
because in 948, short time before he wrote c.40, Constantinople
received visitors from the Magyars (see Zonaras)

>Or please read the Tactics by Leo the Wise

I though Tactica belongs to Leo the Philosopher, the emperor that
actually described the 895 war !!!!????!!!

>that much for the tradition starting with Leo), in Section 41,
>42, 44, 46, 60, 61, 74 calls them Tourkoi.
>Well, that much is enough to see what they were called "generally"
>by the Byzantines of the times.

Yeah, enough is enough and is good you stopped here :-)
>Well earlier you claimed that the troops invading Bulgaria
>were Kavars and not Hungarians. So who was beaten badly by whom?

Hombre !!! Next time let's share together that Tokai wine!
The Kavars and the Magyars were part of the same polyethnic
confederation of nomads, hunters and gatherers. According
to Constantine, in the 9th century the Kavars were the ones
with the bigest cojones. Constantine said that the Turks [i.e.,
the Magyars] "were completely anihilated and chased away
miserably" but this doesn't mean that Leo's "Turks" were not
Kavars (see above the comment on Levente's title)

>Thus I still claim that the "disasters"
>claimed were not as great as indicated by some of the sources.

Sure, Jeliko, as I said: "still" means that there is still
a chance :-)

>> I might have touched a sensitive spot here, haven't I?
>> How do you feel about Posada, Baia or Selimber, Jeliko?
>Do you mean that you believe everything written about those also?

Not everything, just that each of them was a major defeat for
the Hungarian armies.


Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: no comment! question (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article > ,  writes:
>>I believe that you flamed me for different reason. 

>My point was simply that your taking the mickey out of someone
>whose Hungarian was flawed invites, even deserves, that your
>English be subjected to the same scrupulous examination.  

I don't know what you mean by that. Would you be more accurate
in telling me when and to whom i did such thing ? I don't remem-
ber doing it, and you know i feel it is unlikely that i did such a
thing that i consider a below-the-belt action.

However i used to correct Hungarian texts when i am (we are )
explicitly *asked* for.

>I don't consider that "flaming", but perhaps others do.
>If it is "flaming", I shall have to bear the odium of
>applying the standards you apply to others' posting to yours.
>Mea culpa.

You were not seen and read around s.c.m for a while, i think
for months. Then you suddenly ran out of nowhere and attacked
me and i can not figure it out why. I can not connect your hostile
behaviour against me to any of my special activity around that
I was flamed earlier, not only once, because of my shortcomings
in English. Until know it usually happened when the  other side
ran out of arguments. I did not care too much about, as you see i
am still around, i did not drown myself into the Zurich see yet
because of this.