Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Palacky (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Palacky (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Palacky (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Palacky (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Palacky (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Palacky (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
7 Palacky (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Honfoglalas--occupation (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Honfoglalas/conquest (mind)  212 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Hungary trip (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
11 URGENT Opportunity:: Read Immediately (mind)  131 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Palacky (mind)  60 sor     (cikkei)

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

Hugh Agnew 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?  (Similar, in fact, to what

A distinctly West-slavic prayer has been preserved in the Glagolitic script,
which was introduced in Great Moravian Empire with the Slavonic liturgy,
in which are to be found - Lord save our kingdom from pagan subjugation -
and - let us not fall into subjugation of the pagan race - which clearly
indicate that a kingdom had existed and that the Christians of that kingdom
prayed that they not be subjugated to a pagan people.

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

------- Forwarded Message

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 01:42:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Glen Camp >
To: greg

        The general rule is that *States* are ancient in lineage while
*nation-states* began roughly in Europe around the time of the signing
of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the 30 Years' War.
        I'm sending this via E-mail to you, Greg, because for some
reason my posts to  are always returned.  Perhaps
you can forward it on the the LIST.

- --
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College

On Mon, 2 Jan 1995  wrote:

> Charles writes:
> > --Seems to me that it is very difficult to talk of "states" before the
> > 15th century.  Medieval societies...
> Are we to forget `the glory that was Greece/ And the grandeur that was Rome'?
> --Greg

------- End of Forwarded Message
+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Charles writes:

> I don't think that
> is stretching things to say that there were no states--as we now know
> them--in the tenth century.  There were fiefdoms, sure, and empires
> and principalities and independent cities--but no nation-states.

Fair enough.

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

Charles writes:

>There were no easily defineable borders, no common currency, no
>common political structure, and so on that could be termed a
>Slavic "state" because the idea of the state wasn't a reality in
>the tenth century.  It doesn't matter if there had been states

Perhaps your reluctance to recognize a Slavic "state" in the tenth
century ought to be contrasted with the Holy See's correspondence
with the rulers of the (Great) Moravian Empire - Rastislav and Svatopluk.

I refer you to R. Marsina's article of 13 Feb 1994, which appeared
in L'Osservatore Romano on 13 February 1994, brief excerpts follow:

In 869 the Papal encyclical 'Gloria in excelsis-altissimis' addressed
the teaching of the Slavonic iiturgy in the lands of Rastislav, Svatopluk
and Kocel. In 870 Pope Hadrian II in his letter to Rastislav, Svatopluk
and Kocel approved the Slavonic liturgy, and directed that in the liturgy
the Latin be read before the Slavonic, in order that the words of the
Testament be fullfilled: "Praise the Lord all you nations, glorify Him,
all you peoples!"(Psalms 117,1).

Since 873 St. Method, though of byzantine origin, was an exponent of
the Holy See of Rome, that is the Pope's direct representative.
In 880 Pope John VIII issued the Papal encyclical 'Industriae tuae' in
which he not only re-affirmed the Slavonic liturgy, but also took
(Great) Moravian Empire and its ruler under Papal protection and
established the first bishophric of St. Method in Nitra (present day
Slovakia) thereby establishing an independent Church province.

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

Tony Pace writes
> A distinctly West-slavic prayer has been preserved in the Glagolitic
> which was introduced in Great Moravian Empire with the Slavonic liturgy,
> in which are to be found - Lord save our kingdom from pagan subjugation
> and - let us not fall into subjugation of the pagan race - which clearly
> indicate that a kingdom had existed and that the Christians of that
> prayed that they not be subjugated to a pagan people.

> Tony
Tony, could we have the date when the prayer was written and the original
referencing it to areas of the then Hungary?

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

On Tue, 3 Jan 1995 17:22:51 GMT Tony Pace said:
>Perhaps your reluctance to recognize a Slavic "state" in the tenth
>century ought to be contrasted with the Holy See's correspondence
>with the rulers of the (Great) Moravian Empire - Rastislav and Svatopluk.
--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
fact that there were Slavs living in the Pannonian Basis.  It
seems clear to me that they were conquered by the Magyars.  The issue,
before it gets totally lost, was whether or not the Magyars had a
"right" to the territory.  My point was that they had whatever right
that they could enforce--and this is perfectly consistent with the
rules of the game in the 10th century.  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.
The tenth century was not a very sophisticated time in Europe,
particularly that part of Europe.  As I said in an earlier posting,
I can't equate the Magyar migration andor conquest with Hitler's
invasion of Poland.  The time matters.

--What would you have the Magyars do, Tony?  Move back northeast?
And wouldn't they have to displace someone else?

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

Hugh very properly says about Palacky and those who can be compared to him:
>When one says of any historian before, let's say, the later nineteenth
>century, that he is "great", it doesn't usually equate with "most accurate"
>let alone "objective".  I posted Palacky's own words (in my inadequate
>translation) and refrained at that time from commentary.  Certainly his
>approach to history, while sharing something with the professional,
pre-post->modern colleagues of later years, is also hardly what a mainstream
>of recent times would consider "objective".  No-one reads Edward Gibbon on
>the Roman Empire, or Macauley on the history of England, for their
>and non-partial accounts, but they remain very significant.

My only comment is that while most people in England (or the United States,
for that matter) doesn't have the foggiest idea what Gibbon or Macauley wrote
(perhaps, not even who they were), in Eastern Europe, the ideas of the Czech,
Slovak, Romanian, and Hungarian Gibons and Macauleys became part and parcel
of popular culture, with all their unacceptable messages.

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

my apologies for repeating the previous posting, but some parts of some
sentences are missing. this should be a more comprehensible version of
the same content.

 JELIKO ) wrote:

 i'd like to first point out that i was referring to southern africa
 as opposed to merely "south africa" and as far as i recall, i only referred
 to southern africa (although i may have made typing errors occasionally,
 as i have so frequently done).

 : Yes, but that argument better stand up. Your case for the Boer does not. At
 : the time of the Dutch settlements that part of Africa was not the
 : presettled area that you presume.

 encyclopaedia britannica (1962 edition) vol. 21, p.49:
 "thereafter* the portuguese gained maritime supremacy in the indian
 ocean .... but, though they colonized angola and mozambique, they
 made no settlements as far south as what is now the union of south
 africa, regarding its resources as negligible and its inhabitants as too
 primitive for commercial or evangelical effort."

 [* the reference is to vasco da gama in 1498]

 correct me if i am wrong, but i read this as meaning that the
 portuguese knew the area to be settled was already populated
 but decided *not* to conquer/colonise it.

 according to this article, the white population of south africa (and here
 i *am* referring to what we know today as the union of south africa)
 "grew, mainly by natural increase, to about 15,000 in 1795." (p.50)

 and what about other inhabitants? the britannica again:

 "the nearest approach to a hottentot war had taken place in the
 1670s.t was smallpox that took the heaviest toll of the hottentots,
 especially a shattering epidemic in 1713. after that, as the trekkboeren
 advanced into their territories, the surviving hottentots lost their
 land and their cattle, their only means of an independent existence....

 the small bushmen were still more primitive than the hottentots.
 before whiute settlement began they had been driven into the more
 arid and mountainous parts of south africa by the hottentots and
 african tribes." (pp. 50-51)

 that does *not* sound to me like virgin, unpopulated territory.

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

Charles ) wrote:
: --Now, Imi, this is an example of what what was called "reading history
: backwards" back during the late Medieval period when I was studying history.

history is essentially "reading backwards". surely one of the purposes of
studying history is to know and understand past events and developments,
sometimes out of mere curiosity, sometimes in an effort to understand
the present, sometimes in an attempt to guess the future, and i guess
sometimes for other reasons and purposes.

: First off, in the 10th century there was no established civilization in the
: Carpathian Basin.  Only scattered settlements.  No cities, no government
: as we understand it today.  No concept, however ignored, of international
: law.  No national boundaries, no rules of war.  It wasn't unusual for
: mass migrations to take place for one reason or another.

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? I seem to
recall seeing ruins in budapest of roman settlements which, from the accounts
i have read  --- and, no, i can't cite a reference for this! --- were
of a comparable size, if not larger than, such settlements as turicum.
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.

2. the claim that the hunagrian fatherland was not acquired by conqest/
occupation, but, rather, "established" as if on terra nullius.

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

in particular, i find it very telling that the word "honfoglalas",
which not only the canonical hungarian-english dictionary, but the
hungarian-hungarian dictionaries unashamedly explain to refer to the
conquest and occupation of the region which has become the "hunagrian
fatherland", is "adapted" to mean the far more politically and ethically
acceptable formulation "establishment of the fatherland". The change
in meaning is of paramount political and ethical significance in this context.
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? i have yet to
hear a satisfactory one proposed which would not undermine the
legitin=macy of a number of other modern nations, such as the usa,
australia, to mention but two.

i don't claim the task is easy, but then again, i am not seeking to
refight the battles of the past. i have no interest in winning today
the lost soccer game in berne in 1954.

:  When these
: groups found someplace where there weren't too many other people, they
: settled.

i don't know what basis you have for saying that there "weren't too many
people" there. how many were there? how much more or less densely
populated was the region than other regions of europe? since when is
population density an ethical argument?

: If they weren't driven off by someone else, they stayed.
: The dictionary may say conquest, but in context, establishment doesn't
: seem objectionable.  I can't find any historian that says that the
: Magyars set out to conquer anybody.  They were fleeing and looking for
: a place to light.

but why is it legitimate for them to conquer other nations because
of that?

(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". they "repeatedly
raided" far afield "in search of booty and slaves".

: 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.

: It's a real stretch to compare Arpad with Adolph.

why? because hitler lost and arpad won? 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.

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.

: >in this case it was a war of aggression, not of defence. that fact would
: >not be irrelevant to assessing a people's claim to a region.
: >
: --Since most "nation's"--nation in the sense of a people with a sense
: of community, not nation in the modern sense--claims are based on a
: similar argument, I can't see why you've got your knickers in a twist.

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?
i simply specialised that question in the case of this newsgroup
to hungary and its borders. but the general principle, te fundamental
problem is the same.

: >i have not made any such claim. i have been concerned to find consistent
: >criteria to be used to assess and evaluate competing claims. you will no
: >doubt recall the question i have frequently posed but have yet to see
: >answered, viz. do those the contributors whose postings i have
: >challenged willing to see the criteria and arguments thay apply to
: >hunagry applied universally? if not, why not?
: >
: --My point is that one cannot do that exactly.  The standards of
: conduct are different between the 10th and 20th centuries.  One
: might as well fault the Hungarians of the 10th century for not having
: running water.

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 am the one *questioning* the legitimacy
of such a claim. your reasons for ignoring the tenth century seem to
me to be in complete agreement with my objections.

: >i can't speak for palacki or any-one else, but to my way of thinking the
: >great tragedy is the competition and hostility between various peoples,
: >be it familial, ethnic or national.

: --It is a great tragedy NOW.  Knowing what we know now of history and
: having developed some standards of international conduct, however
: imperfectly followed they may be.

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.

: >phenomenon, but i cannot understand how nominally intelligent and/or
: >educated people can continue to behave in such a manner, especially to
: >the extent that the prejudices lead to both the condoning of and
: >the occurrence of physical violence.
: >
: --Sure.  No argument.

: >
: >again the word "migration", especially given current discussions in this
: >newsgroup, is hardly one which does not carry normative baggage. remember
: >that i asked why is the "arrival" or "migration" of "hunagrians"
: >not "invasion" and "conquest", whereas those of the turks, or moors
: >or germans or russinas, etc. are.
: >
: --Because by the time of these latter invasions, there were established
: civilizations, not empty spaces sparsely populated.

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.

 Seems to me that
: by 10th century standards, the Magyar claim is certainly as valid as
: that of any other migrating group.

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"?

:  Now had they gone to a place where
: there was a clearly established civilization--say Rome or Greece, or
: even France, one might make a better argument.  But even then, you
: can't apply 20th century standards.

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

+ - Re: Hungary trip (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Richard L. Doernberg > writes--

>I will be spending several weeks in Hungary later this spring. Can
anybody recommend some >good reading (either fiction or nonfiction)
that catches the history and culture of that nation?

As a starting point for someone new to the subject of Hungary or
Hungarians I would suggest the following four books:

        1. Balazs, Gyorgy.
                The Magyars: the birth of a European nation :
[translated by Zsuzsa Beres :                           translation
revised by Christopher Sullivan].  [Budapest] : Corvina, c1989. 91 p.

                        This is a good summary of Hungarian
proto-history, the conquest
(honfoglalas) and formation of the nation up to 1301 A.D.

        2. Sinor, Denis.
                History of Hungary.  Westport, Conn. : Greenwood
Press, 1976, c1959. 310 p.

                        A balanced, well written short history. I
covers the story up to WW II.

        3. Sugar, Peter F.  general editor : Peter Hanak, associate
editor : Tibor Frank, editorial                   assistant.
                A History of Hungary. -- Bloomington : Indiana
University Press. c1990. 432 p.

                        Chapters written by modern specialists in each
historical era or field;                                      hence
has a variety of points of view.

        4. Lukacs, John.
                Budapest 1900: a historical portrait of a city and its
culture. --New York :                          Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
c1988. 255 p.

                        Although the topic is Budapest, this well
written book indeed "catches the
history and culture" of the city and the country.

                The annotations, of course, are my own opinions, but I
believe the four books                           listed above are
among the better examples of books dealing with Hungarian
            history and culture.

Bob...az arpadhoni
+ - URGENT Opportunity:: Read Immediately (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

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 laid
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: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


+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 doubt,
but the name is Slav.  The Christianness of his kingdom is doubtful:  in the
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
far south the Byzantine Empire is at least as influential, and it follows quite
different tactics.  Full feudalizm is not found here until Robert Ka'roly
brings it with him from France.

(no comment)

+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
to the Hungarish forms is found in Croatish, which makes for quite a quandarie,
if one accepts that the erliest missionaries were Czech.  The best solution
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
safe to surmize that the conquerd Slavs were Croats of one clan or another.

Amongst the borrowd words one finds "szoknya", "bab", "konyha", "csa'sza'r"
(emperor, Caesar), "ne'met" (German), "ce'kla" (beet), "szilva" (plum), all
things not found in the former Magyar homeland, but also "bara't" (friend),
"unoka" (grandchild, not niece/nephew), "malaszt" (mersie).  The word "kehely"
(acc "kelyhet") is most liklie from the German "Kelch", and "templom" straight
from Latin, but most are Slav.  But, apparentlie, the words "gyo'n" (confess),
"boejt" (fast), and "bu'en" (sin) are not borrowd from neighbors of Pannonia,
and this is one of the manie things that led the author of the "Ketto'es
Honfoglala's" (twofold home(land)-occupation) to his ideas.

+Maybe in interpreting the past, this kind of paradigm (rather than the
+nationalist ones of "conquest" etc.) shows more promise of achieving what
+I agree with Eva is the highly desirable goal of arriving at an understanding
+of our shared past without the baggage of nationalist conflict.

There is no doubt of conquest and occupation, I am afraid--but conquest of
whom?  For sure there were Slavs, but the Jazyges were a Celtic remnant (!)--
were there Bulgars, or even an erlier Magyar wave?  It has been pointed out,
that the name "Sze'kely" is one of three that in the language behave just as
the well known clan-names, "Nye'k", "Megyer", "Tarja'n", ...  but theze other
three are not found in the histories.  Nonetheless, theze other three can also
be explaind, if thei are names that belong to the small group, whose name I
forget, that came along with the Magyars.