0
Okay i accept the uralic origin of conquerors, the turkic theory seems outdated. But if the conquerors brought the hungarian language why are these locals used hungarian topography, names, and words before Árpáds? There is no hungarian sources about the conquest nowadays, because the tatars burned everything, but when Anonymus lived and wrote the Gesta Hungarorum these original sources are still existed, and this book is based on these original sources about conquest, and this is the most authentic source about the conquest and the ethnic and politic relations in the Carpathian Basin. And Anonymus clearly talked about the hungarus ethnicity, who lived here before nomad magyars. Another fact, in the medieval Hungary this hungarus vs conqueror identity still existed, the noble class considered themselves as descedants of the 7 conqueror tribe, but the hungarian speaker peasants had hungarus identity and they did not identify themselves with the conquerors. The academic hungarian historical science also take differece between the hungarus (commoners) and the conquerors (elite), this is also fact.
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Bookmarks