Talk:Álmos/Archive 1

Archive 1

More precisely about the alternative theory mentioned in the article

Quotation from the article:

"According to Ibn Fadlan, the two names Álmos and Almysh are the same. It refers to the same person: Almysh, the Baltavar (ruler) of the Volga-Bulgars, member of the Dulo Dynasty ( IYI ), descendant of Attila and his son Irnik, through Kubrat and his son Bat-Bayan Bezmer, great-grandson of Tat-Ugek, senior son of Gabdullah Shilki, he was raised to the Baltavar throne in 895 and died in 925. Almysh officially converted the Volga Bulgars to a Muslim state. Almysh's senior son Arbat, as a leader of the Kara-Bulgars, seceded and led a confederation of tribes (Magyar, Bashkort, Onogur, Sabir, Khazar) to the Carpathian Basin.

This theory fails to explain, however, how the Magyars came to dominate, and how were they able to impose their language."

As much as I know, it was not Ibn Fadlan, who told the two names are the same. Ibn Fadlan visited Almysh in 923, but he didn't know anything about the hungarian Almos, only the volga-bulgarian Almysh, so he couldnt take the lesson and say the two were the same.

It is actually Djagfar Tarihi, bulgarian collection of chronicles, that describes the story mentioned above, about Almysh and Arbat, not Ibn-Fadlan.

According to that, for sure they were the same, or at least - in such a small area, in the same time, actually it is the least probable that they were not the same. Not before, and not after that age was any Almos/Almush/Almysh mentioned, only those two (one) in that area near and far.

Arbat was actually a young prince (the name Arbat means : prince) and he led kara-bulgars in the war on the side of his volga-bulgarian father Almysh. Arbat's mother allegedly was a Hungarian. Arbat led kara-bulgar and hungarian tribes. (it is a question why hungarians accepted him as a leader, maybe because of her hungarian mother, or his noble familiy tree (Dulo-dinasty), or more probably - for both reasons). Kazarians bribed him (promised him the thone of his father) and he repelled against his father. After being defeated by Almysh, Arbat needed to move to the west, and soon he led military actions - in alliance with Kazaria against the pechenegs and Duna-bolgars (I. Simeon). When in 895 hes army was defeated in the Battle of southern Buh, he was forced to move to the Carpathian basin - which he knew very well, because he had been looting that area for years than (in alliance with Svatopluk moravian prince). We don't know, it was meant to be a temporary or a constant landtaking. When Arbat arrived to the Carpathian-basin - according to the Djagfar Tarihi - he found "avar-bashkorts" (szekelys) here - by whom his army was looked at as a friendly force. Because the indigenous people thought themselves the remains of the Huns (the Dulo-dinasty descended from Attila the Hun).

Djagfar Tarihi DOESN'T fail to explain, "how the Magyars came to dominate, and how were they able to impose their language."

Proto-Magyars (finn-ugric origin) and Kara-bulgars (turkic-hunnic origin) were the members of the tribal federation, which later founded a new kingdom in the heart of Europe. The leader of this federation were Arbat's kara-bulgarian tribes, but the majority of the federation was made of hungarian tribes (it could be like 7 hungarian and 3 kara-bulgar tribes). We already mentioned the Battle of southern Buh. These tribes were of warriors, their family was not in the camp with them, but in their homeland, Atelkuzu (Etelköz - the "land between rivers" - ~ Caspian peninsula). When pechenegs raided their homelands, lot of warriors lost his wife and family. When they arrived to Carpathian-basin and met the "avar-bashkorts", who found that tha "magyar" part of the tripbal alliance spoke a similar language that they did, but it was not exactly the same language (szekelys spoke az earlier version of the Hungarian language which they brouth with themselves during the first onogur landtaking actions in the VI-VII. century). The warriors of the magyar tribes could understand it more or less, and could intermarriage with them. The other part of the tribal federation, the kara-bulgars (as mentioned in hungarian sources: KAra-BulgAR= KABAR), who spoke a completely different language of turkic origin, also mingled with the indigenous people.

And - according to Djagfar Tarihi - the next generation of the "magyars" (=proto-magyars+kara-bulgars+szekelys+other aboriginal inhabitants) already spoke the "magyar" language, because of their "avar-bashkort" mothers thaught them that language.

This is why chronicles are talking about "the other language of the Hungarians", because some of them couldn't speak the finn-ugric hungarian at all, but a turkic language.

And this is why there are so many ancient turkic word (mainly military expressions) in the hungarian language - Djagfar Tarihi says.

81.183.245.214 (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

[Untitled]

This article needs clarifying. In particular, the legend should be separated from the history. Scott Moore 11:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The title high prince exists only in sci-fi world, grand-prince would be better. --Koppany 10:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the title of the page it says "Magyar Monarch" (Magyar as distinct from Hun? or is it just Hungarian?) on the Hungarian page. I would like to see that more information is shared with out language barriers – here the page in Hungarian and the page in English say completely different things (not that they contradict). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyleEsquire (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lebedias

According to the article Almos was "the first head of the "loose federation". In Moravcsik's book Lebedias's title was "prince" too. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should include the theory of András Róna-Tas (A honfoglaló magar nép). --Norden1990 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, he was "according to the chronicles" the first head. :) What is the theory of Róna-Tas? Is it the coup-d'état by Álmos against Levedi? Borsoka (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not know Rona-Tas's theory however the byzantologist Moravcsik wrote that "....the place called Lebedia after the name of their first voivode, which voivode was called by the personal name of Lebedias, but in virtue of his rank was entitled voivode...." So the "voivode" is a princely title, is not it?Fakirbakir (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the above is not Moravcsik's own text, it is a translation, a verbatim citation from Constantine VII's work (De Administrando Imperio, chapter 38). The same primary source says (in the same chapter) that "before this Árpád the Turks had never at any time had any other prince". In the emperor's works, the "voivode" title refers to the heads of the seven tribes, not to the head of the whole confederation. Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing (to me). Lebedias's voivode title as the head of the seven tribes sounds like a princely rank (under Khazar suzerainty)..... How should we interpret it? Who was Lebedias? The first known "Hungarian voivode"? But "voivode" is not equal with "tribal chieftain". It is a higher rank.... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Porphyrogentius does not write that Levedi was the sole voivode of the seven tribes, but refers to him as one of the seven voivodes each leading one tribe. Ő a "voivode" kifejezést "törzsfő" értelemben használja, és Levedi (szerinte) egy volt a hét voivode/törzsfő közül. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rona-Tas's theory from Hungarian wikipedia. "Róna-Tas András szerint Levedi történetének van egy valóságos magva, az egy dinasztiaváltást ír le. A történet szerint a kazárok kagánja elhívta magához Levedit, hogy feleségül adja hozzá a lányát, és megtegye őt a magyarok fejedelmévé. Levedi azonban elutasította ezt, mondván, van erre alkalmasabb személy, akár Álmos, akár a fia, Árpád. A kagán megörült a beszédnek, és végül is Árpádot választotta. Ez teljesen életszerűtlen viselkedés lett volna Leveditől, de nyilván az Árpád-ház későbbi hagyományának meg kellett magyaráznia, hogyan került a kezébe a hatalom. Ehhez felhatalmazás kellett, ami akkoriban a kazárokat jelentette, akiknek kagánja a nyugati türk Istemi családjából származott, aki a sztyeppei szakralitással rendelkező Asina-klán tagja volt. Talán Levedi is a klán tagja volt, ehhez kapcsolódik a magyar szakrális kettős királyság intézménye, amiről a honfoglalás előtt arab források megemlékeznek, de amiről a honfoglalás idején és után a bizánci források már nem tudnak. Valószínűleg Levedi dinasztiájának letételével tűnt el ez a szakralitás, amit egy új dinasztia csak nehezen tud felépíteni." Fakirbakir (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the above text. I think this theory (namely that Árpád succeeded Levedi as kende) is mentioned in the text based on the English version of the same work. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)