Injustice of Trianon - Are you for or against it ?

[alfieb]

Absolutely.

Magyars were Eurasian nomads who stole the lands from indigenous people anyway. They were mixed-ethnicity lands, and I think it's better now with Transylvania in Romania for instance.

I also liked the Treaty of Sevres.

But Versailles was a mistake.

[Vlach]

Absolutely.

Magyars were Eurasian nomads who stole the lands from indigenous people anyway. They were mixed-ethnicity lands, and I think it's better now with Transylvania in Romania for instance.

I also liked the Treaty of Sevres.

But Versailles was a mistake.

And they always tried to Magyarizee the majority. ( the romanians)

[Ars Moriendi]

Absolutely.

Magyars were Eurasian nomads who stole the lands from indigenous people anyway. They were mixed-ethnicity lands, and I think it's better now with Transylvania in Romania for instance.

I also liked the Treaty of Sevres.

But Versailles was a mistake.

There are few countries older than Hungary in Europe. Of the top of my head I can only think of France, Greece (Byzantine Empire form) and maybe Russia (Kievan Rus). Prior to the conquest of the Magyars in the late IX Century, the land had been ruled before by Avars, and before that by Attila's Hunnic Empire (which is to this day sung in the Hungarian anthem). So truly, the Carpathian bassin had always been a land deeply linked to the horse-riders of Eurasia. Plus, before the rise of Hungary as a Christian kingdom in the year 1000, the whole land was basically wild and completely devoid of important cities, military or economy. All the development came from the Hungarians.

Transylvania was once a centre of architectural development, as seen with all the castles, palaces and fortifications left behind by Hungary. How does it fare today, under the flag of a 130 year old country (as infant and historically dubious as that is)?

[alfieb]

There are few countries older than Hungary in Europe. Of the top of my head I can only think of France, Greece (Byzantine Empire form) and maybe Russia (Kievan Rus). Prior to the conquest of the Magyars in the late IX Century, the land had been ruled before by Avars, and before that by Attila's Hunnic Empire (which is to this day sung in the Hungarian anthem). So truly, the Carpathian bassin had always been a land deeply linked to the horse-riders of Eurasia. Plus, before the rise of Hungary as a Christian kingdom in the year 1000, the whole land was basically wild and completely devoid of important cities, military or economy. All the development came from the Hungarians.

Transylvania was once a centre of architectural development, as seen with all the castles, palaces and fortifications left behind by Hungary. How does it fare today, under the flag of a 130 year old country (as infant and historically dubious as that is)?

The fact that Hungary became a kingdom 1000 years ago is all well and good.

But the Magyars were the last peoples to arrive to their current location within Europe, not including the Turks. As I recall, they had been in the area around Crimea until around 900 AD. They are interlopers. The ethnicities that they subjected, such as Croats, Romanians, etc. had all been there for longer.

[Ars Moriendi]

The fact that Hungary became a kingdom 1000 years ago is all well and good.

But the Magyars were the last peoples to arrive to their current location within Europe, not including the Turks. As I recall, they had been in the area around Crimea until around 900 AD. They are interlopers. The ethnicities that they subjected, such as Croats, Romanians, etc. had all been there for longer.

The ancestors of Croats and Serbs supposedly arrived with the Huns, and established themselves somewhere near near current Germany (referred to as White Serbia and White Croatia). The bassin was Attila's capital, and after his death and the partition of the Hunnic Empire, the Eurasian Avars were the ones that replaced them. Once the Avars also fragmented, the region kept on being a backwater with little to show for. Which proves a basic reality of history: State-building is something only some peoples manage to do.

The Hungarians to this day identify historically not only with Árpád and the Magyar conquest, but also with Attila (The city of Buda was named after one of his brothers) and the Hunnic Empire, and even marginally to the Avars (who were Gokturks if I remember correctly).

So, yes, there were probably some semblance of Slavs or other ethnicities in the area, but just like the Gauls had little to show for before Rome civilized them, or how Finland basically lived in the prehistory before Swedes arrived to it, the Lands of the Crown of Szent István (Hungary pre-Trianon) didn't exist politically before the Magyars, and their development is entirely linked to them.

[alfieb]

Sure, and FYROM claims Alexander the Great.

But any relation between Magyars and Attila is very small, just as the relation between Slavomakobulgars and Ancient Macedonians is small.


Their kingdom may be 1000 years old, but their ethnogenesis is only 1100 years old. By European standards, they are infants.

Yugoslavs were in their current location. Romanians were in their current location. The Czechoslovaks were in their current location. The Southern Germans/Austrians were in their current location. The Magyars are surrounded by tribes who were more indigenous to their lands than themselves.

[Vlach]

There are few countries older than Hungary in Europe. Of the top of my head I can only think of France, Greece (Byzantine Empire form) and maybe Russia (Kievan Rus). Prior to the conquest of the Magyars in the late IX Century, the land had been ruled before by Avars, and before that by Attila's Hunnic Empire (which is to this day sung in the Hungarian anthem). So truly, the Carpathian bassin had always been a land deeply linked to the horse-riders of Eurasia. Plus, before the rise of Hungary as a Christian kingdom in the year 1000, the whole land was basically wild and completely devoid of important cities, military or economy. All the development came from the Hungarians.

Transylvania was once a centre of architectural development, as seen with all the castles, palaces and fortifications left behind by Hungary. How does it fare today, under the flag of a 130 year old country (as infant and historically dubious as that is)?

Most of the old important buildings from Transylvania are made by germans, so lets give Transylvania to them
And no one care about the 50% of romanians which lived in mountains area and preserved the traditional village? You are from America, you dont understand this european things
You know, under this luxury palaces there were and normal people which suffered because some other ethnicities lived in cities with luxuyry

[Vlach]

The ancestors of Croats and Serbs supposedly arrived with the Huns, and established themselves somewhere near near current Germany (referred to as White Serbia and White Croatia). The bassin was Attila's capital, and after his death and the partition of the Hunnic Empire, the Eurasian Avars were the ones that replaced them. Once the Avars also fragmented, the region kept on being a backwater with little to show for. Which proves a basic reality of history: State-building is something only some peoples manage to do.

The Hungarians to this day identify historically not only with Árpád and the Magyar conquest, but also with Attila (The city of Buda was named after one of his brothers) and the Hunnic Empire, and even marginally to the Avars (who were Gokturks if I remember correctly).

So, yes, there were probably some semblance of Slavs or other ethnicities in the area, but just like the Gauls had little to show for before Rome civilized them, or how Finland basically lived in the prehistory before Swedes arrived to it, the Lands of the Crown of Szent István (Hungary pre-Trianon) didn't exist politically before the Magyars, and their development is entirely linked to them.

Atilla is ancestor of hungarians how Traian is ancestor of romanians...

[blogen]

The fact that Hungary became a kingdom 1000 years ago is all well and good.

But the Magyars were the last peoples to arrive to their current location within Europe, not including the Turks. As I recall, they had been in the area around Crimea until around 900 AD. They are interlopers. The ethnicities that they subjected, such as Croats, Romanians, etc. had all been there for longer.

When arrived the ancestors of the current population into the Carpathian basin:



Only the Slovaks and the Croats are natives, more punctually their ancestors, since their ancestors were not exactly Slovaks and Croats, but various Slavonic tribes and nations.

And even this Slavonic tribes were conquerors here, since they arrived between the 7-8th century. So this nativity thing is not working in the Carpathian basin.

[Vlach]

When arrived the ancestors of the current population into the Carpathian basin:



Only the Slovaks and the Croats are natives, more punctually their ancestors, since their ancestors were not exactly Slovaks and Croats, but various Slavonic tribes and nations.

And even this Slavonic tribes were conquerors here, since they arrived between the 7-8th century. So this nativity thing is not working in the Carpathian basin.

Again you with you fake austro-hungarian propaganda. Romanians are mentioned as being dacians before the magyar invasion. Give me some data about romanian migration in North Danube? Doesnt exist. I can give you data about romanian migrations in South Danube. I can give you chronicles about romanians continuity in Transylvania, Gesta Hungarorum, ( hungarian chronicle), Nestor Chronicle and more, and some maps