Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 101 to 110 of 110

Thread: Székelys - The last Turkic Warriors in Europe

  1. #101
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Carpatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Român
    Country
    Romania
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z280
    mtDNA
    H5b
    Gender
    Posts
    1,815
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,619
    Given: 2,429

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    If any Hungarian thinks that Romania is the #1 threat Hungary faces as an independent state and not the imperial tyranny of Brussels, they are 100% painfully wrong. As a Romanian this will also impact you, and if you think that Hungarians will be your first foe in this world you would be 100% wrong as well.
    I do not hate Hungarians, nor do I think of them as a threat. I merely pointed out some blatant lies and hypocrisy.

  2. #102
    Veteran Member
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Turul Karom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    01-08-2024 @ 05:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Hungarian
    Country
    Hungary
    Gender
    Posts
    1,853
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,351
    Given: 4,488

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Pill View Post
    I do not hate Hungarians, nor do I think of them as a threat. I merely pointed out some blatant lies and hypocrisy.
    Aside form this then, how are you enjoying the reading? Hope you've liked learning about us more.

  3. #103
    Omertŕ oszkar07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
    Location
    In the Simulation
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Martian From Venus
    Ethnicity
    Hunbritarian
    Ancestry
    TheHuns
    Country
    Austria
    Y-DNA
    I2
    mtDNA
    H1m
    Taxonomy
    Killer
    Politics
    1999
    Hero
    Jesus
    Religion
    Philippians 4.13
    Relationship Status
    Married
    Age
    97
    Gender
    Posts
    5,644
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 8,609
    Given: 13,487

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    The problem is, I have no idea what "time frames" you are talking about or how they support your point? This goes back to a discussion I remember having with you in a previous thread where we are talking about when the "Hungarian" identity was formed. My argument was that at some point, if you are talking about proto-proto-proto-ptoto-Magyars, are we even effectively talking about Hungarians at this point? I have seen some Ugric and Finnic time frames involving dates as far back as 4000 BC, which is before the specific Magyar identity was even a twinkle in existence. Hence why I say "at some point we're going to be talking about humans in Africa". Because if it takes someone thousands and thousands of years going backwards in time before the formation and unity of the Magyar peoples to finally dilute the Turkic component, then who are we even talking about now?
    I think the Hungarian language has been around for a long time among proto proto proto Magyars, we know already several hundred years after Hungarian arrival in Europe there was a discovery of Hungarian speakers in Russia , so most likely the language was formed prior settlement.
    I think the question of when the Hungarian identity started to form is somewhat uncertain.
    Because to some extent the Hungarians were most likely a mixed people.
    This seems evident in the account of the 7 tribes plus 3 Kabar , the idea that the Magyar tribe would become the main dominant tribe and eventually how all Hungarians would call themselves. Was there even a difference at some stage between Magyars and Hungarians, interestingly there are accounts of several different names that were supposedly given to the Hungarians . Is this the case because possibly these different names represented different peoples that eventually were part of Hungarian federation. There are many things that are not entirely clear.If I understand what your saying , it seems your idea is that Hungarians were Turkics that were Uralicised then again later Turkicised. That is an interesting theory but again getting into time depths of history that we hav little information so theorys like that can only be based on assumption rather than proof.
    Even there is different theories about the arrival of Hungarians into Carpathian Basin . I personally see some valid points in the Dual conquest theory of Gyula Laszlo.

    Which brings me to the question, at what point do you see the "Magyars" as a people on the world stage? Can you give a rough year? Who do you see as the proto-Magyars? This would make things far more clear, because while we are a "unique" people, defining your terms for these would be far more helpful. When you say "just look it up" or something along those lines, that is a terrible debate point.

    I think much of the ethnognesis took place before settlement , the language is probably one of the most consistant layers that is significant because of its relationship tothe Magyar tribe.
    Again how much do we even know about the other 6 tribes ?
    The Proto Magyars were probably the Magyar tribe and probably the asscociated Ugric tribes , possibly the Hungarians was the amalgamaton of these tribes with Turkic tribes and possibly other.

    Border guards is not an ethnicity who were just there, but rather an occupation of sorts. The "or" was to be read as in lieu of. Are we still talking about the same thing?

    I was saying there is not only 1 theory abot Szekely origins and that there is not one academically factually proven theory. You seem to take some liberty in one of your previous posts where you seem to be saying there is unrefuted factual accepted that Szekely were Turks.
    I was saying this is not really the case.

    Róna-Tas explains this very well. In his books, as I have already quoted, lists the phonological history as Proto-Turkic > Old West Turkic and Proto-Finno-Ugrian > Proto-Ugric > Hungarian. Notice how him saying "Finno-Ugric" would technically be correct. But also notice how it is sandwiched in between Proto-Turkic/Old West Turkic on one end, and Hungarian on the other.
    Sorry I dont really know whatyou mean here.
    Are you describing something similiar to the Ural Altaic theory.


    We can only then measure the evidence that we know, which the Finnic arguments greatly lack. That is why I feel no worries in debates that attempt to minimize or dismiss altogether our Turkic background. Academia has me covered well with facts. The groundswell of organic popular opinion is just icing on the cake
    .

    You didnt respond to my points about Hungarian words for arrow and horse being Finno Ugric origin. Considering significance of arrows and horses amongst Steppic Turks , dont you think this is interesting ?





    I am juxtaposing the idea of "real Hungarians", who have held fast to their cultural, language, and identity for hundreds and hundreds of years, versus say, someone who moved to Hungary from Germany and doesn't feel connected to Hungary very much and eats German foods every day. This is not a "no true Scotsman" because in this scenario, I wouldn't expect a Nordic/Germanic/West Euro/African/ whatever immigrant to feel that Turkic closeness from the distant past, because they have a radically different ethnogenesis and just came to Hungary for whatever individual reason.
    Considering near 2000 years of Hungarians being in Europe , it seems your above notion would only really be most accurate if people always stayed in their own villages/regions and didnt marry and mate with others outside their villages /regions. Reality is people did move around.
    Also there was drops of immigration into Hungary all through her history not only in last few hundred years. How can you say with any certainty what people were in any ones distant family lines.
    If you had a distant German ancestor in your family line in the 15th century , would that mean you are not real Hungarian ?
    The only people whom moved to Hungary who dont feel Hungarian are recent minorities who didnt intermarry with Hungarians.


    Linguists can or cannot classify our language as Turkic in some fashion or another (such as a branch off or Turkic or in parallel with in) based on a multiple of variables. They can either see little connections (which I disagree), be uninformed from the other side of the argument, or simply be a bad-faith actor who doesn't want it to be so for whatever reason. I am not a mind reader and thus have to factor the academic background, facts presented, and the political situation of each scholar regardless if they are against or for Turkic connections.
    I guess to understand the basis of language classifications it also will require some depth of understandings of linguistics.









    We have claimed descent from Attila and Huns for many years, mostly via the royal line of kings. If there was a Turkic connections with the Huns (which you say is extremely likely), and if you follow the Hun continuity idea (or just Hunnic contribution at the least), it would make us defacto Turkic.
    I said that Hungarians believed that Huns spoke Hungarian. In reality we cant prove that they did but possibly cant prove they didnt, although it seems most people think Huns spoke Turkic language. I know you believe Hungarian is a Turkic language but I am now talking in context of how languages are formally classified which does not include Hungarian as Turkic language.

    Hungarians had no problem identifying as such historically, as I have said these terms used to be interchangeable as well (Turk, Turkic, etc). I am sure you have already seen my Holy Crown of Hungary thread. The Crown reads "King of the Turks"; do you think that these Hungarians had no idea what it said? Or was it just "a mistake" and they rolled with it?
    Hungarians didnt make that Crown or specifically the insignia.
    I have not known Hungariians to refer to themselves as Turks, but I agree that Turanism has increased and there are more people around with similiar menatlity to yours, although its not necessarily majority of Hungarians.
    Interesting experiment , I googled few weeks ago "are Hungarians Turks "
    results given tend to often be the oppinions of people having discussion such as we are now.
    Interstingly many results are Hungarians whom dont agree that Hungarians are Turks and tend to refer more so to the Ugric theory. I havnt gone through all the results to give a average % but seemingly many Hungarians based on those results dont identify as Turks/Turkics.


    h
    ttp://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna...o/antifqa.html
    Most language scholars have picked her apart quite well (Karatay, Marcantonio, Marácz), not least for her inability to debate without using logical fallacies that disprove her own point, and she is currently embroiled in various non-language related situations in university. Look at her academia page and pick any of the recent publishings.
    She claims that Marcantonio has been picked apart by academics.



    My first answer to you in this reply addresses this. Also, I find it ironic when you talk about limiting the definition yet if we are so unique that we pair with nobody, then that means that we are truly an island alone, while Turkic is a meta-identity in which we share a large number of family groups that are separate, yet similar with us.
    To b honest the only similaritys i can see is some historical cultural links to time that was shared on the steppe, and possibly this was more prevalent for some components of the proto Hungarian tribes than other, none the less I count it as significant aspect of Hungarian pre settlement history. But otherwise in modrn times I think there is only this reflection of that idea of that shared time and the intent to build on that idea feelings of some type of pan steppic /Turanic/Turkic brotherhood. Ok but beside from taking that point of view and considering we live in the 21st century and the days of riding on the steppe are long gone this mostly seems to be a mentality thing , in all honesty over the last near 2000 years what strong cultural connections do Hungarians have with Turkic peoples.
    Like you said we could all go back to Africa eventually ... but other than people whom are still Africans today what significance is it.
    Last edited by oszkar07; 04-15-2018 at 03:41 PM.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Online
    05-19-2018 @ 03:04 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Hungarian
    Ethnicity
    Hungarian
    Country
    Hungary
    Taxonomy
    like mannequins of the shop windows
    Politics
    I don't like proletarians(craftsmen workers) and their primitive descendants
    Religion
    I don't like uneducated people
    Relationship Status
    Engaged
    Age
    37
    Gender
    Posts
    12,108
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,654
    Given: 661

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Pill View Post
    Yes, this is the reason there's still an island of magyar speakers in the middle of Romanian land. They were brought as immigrant settlers to a foreign land which was not theirs.

    In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherds of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The irrational daco-romanian continuity myth is nothing more than a "NATIVIST" state-propaganda. This chauvinist propaganda was born & started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A politically very active "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening & nationalism. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" served and followed strictly the romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. It's the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central core of modern Romanian identity. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
    Vlach (name for medieval & early modern romanians in European chronicles) was the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe.


    I. THE PROBLEMS WITH DACIANS AND the so-called "ROMANS"(???) in the theory:


    I/1st: There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal.


    I/2nd: Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained.




    The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike in the case of other European neo-latin/romance languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin romance language.






    I/3rd: The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for a real romanization process.


    I/4th: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army: Despite that average Romanian people tend to believe that they are also descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS.


    II. MIGRATION PERIOD PROBLEMS of the THEORY


    II/1st: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes: There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Carpians, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 9th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. Don't forget, that these "migratory" peoples, each inhabiting the territory for more time than the Romans had held it. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.


    II/2nd: The complete LACK OF any LINGUISTIC INFLUENCES OF BARBARIANS of the area on Romanian language: There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans: The the Huns, Goths, Carpians, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.


    III. The Vlachs Neo-Latin (Romance speaking) peopulation, and the PROBLEM of the missing 800 years in contemporary chronicles.


    III/1st: There are no material proofs (cemetries or vlach cultic places) which can support the Vlach (romance speaking population) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s. WERE WERE YOU HIDING FROM THE EYES OF CHRONICLERS for more than 800 years dear "daco"-"romans"?


    III/2nd: The earliest romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own romanian history writing/chronicles, the poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..







    IV. LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS of the THEORY


    IV/1st Only the BALKAN Valchs were recorded as neo-latin speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary Chronicles (4th-13th century). Which is not surprising, because the Roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlach neo-latin speaker nomads were very often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles)


    IV/2nd: The problem of HYDRONYMS and TOPONYMS: Other interesting fact, that Romanian language borrowed the already existing Slavic, Hungarian and Saxon origin toponyms and hydronyms of Transylvania. It is a very well known and clear practice of immigrant populations.


    IV/3rd: The "great Latin" medieval Romanian vlachs always fiercely resisted against the Western Latin (Catholic) Church and its Latin liturgy, they chosed the Slavic Orthodox church which used church-slavonic language istead of Latin. (It was due to the fact that old romanian language contained more slavic words than latin, because the church-slavonic liturgy was more understandable for their people.


    IV/4th: Huge LINGUISTIC REFORMS of the 19th century: During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from the vocabulary of the romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations or in the vulgar latin languages.


    IV/5th: ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM in old romanian language: Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained serious ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM before the linguistic reforms. Moreover, the old Romanian language was the only language in Europe which contained Albanian substratum. This also supports the balkan migrations in the high medieval period.




    The imagined "glorious past" and the opposing historical reality:
    The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
    Since the 16th century the settled life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly nomadic-shepherd romanians. It doesn't sound a very civilized interesting and important history...

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Online
    05-19-2018 @ 03:04 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Hungarian
    Ethnicity
    Hungarian
    Country
    Hungary
    Taxonomy
    like mannequins of the shop windows
    Politics
    I don't like proletarians(craftsmen workers) and their primitive descendants
    Religion
    I don't like uneducated people
    Relationship Status
    Engaged
    Age
    37
    Gender
    Posts
    12,108
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,654
    Given: 661

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oszkar07 View Post
    I think the Hungarian language has been around for a long time among proto proto proto Magyars, we know already several hundred years after Hungarian arrival in Europe there was a discovery of Hungarian speakers in Russia , so most likely the language was formed prior settlement.
    I think the question of when the Hungarian identity started to form is somewhat uncertain.
    Because to some extent the Hungarians were most likely a mixed people.
    This seems evident in the account of the 7 tribes plus 3 Kabar , the idea that the Magyar tribe would become the main dominant tribe and eventually how all Hungarians would call themselves. Was there even a difference at some stage between Magyars and Hungarians, interestingly there are accounts of several different names that were supposedly given to the Hungarians . Is this the case because possibly these different names represented different peoples that eventually were part of Hungarian federation. There are many things that are not entirely clear.If I understand what your saying , it seems your idea is that Hungarians were Turkics that were Uralicised then again later Turkicised. That is an interesting theory but again getting into time depths of history that we hav little information so theorys like that can only be based on assumption rather than proof.
    Even there is different theories about the arrival of Hungarians into Carpathian Basin . I personally see some valid points in the Dual conquest theory of Gyula Laszlo.




    I think much of the ethnognesis took place before settlement , the language is probably one of the most consistant layers that is significant because of its relationship tothe Magyar tribe.
    Again how much do we even know about the other 6 tribes ?
    The Proto Magyars were probably the Magyar tribe and probably the asscociated Ugric tribes , possibly the Hungarians was the amalgamaton of these tribes with Turkic tribes and possibly other.




    I was saying there is not only 1 theory abot Szekely origins and that there is not one academically factually proven theory. You seem to take some liberty in one of your previous posts where you seem to be saying there is unrefuted factual accepted that Szekely were Turks.
    I was saying this is not really the case.



    Sorry I dont really know whatyou mean here.
    Are you describing something similiar to the Ural Altaic theory.


    .

    You didnt respond to my points about Hungarian words for arrow and horse being Finno Ugric origin. Considering significance of arrows and horses amongst Steppic Turks , dont you think this is interesting ?







    Considering near 2000 years of Hungarians being in Europe , it seems your above notion would only really be most accurate if people always stayed in their own villages/regions and didnt marry and mate with others outside their villages /regions. Reality is people did move around.
    Also there was drops of immigration into Hungary all through her history not only in last few hundred years. How can you say with any certainty what people were in any ones distant family lines.
    If you had a distant German ancestor in your family line in the 15th century , would that mean you are not real Hungarian ?
    The only people whom moved to Hungary who dont feel Hungarian are recent minorities who didnt intermarry with Hungarians.




    I guess to understand the basis of language classifications it also will require some depth of understandings of linguistics.











    I said that Hungarians believed that Huns spoke Hungarian. In reality we cant prove that they did but possibly cant prove they didnt, although it seems most people think Huns spoke Turkic language. I know you believe Hungarian is a Turkic language but I am now talking in context of how languages are formally classified which does not include Hungarian as Turkic language.



    Hungarians didnt make that Crown or specifically the insignia.
    I have not known Hungariians to refer to themselves as Turks, but I agree that Turanism has increased and there are more people around with similiar menatlity to yours, although its not necessarily majority of Hungarians.
    Interesting experiment , I googled few weeks ago "are Hungarians Turks "
    results given tend to often be the oppinions of people having discussion such as we are now.
    Interstingly many results are Hungarians whom dont agree that Hungarians are Turks and tend to refer more so to the Ugric theory. I havnt gone through all the results to give a average % but seemingly many Hungarians based on those results dont identify as Turks/Turkics.


    h

    She claims that Marcantonio has been picked apart by academics.





    To b honest the only similaritys i can see is some historical cultural links to time that was shared on the steppe, and possibly this was more prevalent for some components of the proto Hungarian tribes than other, none the less I count it as significant aspect of Hungarian pre settlement history. But otherwise in modrn times I think there is only this reflection of that idea of that shared time and the intent to build on that idea feelings of some type of pan steppic /Turanic/Turkic brotherhood. Ok but beside from taking that point of view and considering we live in the 21st century and the days of riding on the steppe are long gone this mostly seems to be a mentality thing , in all honesty over the last near 2000 years what strong cultural connections do Hungarians have eith Turkic peoples.
    Like you said we could all go back to Africa eventually ... but other than people whom are still Africans today what significance is it.

    The turkic theories are not supported by any genetic (Autosomal Y-DNA etc...) researches. That is a very huge problem for such theories.

  6. #106
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Carpatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Român
    Country
    Romania
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z280
    mtDNA
    H5b
    Gender
    Posts
    1,815
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,619
    Given: 2,429

    3 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    Aside form this then, how are you enjoying the reading? Hope you've liked learning about us more.
    Yeah man, I enjoy reading your threads, especially the one about the Holy Crown. I genuinely did not know it has such a long history.



    Quote Originally Posted by Stears View Post
    The turkic theories are not supported by any genetic (Autosomal Y-DNA etc...) researches. That is a very huge problem for such theories.
    You are autosomally one of the most turkic members on this forum. Be proud of your heritage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stears View Post
    6.28% Turkic

    Some little bit of Hunnic blood live in me.


  7. #107
    Senior Member Arjana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Online
    10-29-2018 @ 05:12 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Paleo Balkanic/ Illyrian/Dardanian
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Country
    Albania
    Gender
    Posts
    568
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 494
    Given: 188

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    He has an absolute paranoia about his ancestry, which is ironic because even the Wikipedia sources he posts in this very thread shares how the popular scholarly theories are the Turkic origins of Székely peoples. He was originally quite proud about his Turkic calculator results as well. Maybe a bit of light through the despair?

    Ah, well he thinks he can protect Hungarian identity by being more Austrian or French... even via severing our steppe past entirely. Because being a vassal of the west has always worked out so well for our sovereignty before.... lol
    Hungarians genetically have nothing to do even with early magyars and let alone with turkic people.

    Average hungarian is central europan slavic genetically and culturally.

    Even the Op, Anatolian stallion looks middle eastern and the average turk of turkey has basically very low connection to whatever oghuz turkic tribe.

    Not just because of the fact that there are millions of albanians, bosnians, circissians ( many of them are the main actors of turkish soap opperas) in turkey, but even if there wouldnt be any of them,. the average turk would still be anatolian middle eastern in looks and genetics.

    So stars is right about hungarian identity and this Turkic identity is plain ridiculous.

    Even gypsies speak albanian and many of them were employed as singers and used to dress with traditional albanian dresses, but they will never be albanians and theyw ill never have anything in common with ancient balkanic people, because their genetics and culture is foreign.

  8. #108
    Veteran Member
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Turul Karom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    01-08-2024 @ 05:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Hungarian
    Country
    Hungary
    Gender
    Posts
    1,853
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,351
    Given: 4,488

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjana View Post
    Hungarians genetically have nothing to do even with early magyars and let alone with turkic people. Average hungarian is central europan slavic genetically and culturally.
    Sounds pretty certain of you. I think that you have not been reading our threads...

    "Thus, most of the population in the Carpathian Basin originated from the Hun-Turkic cultural community of the Eurasian Steppe and was accompanied by Slavonic and German-speaking groups."

    Genetics study:

    https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1...520-018-0609-7

    Even the Op, Anatolian stallion looks middle eastern and the average turk of turkey has basically very low connection to whatever oghuz turkic tribe. Not just because of the fact that there are millions of albanians, bosnians, circissians ( many of them are the main actors of turkish soap opperas) in turkey, but even if there wouldnt be any of them,. the average turk would still be anatolian middle eastern in looks and genetics.
    I am sure you have a lot of evidence to support these claims; I think quite a few Oghuz will be able to easily refute that, but it is outside of the scope of this thread.

    So stars is right about hungarian identity and this Turkic identity is plain ridiculous.
    Stears has shifting perspectives. You clearly didn't read the thread; he also has a Turkic score higher than any Hungarian here (even myself). It was stated on this very page lol. I think someone is arguing with emotion rather than with fact.

    Even gypsies speak albanian and many of them were employed as singers and used to dress with traditional albanian dresses, but they will never be albanians and theyw ill never have anything in common with ancient balkanic people, because their genetics and culture is foreign.
    Sounds to me like this thread is making your think of things that make you uncomfortable within Albania. None of this part of your reply has anything to do with the topic. Do you have a personal issue with the ideas?

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    02-23-2022 @ 01:59 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    European
    Ethnicity
    Magyar
    Ancestry
    Historic Hungary/Holy Roman Empire
    Country
    Hungary
    Y-DNA
    R-M417 (8700 ybp)
    mtDNA
    H10-a T16093C (9000 ybp)
    Politics
    Green Left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    2,296
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,864
    Given: 444

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    There is a most recent summary paper (2017) about the genetics of Hungarians: http://real.mtak.hu/71183/1/Nemeth_AK2017.pdf

    It basically compares the genetic distances of Old Hungarian (10th century), Modern Hungarian and Székely peoples towards 168 Euroasian people using the Jaccard index. About the Székely people the conclusions are that they were surely of Ugric origin and not Turkic, since there are to this day very specific genetic markers that are present only among the Székely and modern Ugric people, like the Mansi people. Also it seems probable that the Székely and Old Hungarians didn't arrive in the Carpathian Basin in the same period, since Old Hungarians have many similarities with South and East Uralic Turkic people, while the Székely lack significant relatedness to Turkic people, mostly resembling Northern-West Uralic people. The authors pointed out that even if it is yet not completely conclusive, but based on anthropological analysis Medieval Székely people share similar features with Late-Avar era skulls, meaning that they possibly predated the Árpádian Magyar settling in late 9th century-early 10th century.

    Here are some also highly interesting finds based on which populations are the closest to the Hungarian groups in order:
    1. Conquest Era Hungarian: Bashkirians, Mansi, Mari, Turkmen, Komi
    2. Hungarian: Slovak, Ukrainian, Polish, Székely, German
    3. Székely: Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Germans, Volga Tatars

    As you can see is that Old Hungarians were closest mostly to people who are today Finno-Ugric and Turkic origin, and even with constant population change in the Volga-Ural area since the conquest era, Old Hungarians mostly probably looked like these people living there today, meaning Europo-Mongoloid, since that region remained mostly Europo-Mongoloid even after Russian expansion. Modern Hungarians however seem to be somewhat different from Székely people, but they are still quite close to each other, especially from Székely perspective they seem to have mixed less than average Hungarians, as they are still closer to Hungarians than Hungarians to Székely. This is mostly because the Székely lived isolated in the mountains for several hundreds of years, while Hungarians lived mostly on plains which were populated with many Slavic and Germanic people during the centuries. However it is also very striking that Székely still preserve to this day quite a notable Volga-Ural region genetic closure, as neither direct neighboring Moldovans and Romanians are as close to them as the Volga Tatars. Based on the fact that Slavic people are more similar to the Székely than the Romanians, can also show that they lived for a longer time together with the Slavs (Late Avar era?), while Romanians only arrived more recently in the region of the Székely, thus mixing wasn't as notable.
    Last edited by Dunai; 05-20-2018 at 04:12 PM.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Valhalla, the Paradise of the gods of the Turks in Tyrkland
    Meta-Ethnicity
    𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜
    Ethnicity
    Barbarian from Tyrkland
    Country
    Turkey
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a1 Turkic Steppe
    mtDNA
    Asena
    Taxonomy
    Archaic Steppic
    Politics
    Turkic töre
    Hero
    Odin - (Od Ata - God of fire)
    Religion
    Islamic heterodox
    Gender
    Posts
    2,052
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,319
    Given: 686

    1 Not allowed!

    Default


Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Which non-Turkic language sounds similar to Turkic?
    By Turkminator in forum Türkiye
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-01-2017, 08:04 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2016, 01:51 AM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-29-2013, 07:14 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-27-2012, 11:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •