Possible Uyghur origin of the Hungarian Árpád dynasty

[oszkar07]

Indeed, there is no clear evidence how and when did the Hungarian language arrive in the Carpathian Basin. The most established theory is that with the arrival of the Árpád Magyars, the language also arrived and has spread out all over the Carpathian Basin, but we clearly don't know what language these people spoke, as there is no linguistic evidence from that era. We know however that they were the people that first identified as Magyars, and they imposed this political identity on the local people of the Carpathian Basin. A major issue with this theory is that these conquerors were very few compared to the population that they found in the Carpathian Basin (around 1 million), between 50-80.000 according to latest estimates. It is even more mysterious how could such a small population Magyarize the whole area in under a century, when there is no evidence of any forced policies from their behalf over the native population. The transition went very smoothly, compared to most historical cases, as if the natives were already familiar with who they were and what they wanted to achieve here. In 1000 the Magyars already were capable to organize and administrate a kingdom in the same way as in Western Europe, defeating the Holy Roman invasions twice (907, 1030) so for hundreds of years no European power dared to invade Hungary again. There are many other possibilities for the Hungarian language to have arrived into the Carpathian Basin before 895, as since Antiquity many steppe nomad confederations of people have arrived here and they could have had among them people who spoke Magyar. Obviously these people never called their language Magyar, since this name only appeared as a political identifier in the 9th century, when the 7 (actually 8) Proto-Magyar tribes (Jenő, Kér, Keszi, Kürt-Gyarmat, Megyer, Nyék, Tarján) united and formed their first state in Etelköz under Álmos. Based on the etymology of the tribe names they were a combination of Turkic and Uralic origin, but this still doesn't tell us anything about their language, since even then names didn't equate ethnic origin, just as today most names don't have any relevancy about ethnic origin. Surely the autosomal genetic results that will be published in this and in the coming years will give us more of an idea what relationship was between the Árpád Magyars and the local people of the Carpathian Basin, because for now we only have mtDNA and Y-DNA results from them, which obviously only tell a narrow story about them.

It seems the results of the most recent dna studies are causing several high level Hungarian researchers to doubt that Magyar was spoken by or brought in by the Arpads as you mentioned
it seems unlikely for a much smaller conqueror population to spread this language to much larger genetically different host population.
As you say we can just have theories and hypothesis about this at this stage as there isnt 100 % proof either way.
I personally think there are good arguments that seem to support the theory that Hungarian was spoken much earlier in karpat medence prior to 896 and also i think its possible Arpads people were not necessarily Hungarian speakers.
But i think a lot of Hungarians will struggle with these alternative language arrival theories that seem to be gaining weight with the top researchers. I think many Hungarians will have problems to accept any other version other than the mainstream Arpadian narrative that proposes the Hungarian language was brought and spoken by Arpads/Conquerors.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

t seems the results of the most recent dna studies are causing several high level Hungarian researchers to doubt that Magyar was spoken by or brought in by the Arpads as you mentioned
it seems unlikely for a much smaller conqueror population to spread this language to much larger host population.
As you say we can just have theories and hypothesis about this at this stage as there isnt 100 % proof either way.
I think there are good arguments that seem to support the theory that Hungarian was spoken much earlier in karpat medence prior to 896 and also i think its possible Arpads people were not necessarily Hungarian speakers.
But i think a lot of Hungarians will struggle with these alternative language arrival theories that seem to be gaining weight with the top researchers. I think many Hungarians will have problems to accept any other version other than the mainstream Arpadian narrative that proposes the Hungarian language was brought and spoken by Arpads/Conquerors.

How would Hungarian end up being the language of the masses in the middle of Central-East Europe then?

[oszkar07]

How would Hungarian end up being the language of the masses in the middle of Central-East Europe then?

We dont know for certain how... but even if we propose it had been brought in by Arpads people then your question of how ? still remains relevant .... as it appears Arpads conqueror tribes were much smaller in numbers to the existing pre conquest host population... and based on recent genetic studies also appears conquerors were from diverse / mixed ethnic groups ... eg they didnt all necessarily speak same languages as each other.
But several historians and even some current leading researchers in Hungary believe that Hungarian speakers were arriving into the region in several waves of migrations between the 6th to 9th century.
That these Hungarian speakers mixed in with the existing Slavs , Avars , Slavo-Avars and eventually became the main language speakers in the region. For example we dont have writings from the pannonian Avars or before them Huns to prove what language even they spoke ... so how can we know if Hungarian was not spoken already in Hungary prior to Arpads arrival.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

We dont know for certain how... but even if we propose it had been brought in by Arpads people then your question of how ? still remains relevant .... as it appears Arpads conqueror tribes were much smaller in numbers to the existing pre conquest host population... and based on recent genetic studies also appears conquerors were from diverse / mixed ethnic groups ... eg they didnt all necessarily speak same languages as each other.
But several historians and even some current leading researchers in Hungary believe that Hungarian speakers were arriving into the region in several waves of migrations between the 6th to 9th century.
That these Hungarian speakers mixed in with the existing Slavs , Avars , Slavo-Avars and eventually became the main language speakers in the region. For example we dont have writings from the pannonian Avars or before them Huns to prove what language even they spoke ... so how can we know if Hungarian was not spoken already in Hungary prior to Arpads arrival.

Well my train of thought is:

1. Population in the area was very low due to consistent invasions and pop replacement;
2. The Pannonian area is very desirable from a trade and agricultural perspective;
3. The Magyars immediately attempted to gain recognition from the western powers, they adopted Catholicism and established relations with the Anjous.

Based on my knowledge of migrating people from the East, none were so interested in settling and gaining reputation from the neighbours. Old Bulgarian died because the conquerors would persistently fuck around with the Byzantines, and rather close to the capital. This wasn't the case with Hungary because the only states around were young and lacking sufficient power to try to exterminate the Magyar invaders, even less so after the Arpadians did not pursue immediate expansion.

I completely understand the skepticism now that it's understood that the number of Magyars was low, but if there was very great interest to invest in the area, maybe the people picked up Hungarian to be able to settle there. Also, since the Mongols ruined the countryside while Hungary was established as a state, this promoted the expansion of new incomers that new Hungarian already, which perhaps wasn't the case before it.

[Dunai]

Well my train of thought is:

1. Population in the area was very low due to consistent invasions and pop replacement;
2. The Pannonian area is very desirable from a trade and agricultural perspective;
3. The Magyars immediately attempted to gain recognition from the western powers, they adopted Catholicism and established relations with the Anjous.

Based on my knowledge of migrating people from the East, none were so interested in settling and gaining reputation from the neighbours. Old Bulgarian died because the conquerors would persistently fuck around with the Byzantines, and rather close to the capital. This wasn't the case with Hungary because the only states around were young and lacking sufficient power to try to exterminate the Magyar invaders, even less so after the Arpadians did not pursue immediate expansion.

I completely understand the skepticism now that it's understood that the number of Magyars was low, but if there was very great interest to invest in the area, maybe the people picked up Hungarian to be able to settle there. Also, since the Mongols ruined the countryside while Hungary was established as a state, this promoted the expansion of new incomers that new Hungarian already, which perhaps wasn't the case before it.

Definitely the Carpathian Basin was much scarcely populated than other European regions, especially the mostly forested Transylvania and the Carpathian arc, but the lowlands were quite well inhabited, especially the Transdanubian area, which had a tributary population towards the Frankish Empire. Based on burial site types, the nomadic burial sites (containing horses, weapons) are outnumbered 1 to 10 compared to the sedentary population, which could mostly mean that the newcomers were greatly outnumbered by the locals. You have to keep into consideration that the Franks wouldn't settle for a second that these newcomers have kicked them out of here and created a large state in the middle of Europe. This is why quite soon after the Transdanubian area was incorporated into Hungary in 900, in 907 the Franks have arrived in massive numbers for its times, with the clear purpose to annihilate the newcomers, as they did with the Avars. But near today's Bratislava the Magyars crushed the much more numerous German imperial army in one of the great European battles of the Early Middle Ages. So far there is no clear proof for a prior Hungarian population in the Carpathian Basin, but I believe it's quite valid to question how could have been possible for such a small number of people to Magyarize a much larger population, since from other similar cases, the steppe nomad conquerors always got assimilated by the locals. Questioning historically accepted dogmas is never wrong, but welcomed, especially in the field of history, which is not an exact science, and new discoveries always make us reconsider our previous views.

[Kökény]

But near today's Bratislava the Magyars crushed the much more numerous German imperial army in one of the great European battles of the Early Middle Ages.

Ah, yes, the glorious Battle of Pozsony. One of the most iconic moments in Hungarian history. It's a real shame that they don't teach it in schools.

[Mr.G]

Ah, yes, the glorious Battle of Pozsony. One of the most iconic moments in Hungarian history. It's a real shame that they don't teach it in schools.

Why don't they teach it?

[Kökény]

Why don't they teach it?

Really good question. I remember that we never learned about this battle, neither in elementary nor in high school. When it comes to early Hungarian history we usually start with Saint Stephen. We also learn a little bit about his father Géza, but that's about it.

[Mr.G]

Really good question. I remember that we never learned about this battle, neither in elementary nor in high school. When it comes to early Hungarian history we usually start with Saint Stephen. We also learn a little bit about his father Géza, but that's about it.

Well thank you very much for pointing it out, I am reading about it now - seems quite important and interesting. I guess they (the teachers) can only cover just so much material in the amount of time available in school, so things always being cut from the curriculum.

From Wiki:

The most significant result of the Battle of Pressburg is that the Hungarians secured the lands they gained during the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, prevented a German invasion that jeopardized their future and established the Kingdom of Hungary. This battle is considered one of the most significant battles in the history of Hungary,[6] and marks the conclusion of the Hungarian conquest.[3]

Really seems pretty damn important though

[Dunai]

Well thank you very much for pointing it out, I am reading about it now - seems quite important and interesting. I guess they (the teachers) can only cover just so much material in the amount of time available in school, so things always being cut from the curriculum.

From Wiki:

The most significant result of the Battle of Pressburg is that the Hungarians secured the lands they gained during the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, prevented a German invasion that jeopardized their future and established the Kingdom of Hungary. This battle is considered one of the most significant battles in the history of Hungary,[6] and marks the conclusion of the Hungarian conquest.[3]

Really seems pretty damn important though

Most history teachers in Hungary are from the older generation, and they got their training in the Communist system, when the glorification of Hungarian achievements was greatly downplayed and even tabooed. Of course the question is how could this happen, when in any country the school curricula is there to inspire pupils from the positive achievements of their nation. But Hungary was a very unique case, where the Communist establishment feared any raising of patriotism in the people, fearing another '56 Uprising, which officially was considered a counterrevolution, a Nationalist and even Fascistic event. After Hungary won back its democracy, for around 12 years it was governed by the continuation of the Communist regime, the MSzP, who had a pretty similar approach in interpreting Hungarian history, focusing mostly on our defeats rather than victories. In my opinion neither directions should be applied in teaching history, since there is no need for any bias or partisanship, but history has to be taught as it happened, with both the good and the bad.