Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: URGENT Opportunity:: Read Immediately (mind)  141 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Honfoglalas/conquest (mind)  245 sor     (cikkei)
3 URGENT FOLLOW-UP MESSAGE:::PLEASE READ (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Palacky (mind)  67 sor     (cikkei)
5 Honfoglalas--conquest (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
6 SLOVAK OCCUPATION was: Palacky (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Palacky (mind)  109 sor     (cikkei)
8 "Nitra principality" (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Honfoglalas--occupation (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)
10 Gibbon & Hungary (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Palacky (mind)  44 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: URGENT Opportunity:: Read Immediately (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

to the absolute idiot who posted this:

On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, harvey74 wrote:

> If every person who reads this memo would follow the enclosed instructions,
> EACH of us could be $RICH$!!!!  Remember - this is not a "gimmick!"  This
> is a legitimate operation, the likes of which are run all around the world.
> All you need to do to prove this is check your local telephone directories!
> Look under "Mailing Lists" and you will find brokers of ALL kinds!  The only
> real difference is that THEY are doing their business one person at a time,
> and YOU may perform your tasks HUNDREDS of people at a time!  All you need to
> do is read the following entries and follow the few simple instructions, and
> YOU may go into business for YOURSELVES!!
> Happy postings, and I hope to hear from you soon!
> Dear Friend,
>      My name is Dave Rhodes.  In September 1988 my car was reposessed
> and the bill collectors were hounding me like you wouldn't believe.  I was la
> off and my unemployment checks had run out.  The only escape I had from the
> pressure of failure was my Apple computer and my modem.  I longed to turn
> my avocation into my vocation.  This January 1989 my family and I went on a
> ten day cruise to the tropics.  I bought a Lincoln Town Car for CASH in
> February 1989.  I am currently building a home on the West Coast of
> Florida, with a private pool, boat slip, and a beautiful view of the bay
> from my breakfast room table and patio.  I will never have to work again.
> Today I am rich!  I have earned over $400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand
> Dollars) to date and will become a millionaire within 4 or 5 months.
> Anyone can do the same.  This money making program works perfectly every
> time, 100% of the time.  I have NEVER failed to earn $50,000.00 or more
> whenever I wanted.  Best of all you never have to leave home except to go to
> your mailbox or post office.
> In October 1988, I received a letter in the mail telling me how I
> could earn $50,000 dollars or more whenever I wanted.  I was naturally very
> skeptical and threw the letter on the desk next to my computer.  It's funny
> skeptical and threw the letter on the desk next to my computer.  It's funny
> though, when you are desperate, backed into a corner, your mind does crazy
> things.  I spend a frustrating day looking through the wanted ads for a job
> with a future.  The pickings were sparse at best.  That night I tried to
> unwind by booting up my Apple computer and calling several bulletin boards.
> I read several of the message posts and then glanced at the letter next to
> the computer.  All at once it came to me, I now had the key to my dreams.
> I realized that with the power of the computer I could expand and enhance
> this money making formula into the most unbelievable cash flow generator
> that has ever been created.  I substituted the computer bulletin boards in
> place of the post office and electronically did by computer what others
> were doing 100% by mail.  Now only a few letters are mailed manually.  Most
> of the hard work is speedily downloaded to other bulletin boards throughout
> the world.  If you believe that someday you deserve that lucky break that
> you have waited for all your life, simply follow the easy instructions
> below.  Your dreams will come true.
> Sincerely yours,
> Dave Rhodes
> Follow these instructions EXACTLY, and in 20 to 60 days you will have
> received well over $50,000.00 cash, all yours.  This program has remained
> successful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants.
> Please continue its success be carefully adhering to the instructions.
> 1) Immediately mail $1.00 to the first 5 names listed below starting at
> number 1 through number 5.  Send cash only please (total investment $5.00).
> Enclose a note with each letter stating: "Please add my name to your
> mailing list." (This is a legitimate service that you are requesting and you
> are paying $1.00 for this service.)
> 2) Remove that name that appears number 1 on the list.  Move the other 9
> names up one position.  (Number 2 will become number 1 and number 3 will
> become number 2, etc.) Place your name, address and zip code in the number
> 10 position.
> 3) Post the new letter with your name in the number 10 position into 10
> (Ten) separate bulletin boards in the message base or to the file section,
> call the file, QUIKCASH.
> 4) Within 60 days you will receive over $50,000.00 in CASH.  Keep a copy
> of this file for yourself so that you can use it again and again whenever
> you need money.  As soon as you mail out these letters you are automatically
> in the mail order business and people are sending you $1.00 to be placed on
> your mailing list.  This list can then be rented to a list broker that can
> be found in the Yellow Pages for additional income on a regular basis.  The
> list will become more valuable as it grows in size.  This is a service.
> This is perfectly legal.  If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18, Sec.
> 1302 & 1341 of the postal lottery laws.
> Remember as each post is downloaded and the instructions carefully
> followed, five members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List
> Developer with one dollar each.  Your name will move up the list
> geometrically so that when your name reaches the number five position you
> will be reaceiving thousands of dollars in cash.
> 1.Noelle Parks
> 10666 Kendig Road
> New Carlisle, OH  45344-9705
> 2. David Opel
> 3044 W. Desert Cove
> Phoenix, AZ 85029
> 3. Mike Serroul
> 35 King St. W. #35
> Kitchener, Ont., Canada N2G 1A1
> 4. Arturo Salcido
> 1225 Broadway #611
> Chula Vista, CA 91911
> 5. Aaron Harvey
>  414 Lee Street
>  Blacksburg, VA 24060
> 6. Paul Lange
> 2507 Trail of the Madrones
> Austin, TX 78746
> 7. Ken Hartzfeld
> 201 Wilkens Ave.
> E. Pittsburgh, PA 15112-1526
> 8. Moncef Belyamani
> 115 S. Piedmont Ave.
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> 9. Jason Fournier
> 232 Hamilton Hall
> University Park, PA 16802
> 10. Bobby Joyce
> 1920 Greenbrier Road
> Lebanon, OH 45036
+ - Re: Honfoglalas/conquest (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sun, 1 Jan 1995 13:46:29 GMT IMRE BOKOR said:
>history is essentially "reading backwards".

--I evidently didn't make the definition of "reading backwards" clear.
It means using the standards of today in evaluating the events of the
past.  Attila would have been a better warrior if he had used tanks
instead of horses, for example.  Or why didn't the Magyars appeal to
the International Court of Justice for a ruling on the morals of their
honfloglas?  To expect tenth century people to behave according to
today's standards of international conduct is of the same order.

 surely one of the purposes of
>studying history is to know and understand past events and developments,

--Sure, but unless you are an absolute revisionist historian, you have
to understand those events within the context of their times, not in
today's context.
>in these respects the carpathian basin was not very different from most of
>the rest of europe. but are you sure there were no cities then?

--Not very different, but a bit wilder.  And Roman settlements?  More
likely ruins of them by the tenth century.  The power of Rome had
pretty well disappeared by the tenth century.

>of course there were very few settlements at the time which would be
>recognisable today as cities of size.

>the point is not whether the institutions of the latter part of the middle
>ages were comparable to today's or not. the points being discussed, as far
>as i can recall, arei
>1. the claim that hungary has a legitimate claim on the boundaries of
>"greater hungary" which extended substantially beyond what have been the
>boundaries for all bout six or seven years since about 1920. the
>arguments for the legitimacy of this claim, which has been pressed in this
>newsgroup in the current threads, has been based substantially if not
>entirely on a claim that the "desired boundaries" are the natural
>realm of the "hungarian nation" which has been resident in its fatherland
>of essentially unchanged boundaries for the best part of a thousand years.
--Well, essentially unchanged up until Trianon.  Not counting Turkish

>2. the claim that the hunagrian fatherland was not acquired by conqest/
>occupation, but, rather, "established" as if on terra nullius.
--My argument is that it really doesn't matter now.  What the Magyars
did in the tenth century wasn't all that different from what other
peoples of the period did.  Might as well trash the Danes for
invading England.  Now if they had done it last year...

>i entirely agree that the modern notions of "nation" and "state" are
>inaoppropriate categories for describing life and politics of the
>mediaeval period.
>my questions and comments are directed at trying to establish what
>moral, ethical, political and/or other principles justify hungarian
>claims which preclude competing claims from legitimacy, other than
>some variety of "a nagyobb kutya baszik" ---- which despite its
>vividness is, at least to me, unacceptable as a moral/ethical
--And I repeat that the Magyar conquest wasn't all that different
from others of the period.  We might consider it unprincipled today,
but it was the way things happened then.

>i mean to say what makes the hungarian conquest/occupation/settlement
>of the area legitimate while precluding the subsequentand/or prior
>occupations/conquests/settlements illegitimate?

--In the tenth century, success in doing so.  But legitimate and
illegitimate seem to me to be the wrong words.  There weren't
the same standards in use to determine either.  If the same events
occurred today, the EU would dither about it and the UN would try
to establish a cease fire.   Hands would be wrung and solemn
tribunals would condemn the occupation as illegitimate.  If
the former Yugoslavia is any indication, that's probably about it
unless someone's vital interests were affected or the events
spilled out into Germany or France.

>i don't know what basis you have for saying that there "weren't too many
>people" there. how many were there?

--Carleton J.H. Hayes, writing in 1920 used the figure 200,000.  That
seems to be still the rough figure.

 how much more or less densely
>populated was the region than other regions of europe? since when is
>population density an ethical argument?
--It's not an ethical argument.  Again, you seem to be asking tenth
century people to act according to a level of moral conduct that we
may honor in principle today even if not in actuality.

>but why is it legitimate for them to conquer other nations because
>of that?
--Here we go again.  You are assuming that there was another "nation"
there.  The only legitimacy was survival.

>(according to the encyclopaedia britannica [1962 edition] vol.11 p.901
>that is what they did. they were not what we would call refugees seeking
>safety and being accommodated by a generous host, rather (to use the
>word in the britannica) they "subjected and scattered" the population,
>they "subjugated the earlier non-magyar population".

--You've got to get beyond the Britannica.  The Magyars were driven
out of where they were by a Turkish tribe.  In that sense, they were
refugees.  But they were not conquerors in the sense that the Danes
were in England.  The Danes weren't being pursued by anybody and
weren't just seeking to preserve themselves.  Ditto the Normans.  And
I wouldn't argue that the Magyars were a really sweet bunch of folks
who just wanted a place to lay their heads.  They were clearly warlike
people.  But so was nearly everybody else.  Why do you expect the
Magyars to conform to the Geneva Convention?

 they "repeatedly
>raided" far afield "in search of booty and slaves".
--And no other people of the time ever did such things?

>: They found it and there weren't any strong competing
>: claims.
>i would say that the prior inhabitants had a strong ethical claim
>indeed to be preferred to that of the invaders.
--That and 90p will get you a pot of tea, two scones, and some jam.
In what forum could such an ethical claim be pressed?

>: It's a real stretch to compare Arpad with Adolph.
>why? because hitler lost and arpad won?

--Hardly.  Hitler has to be judged by the standards of the 20th

 i am sure that if hitler had succeeded
>then we would be praising his glorious deeds in (re)occupying
>the aryan fatherlands and making christian civilisation safe from
>bolshevism, ridding mankind of infererior races, etc. and if his
>tactics/techniques would have made the less robust of us squeamish, then
>in a few decades or generations the costs of the achievements, especially
>those borne by them and not us, would, in the large sweep of history,
>be reduced to insignificant detail. since the conquered nations
>would then not have succeeded in adequately defending their claims,
>we would forget that they had any.
--Well, I don't know what the 30th century perspective will be, but
I would conjecture that the legitimate historian of that time would
put Hitler into the context of the 20th century and, had he been
successful God forbid, they would have to judge him harshly as
a cunning, ruthless, dictator.

>as odious as you might find the very mention of adolf hitler, i brought him
>up as an example where i expect most contributors here to subscribe to the
>view that his demands for "lebensraum" were *not* legitimate. but the
>logical form, the flow of the argument, so to speak, is the same. the
>biggest single difference is that of about a millenium and the concomitant
>advances in technology.
--And the development of a whole set of international morals and conventions,
however poorly observed in practice.

>i don't have my knickers --- metaphorical or otherwise --- in a tangle.
>but i agree that many nations make similar claims. *that* is the
>motivation for my engaging in this discussion. when two or more
>peoples make similar claims on the same geographical region, what
>principles are to be applied for a fair and just settlement?

--Surely a different set in the 20th century than in the 10th.  Although
events in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union seem to
indicate otherwise.  The UN is even more of a toothless tiger than
the Concert of Europe, which worked for nearly thirty years.
Of course, we can get into another argument about the legitimacy of
Metternich's system, which foundered on the emergence of nationalism
in Central and Eastern Europe.

>: >criteria to be used to assess and evaluate competing claims.

--Today we have mechanisms designed to do that.  The World Court has,
in fact, settled some claims, mostly minor.  We must admit that having
a mechanism and being willing to use it are not the same thing, but
it is there.  Such tribunals and fora did not exist in the tenth

>i agree that the standards of the 20th century are different. but i am
>*not* the one appealing to a conquest in the tenth century to justify
>a twentieth century claim.

--I don't recall that anyone did that.  I recall that the discussion
simply had to do with the length of time that there had been a Hungarian

>the situation *now* is quite clear. hungarian nationals form a minority
>in transylvania and slovakia. that mitigates against the demand for the
>"return" of these regions. there are few regions i know of where
>te ethnic hungarians form a significant majority rather than a sizeable
>minority. i have no pat solution to the problems but i am disturbed by
>strident nationalist claims in a situation where the history is long,
>complex and moot.
--I don't think that either "demand" is national policy of the
current government.  Such demands that are made strike me as so much
empty rhetoric.  Although wars have been started for less.

>one nation's civilisation is another's barabarism.
>again i see no relevance of population density to legitimacy of the claims.
>i see no reason why a society needs to be mechanised, or concentrated
>to be accorded rights and privileges of other societies.

--It at least needs to exist as a defineable entity.
>and conversely those of any other "migrating gorup" are just as valid as
>that of any other group. But do these have priorty over the claims of
>thos egroups resident in the regions to which the "migrants" "migrated"?

--In the tenth century, it wasn't a matter of legitimacy as we understand
it today.
>why? by then roman and greek civilisations had been long gone.
>in any event, where they did land was an area of roman settlement
>in part.

--Not then.

again, i do not see that the degree of development is material
>to the legitimacy of the claims.

--Once more, it was common for migrating people to find a place where
there were fewer or weaker people and settle in it--in the tenth
century and earlier.  One cannot speak of legitimacy of such claims.
One can only record that they happened.  There were no standards of
legitimacy then, other than force.  The Church not withstanding.
Tribes that did not find such a place usually ended up defunct.  If
such tribes remained where they were, they went into the toilet as
well.  Where are the Phrygians today?


In regards to the mailing list solicitation posted during the last two days, I
sincerely regret
this embarrassing incident. As a new user, I had no idea of what the magnitude
of negative
reactions would be.  The posting was a pure hoax, not intended to be taken
Please disregard it.  I sincerely regret any hostility that this may have
+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Charles writes:

>--Recognition of a Slavonic liturgy by the Pope does not mean that there
>was a modern nation-state called Slavonia.  I don't disagree with the

Perhaps not in the sense of a 19th century nation-state, though in context
of Church literature and poetry of the 15th century onward it was often
referred to as Sclavonia. The XVI century turkish occupation literature
referred to Toth-Vila'yet (Slovak-country), however the Slavonic liturgy
of the IX century is synonymous with the Great Moravian Empire, whose
legates to Byzantium referred to themselves as "we Sloveni" which is echoed
in the Slavonic liturgy in the Preamble to the Scriptures ( written by
Constantine in his effort to convert the Sloveni of the GMEmpire).

In the Preamble, Constantine exhorted the Sloveni with the following:
"...therefore hear, hear this Sloveni, so hear this well, *entire nation*
of Sloveni...". His mission was to convert the Sloveni of G.M.Empire, and
he addressed them as *entire nation* of Sloveni. This was echoed a couple
of centuries later by Nestor in the discription of Svatopluk as duke of
Sloveni, and in another passage as "There was *one nation* of Sloveni:
Sloveni, settled along the Danube, who were subjugated by the Ugori..."

>Some have argued, or I have
>understood them to argue, that there was a Slavic state--in the
>sense of a clearly definable area that had some organization to it--
>in the Pannonian Basis.  I don't think that any such "state" in the
>sense of a country with defineable boundaries, common language,
>common traditions, laws, roads, markets, and so on, existed there.

Porphyrogenit, Ibn Rosteh, Gurdezi et. al. elaborated upon the boundaries,
markets and trade of the Pannonian Sloveni with Byzantium and recorded passages
from city to city, distances in days, that the the Sloveni brought their goods
to Constantinople "upon the dry as well as by water".

Methodius was named Archbishop for Pannonia by the Holy See, the letter was
addressed to Rastislav, Svatopluk and Kocel. Rastislav ruled the moravian
principality, Svatopluk (heir apparent) ruled the Nitra principality, and Kocel
ruled in Pannonia.  The geographical extent of Pannonia has been known since
Roman times. Pope John VIII's encyclical 'Industriae tuae', issued in 880,
not only re-affirmed the Slavonic liturgy for Pannonia, but also took
the GMEmpire (consisting of the moravian and Nitra principalities) and
its ruler under Papal protection and established the first bishophric
of St. Method in Nitra (today Slovakia) thereby establishing an independent
Church province (re-established 1977 by Pope Paul VI nearly 900 years later).

In terms of traditions, pagan prayers are recorded from before Constantine's
mission, as well as the liturgy introduced by Constantine and Methodius,
The language of the liturgy was referred to by Constantine's student Chrabr
in his "Defense of the Writings and Language of Sloveni" from ~885 - 910 AD.

Pagan laws as well as laws introduced by Constantine and Method were
recorded prior to 885 AD. Church courts established in Nitra, Breslavva
(Bratislava) and Esztergom were later absorded into the early hungarian
kingdom along with some of the legal terminology as the Nitra principality
became the seat for the heir apparent to the hungarian crown (as it had
been during the time of the G.M.Empire) until it was annexed into Hungary
by king Ladislaus in 1089.

>--What would you have the Magyars do, Tony?  Move back northeast?

I'm not presuming to give advice, rather it seems to me that dismissing
preceeding events out of turn in the discussion of honfoglalas, wherein
they influenced subsequent culture (e.g. kara'csony derives from old slavic
krac'u'n) seemed like looking at a cultural artefact without considering
its basis in culture, which over the years became the common heritage.

+ - Honfoglalas--conquest (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Imi Bokor is dreaming again, when he says that

> the claim that hungary has a legitimate claim on the boundaries of
>"greater hungary" which extended substantially beyond what have been the
>boundaries for all bout six or seven years since about 1920. the
>arguments for the legitimacy of this claim, which has been pressed in this
>newsgroup in the current threads, has been based substantially if not
>entirely on a claim that the "desired boundaries" are the natural
>realm of the "hungarian nation" which has been resident in its fatherland
>of essentially unchanged boundaries for the best part of a thousand years.

No one, but no one said anything of the sort, Imi.

Moreover, I can express only astonishment at Imi's contention that the
difference in meaning between "occupation, conquest of the fatherland" and
"establishment of the fatherland" is of "paramount political and ethical
significance in this context." Good for you! I find it immaterial and petty.

Finally, Imi, it would be a good idea if you would recognize at last that
quoting from encyclopedias is not cool. Only high school kids do that.

Eva Balogh
+ - SLOVAK OCCUPATION was: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tony Pace writes;
> Perhaps not in the sense of a 19th century nation-state, though in
> of Church literature and poetry of the 15th century onward it was often
> referred to as Sclavonia.

I do not know when your appetite got whetted, but the discussion related to
the IX century not to the XIX or XV.

>The XVI century turkish occupation literature
Nor th XVI.

On the same basis the early sources sure do not indicate Slavic presence in
the area prior to about the AVAR arrival so at some point the Slavs were
practicing the same thing as the Hungarians, i.e. "honfoglalas" as a matter
of fact that much more advanced cultures (you like to call it nation)
existed in Pannonia before the Slavic arrival is very well demonstarted
from Roman records. As a matter of fact lots of folks were residing in the
area BEFORE the Slavs got there. Now what is so darn different about Slavic
settlement in an area from that of others?
I'll get back to your other "history" later.

+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

halasz@ writes:

>+Is it not true, though, that there was some kind of "state" there (whatever
>+the word may mean in the 9th century) before the Magyars arrived, that was
>+a Slavic one?  And that it had accepted Christianity and begun the process
>+that elsewhere led to the establishment of "feudal" monarchies imitating
>+patterns of political development further West?
>There indeed was a Slav king named in the traditional historie, Svatopluk.
>This is a real personage, but when he ruled, whom, and just where, is in

Up to 894 AD, Svatopluk ruled G.M.Empire- see Conversio, Annales Fuldenses,
Porphyrogenet's Ruling of the Empire, et al.

>but the name is Slav.  The Christianness of his kingdom is doubtful:  in the

Have you read the Holy See's encyclicals Gloria In excelsis-altissimis and
Industriae tuae? How about the existence of Nitra as a bishophric from 880
until 1995? That's 1115 years of continuous existance, older than Hungary.

>north one finds the Slavs withstandind Christianitie, for thei believ that it
>is an instrument for the Germans to rule them with.  On the other hand, this

Actually the Salzburg Archbishop Arno's mission to Pannonia in 798 AD
(as documented in Conversio Bagoaorum et Carantanorum 871 AD ) was to
"exquirare voluntatem populi illius" -to learn the thinking of
that people- "et praedicare ibi verbum dei" -and to preach the word of
the Lord there (meaning in Pannonia), whereas in matters of Church
jurisdiction, the territory east of Augsburg belonged to Aquileum (in Italy).
However the German church hierarchy from Salzburg was indeed actively
contesting Aquileum's claim upon Pannonia through missionary work.

Further north in the Nitra principality, the German missionary work
culminated in Archbishop Adalram consecrating a Church to St. Emeram
"in ... proprietate loco vocato Nitrava consecravit ecclesiam"
-in ... pricipality locally called Nitra(va) consecrated a Church-
(Conversio Bagoaorum et Carantanorum 871 AD ), in 830 AD so that's
some 32 years of actively contesting Aquileum by Salzburg missionaries.
While the German and Italian clergy vied for G.M.Empire and Pannonia,
Moravian legates to Byzantium in 862 stated that "many teachers came to us
from Italy, Greece and Germany, some teach us this way, others different"
and asked for a "teacher to teach them the good law because it emanates
in all directions from them (Byzantium)". Byzantium sent Constantine and
Methodius, who upon learning of the prior missionary activity by the German
and Italian clergy in G.M.Empire presented themselves and their teachings
in Rome which culminated in the independent Church province (of St. Method),
created in 880 AD for Nitra principality by the Holy See, with Methodius
already having been named Archbishop of Pannonia in 873.

>far south the Byzantine Empire is at least as influential, and it follows
>different tactics.  Full feudalizm is not found here until Robert Ka'roly

Perhaps, however much of the terminology of Karl Robert's Court is in common
with remnants of old Slovak terminology dating back to the days of G.M.Empire.
However, by and large it is not shared with the Czech language. A noted expert
in linguistics V. Jagic (a Croat) declared that the literature of the dialect
spoken by the people of the 9th century Moravian Empire was to be identified
with the modern Slovak language of the late 19th/early 20th century.

>brings it with him from France.

Full feudalism, perhaps, however words like ispa'n (s'pa'n) megye (medza) et.
al. were in common with Court terminology from the days of G.M.Empire

>+as well as what Hungarian linguists think about the time and place of
>+the adoption into Magyar of elements that to my non-linguistic but Slav-
>+language-speaking mind looked like old friends when I started studying
>+the Hungarian language.  Could the honfoglalas have had some aspects of
>+-mutual- influence about it?

>There is no doubt about it.  There is a host of words, mostlie dealind with
>husbandrie and the Church, that came from Slavic.  I believ that the nearest

I agree, moreover agricultural terms were largely adopted as well.

>to the Hungarish forms is found in Croatish, which makes for quite a

Croats were converted prior to the Pannonian and Moravian Sloveni,
however the Moravian Empire's Church jurisprudence emanated from Nitra,
Breslavva (Bratislava) and Esztergom, with Esztergom eventually becoming
the archbishophric in the early Hungarian kingdom. Remember that Croatia
was a wholly independent country until 1089, thereafter annexed by Ladislaus.

>if one accepts that the erliest missionaries were Czech.  The best solution

Czech legends have it that Czechs learned religius writeing from Slovak texts,
the Czech prince Borivoj was first among Czechs to convert to Christianity
and that was recorded as happening in Svatopluk's court (from Methodius).

>is that the Slav influens began ere the Czech missionaries were invited.  The
>origin of the Slovaks is relevant, whether thei are Czechs that fell under
>Hungarian rule, or offspring of the White Croats.  If the latter, then it is

Actually neither, there was little differentiation amongst Slovaks and Czechs,
though Slovaks called themselves Sloveni until the XV century, and still call
their language the same as the Slovenes, both call their countries Slovensko.

>safe to surmize that the conquerd Slavs were Croats of one clan or another.

The relevant aspect is that both the ancient Slovak Nitra principality
and the Croatian principality were annexed at about the same time in 1089
by king Ladislaus of Hungary, whereas the Moravian principality was annexed
into the early Premyslid Czech kingdom about 1000 AD.

+ - "Nitra principality" (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tony Pacek/Apponyi/Applications Manager writes:
>...the Nitra principality became the seat for the heir apparent to the
>hungarian crown (as it had been during the time of the G.M.Empire) until it
>was annexed into Hungary by king Ladislaus in 1089.

        I thought you finally got off of this "Nitra principality" bit.  Please
tell us, Tony, if this Nitra principality really existed, and played such an
important role as the seat of the crown prince, why is there no historical
record of it (except in the publications of Slovenska Matica)?  Second, why on
earth would it be the seat of a Hungarian prince _prior_ to it being annexed by

+ - Re: Honfoglalas--occupation (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article > JELIKO,
>It was very sparsley populated compared to other areas as you can
read in
>relation to the Purtugese notes.

i have not seen any discussion of the relative population densities
anywhere. the new settlements were restricted to the coastal regions
move inland cames much later.

>The original languages bushmen, hottentot
>did not become prevailing.

there were many languages spoken there --- there still are ---
but the boer language was never a numerically dominant one, many of
the native languages were spoken by far more people. the boers
and other whjte settlers gained military -- and thereby economic,
social and cultural power which was exercised with less civility
than in holland, belgium or england.

>The statement that the Zulus and Dutch were
>intruding into the area about the same time from two different
>is correct also everything I said about the language aspect stands,
>example you gave does not fit your original argument.

explanation? my original argument was that the survival of a langugae
is not sufficient evidence to conclude that its native speakers
a majority of the population, or even a large minority.
how does any of what you write --- even if it were correct ---
m itigate against that?

>I do not think that
>a detail posting relating to the areas history is needed, however
if you
>are interested I can assist. There is more to it than just what is
in the

are you claiming that the information in the encyclopaedia britannica
is false? if so, please provide specific references.

+ - Gibbon & Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Gibbon has been mentioned lately, and I happen to have a copy of his
Decline and Fall at hand, so:

Hungary/Hungarians shows up in about 6 places.  Some are just passing
references (so-and-so marched through the plains of Hungary), but here
are the slightly more interesting passages:

Chapter 26      As late as the 13th century [the Hun's] transient residence
                on the eastern banks of the Volga was attested by the name
                of Great Hungary.

[footnote]      In the 13th century, the monk Rubruquis (who traversed the
                immense plain of Kipzak in his journey to the court of the
                Great Khan) observed the remarkable name of *Hungary*, with
                the traces of a common language and origin (Hist. des Voyages,
                tom. vii. p. 269.)

Chapter 34      The Hungarians, who ambitiously insert the name of Attila
p 393           among their native kings, may affirm the truth that the hordes
                which were subject to his uncle Roas, or Rugilas, had formed
                their encampments within the limits of modern Hungary,...

[footnote]      ...Whatever the modern Hungarians have added [to the life
                story of Attila] must be fabulous; and they do not seem to
                have excelled in the art of fiction.  They suppose that when
                Attila invaded Gaul and Italy, married innumerable wives, etc.,
                he was 120 years of age.  Thevrocz, Chron. p. i. c. 22, in
                Script. Hungar. tom. i. p. 76.

p 406           ...yet, if Attila equalled the hostile ravages of Tamerlane,
                either the Tartar or the Hun might deserve the epithet of the
                SCOURGE OF GOD.

[footnote]      The ancients, Jornandes, Priscus, etc., are ignorant of this
                epithet.  The modern Hungarians have imagined that it was
                applied, by a hermit of Gaul, to Attila, who was pleased to
                insert it among the titles of his royal dignity.  Moscou,
                ix.23, and Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. vi. p. 143.

Gibbon was describing the events of approximately A.D. 400-450, and his modern
is our 18th century.

+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Be1la,  I tend to agree with much of what you said. However, in my
opinion, the statement  "it is now unscientific in the extreme to talk
about physical features ["race"] in any discussion of national/cultural
identity"  is more of a dream than reality.
    First of all: Hungarian is not a race, not even a sub- race. The
ethnic makeup of  present day  Hungarians consists of several sub- races
of the Caucasian  race. In other words, it is more of a linguistic --
cultural category, as opposed to a racial one.
    Having said that, it would be foolish to deny that there is a certain
set of physical characteristics that apply to most ethnic Hungarians.
Those characteristics are not unique enough to qualify the Magyars as a
distinct race.
    The problem is not that we examine racial -- physical differences
between people. At times these differences become a basis for
discrimination; that IS a problem (slavery, nazism).
     In politics race does matter -- and increasingly so. I don t think I
need to emphasize how much influence politics exert on sciences --
including Social Sciences -- everywhere. A very common factor of U.S.
politics is to lump all blacks (or African Americans) together and treat
them as one huge entity whose interests differ from those of the rest of
the population. In reality, of course, this population is not monolithic.
    A final note: in spite of what you seem to wish, racial categorizing
is gaining ground in political (and even scientific) circles. Besides the
basic, traditional races of humanity now there is talk of a  "Hispanic"
race. Somebody even came up with the idea of a  "Jewish"  race (which was
promoted by Mr. Hitler). These racial categories are, of course, bogus.
But racialism -- and even racism -- is very much a part of the American
cultural and political landscape

+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article > Charles,

>--Seems to me that it is very difficult to talk of "states" before
>15th century.

In article > Charles,

>But Greece wasn't really a nation, but a collection of what were

you can't have it both ways without doing at least the english
language a
gross injustice!

the very notion of "nation" is somewhat problematical, we speak of
"nation" as a group of people, more or less on ethnic lines and the
political organisation of a "nation".

the notion of "state" is somewhat less ambiguous, referring to

so it is irrelevant to the question of the *existence* of states
these were organised on urban, ethnic or imperial lines. these
are only material to the question of *which* states existed when and

as i have asserted before, my difficulty with many of the postings
is the
inconsistency regularly displayed by many contributors.

the above is a prima facie example.