/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images

(189.65 KB 1142x856 magyarszentkorona.jpg)
(185.40 KB 1050x853 szentjobb.jpg)
20rh August State Foundation Day Bernd 08/20/2018 (Mon) 06:19:40 [Preview] No. 18586
A year passed and again this day commemorates the foundation of Hungary, this is 1018th birthday. We celebrate this national holiday with listening to politicians mixing irrelevant daily politics into historical events in the morning and watching fireworks in the evening. Budapesterners can witness the procession of state founder Saint Stephen's Holy Dexter. Also all the local communities have their own little celebrations.
This is the third time I make this thread, and I won't post much, maybe I'll post something about what happened today - if anything interesting - later.

Bernd 08/20/2018 (Mon) 06:23:12 [Preview] No.18587 del
(629.90 KB 2272x1704 20056230_nagykep.jpg)
Ehh I didn't want to post the estates I wanted to post St Stephen's statue.
I blame Ghork.

Bernd 08/20/2018 (Mon) 10:11:29 [Preview] No.18590 del
(297.18 KB 1108x626 2018_parliament.jpg)
(328.20 KB 1300x811 2018-Áder.jpg)
(142.89 KB 800x514 2018-tisztavatás.jpg)
pic #1 After 80 years the first time we have flags with crosses on the Parliament Building
pic #2 János Áder, President of Hungary, is talking boring stuff and unrelated daily politics mixed in historical references as predicted
pic #3 fresh officers of the Hungarian Defence Forces take their vows

Bernd 08/20/2018 (Mon) 13:23:51 [Preview] No.18593 del
I googled and found this saint was from 10th century. And he was a king.
We have Chinese saints but they were recent. They were never famous to general Chinese . There were no king saint either.
But to be a king saint you seem to have to convert the whole people

Bernd 08/20/2018 (Mon) 13:31:11 [Preview] No.18594 del
I'd imagine he became Saint because he was King, not the other way around. But I might be wrong.

Bernd 08/20/2018 (Mon) 13:46:21 [Preview] No.18595 del
(74.17 KB 1024x402 hungry hungary.jpg)
Happy birthday steppe invaders, I understand that Finland was already taken.

Bernd 08/20/2018 (Mon) 14:55:33 [Preview] No.18599 del
Thank you, mountain Jew! I won't forget you are responsible for the Habsburgs...

His canonization along with his son's happened about 45 years after his death by another king, Ladislaus I, who was also canonized a century later. While Christianity was introduced to Hungarians earlier Saint Stephen made Catholicism state religion and he was the one who created the framework of the Church in Hungary (among other things).
During the ages 20th of August had different feasts/holidays. In the middle ages it was a religious feast as Stephen was canonized on this day. In the interwar era in the 20th century became national holiday for the first time. During the communism it was the holiday of the (Stalinist) Constitution and People's Republic. After '89-90 it returned back to the national holiday of the Hungarian statehood.
This Hungarian statehood is counted from the coronation of Stephen in 1000/1001. The actual date is very uncertain so that's why his date of canonization was picked instead. It's not even sure it was coronation, it might been a different type anointing. The point is he become rex from dux what he was since 997.

Bernd 08/23/2018 (Thu) 17:17:49 [Preview] No.18682 del
bevándorlóországban akarok élni

Bernd 08/23/2018 (Thu) 18:46:22 [Preview] No.18685 del
És kivándorlóországban élsz.

Bernd 08/26/2018 (Sun) 21:52:36 [Preview] No.18759 del

Bernd 08/27/2018 (Mon) 05:11:55 [Preview] No.18760 del
(396.72 KB 1663x1504 le-turan-face.jpg)
A vándorlás tulajdonképpen hagyományőrzés.

Bernd 04/22/2019 (Mon) 19:42:12 [Preview] No.25059 del
While it isn't 20th August yet, I bump this so I won't have to repost it. Maybe I'll prepare something for it. Hmm, I also should prepare a more beefy post in the near future about some topic. I did fairly long time ago.

Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 11:21:00 [Preview] No.25075 del
Why the pisa tower cross? By the way one of my close friend has been to budapest, he says you'd love it for 2 days but hate it after 2 weeks. People are close minded and always stick to their close friend group.

Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 11:38:16 [Preview] No.25076 del
did you feel an urge to conquer hungary

Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 18:57:21 [Preview] No.25094 del
>Why the pisa tower cross?
Which version do you wanna hear?
Nevermind, I'll write what I can.

We have no idea why does it stand askew, but many theories were created by both historians and the people. If one observes the Crown it will be apparent that not just the cross strange but the crosspiece and the rim are also seems to be deformed which can lead to the easy conclusion it was hit with large force from above.
Here are some ideas:
1. In 1301 the House of Árpád went extinct on the male line and three candidate from female line wanted the throne to himself. One of them, the Bavarian Otto acquired the Crown, and came into the country in 1305. He brought it with him:
a. The put it in a big wooden flask but during the road it fell off the horse at one point and they had to search for it. The drop damaged the Crown.
b. They put it in a small barrel but it was too small and when they put the lid on it pushed down the Crown.
This version is based on the story of the chronicle and the two version comes from the two possible translation of a Latin word. The chronicle doesn't say however that the Crown was harmed, so it is a speculation. Also this is one of the versions what usually was cited as a reason.
2. In 1849 the War of Independence was defeated and the governor, Kossuth, fled to Turkey. He had the Crown but didn't want to bring it with him to abroad. So they buried it at Orsova. I think it was underground for four years. Somehow it was damaged either when it was buried or when recovered. This is also a popular version.
3. In 1638 during the coronation of queen Mária Anna (first wife of king Ferdinand III.) they got the wrong key for the reinforced chest they guard the Crown in. They had to break this chest and had to use large force and they dun goofed. (Btw, during Habsburg times the queens were crowned with another crown, the Holy Crown was only used to touch their shoulders.) This version is fairly recent one.
4. This isn't the original cross, but a replacement which was mounted in the 16th century.
a. A version says that in 1551 queen Izabella break the original one down and gave it to his son, king János II (aka János Zsigmond), who wore it in his neck on a chain. They surrendered it to king Rudolf I. but it's further fate is unkown. The Habsburgs made a new one instead.
5. There was no cross originally, it was mounted later (for example in the 16th century).
6. It stands askew on purpose, this is how it was planned and made. - This version is preferred by some pseudo-scientific theoreticians.

cont. Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 19:25:29 [Preview] No.25095 del
The next few are the products of folklore, however some details of the above might be similarly made up by the people.
7. In 1385 at the coronation of Károly II it fell from the pillow as a bad omen. He ruled for only two months.
8. When the angels brought it down they dropped it accidentally.
9. When István I (aka Saint Stephen) fought with the pagan rebel Vata, he slashed at the king with his sword and hit the cross.
10. When the House of Árpád went extinct it bent.
11. "Back then" three seas washed our shores but now the country is torn apart, this made the cross bend.
12. It bent due the election of Mátyás I.
a. The nobility chose the new king by throwing the crown up into the air and onto however's head it fell, he became the new king. During this process the crown was damaged.
b. Mátyás and a peasant tilled a field together when they heard the news of the election of a new king. The news also said who dines on an iron table him will be the new king. So Mátyás turned the plow sideways and ate his meal at it as if he was sitting at a table. His mate just laughed at him and said Mátyás will be king if his whip sprouted. So Mátyás shoved his whip into the ground and it sprouted. Then came two angels with the Crown to put it on his head but Mátyás was startled by them and hit toward them with the whip, then the dropped the Crown. This story is related to #8, but also has great many versions and not just in Hungarian folklore, Moravians, Northern Hungarians, Croats and even Slovenes has a version or two of it. One Czech myth connects this story to Saint Stephen.

I will close this with some facts:
- By the end of the 18th century it stood askew, one Austrian official made a note of it.
- A Hungarian writer, M.D. who wrote a book about the Crown about the same time also made a note of this.
- 19th century depictions show it with bent cross
- On older depictions the cross stands straight - I wouldn't consider this great importance, since older depictions aren't realistic, great many things were drawn very differently.
- It moves too, has a little wobble in it.
- I'm not sure how factual this data is, but I found it to be presented in such way: the screw what holds the cross wasn't driven into it straight with the axis, but with an angle to the axis.
- It is not for small hedas.
- It was used only during coronation. It wasn't for wearing it casually, the kings had their own crowns for that. When it needed to be used, a crown guard, who's job was especially this, took out the Crown, inspected it, if it was necessary he ordered repairs, then after the coronation he had to inspect it again, and order repairs if it was necessary, then put away into it's place.

Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 20:28:35 [Preview] No.25096 del
that's tuğrul, which is pronounced like tuurul. common symbol for us, even the seljuks used it.

read all of it, first one seems the most believable one. thank you for explaining, I guess you like to delve into your history don't you?

Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 23:01:10 [Preview] No.25098 del
(112.65 KB 657x727 hungarian-crown.jpg)

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 03:15:46 [Preview] No.25103 del
is the golden hat a sign of authority or something? I never understood why kings had these funny looking hats

maybe its just bling

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 03:18:55 [Preview] No.25104 del
also I watched this video recently about hungary

https://youtube.com/watch?v=N6_ZzJBUKjM [Embed]

seems like the nobility really screwed things up

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 05:32:53 [Preview] No.25105 del
For steppe people all kinds of animals were parts of their mythology since their beliefs included totemic elements. Our Turul is the mythological progenitor of the House of Árpád - maybe will write more about this later. It's a specific predatory bird, the kerecsensólyom (Falco cherrug). Another important animal is deer (also in a totemist way), species not specified precisely.
Btw the eagle/falcon on that Hunnic crown is a bobblehead. Or so I heard.
>I guess you like to delve into your history don't you?
I already wrote about the Crown's cross I believe (or maybe I just wanted to? it is always asked why is it askew), I just re-skimmed the "sources" I gathered back then and drafted a new text.
>first one seems the most believable one
When I read about the third that also seemed plausible however it's not clear from the articles what are the hard facts and what is speculation.
Frankly, the supporting evidence for all the possibilities I listed are very weak.

That depiction is as good as any, frankly more realistic than most. Tho the bend is too much in that cross, it's just about 23°, similar to Earth's axis tilt so it stands askew because the Crown represents the Earth in the universe.

Will reply in depth later, but basically yes.

Again, later will watch it. Last week I saw an article, they are searching for the exact place of the clash and what are the "results" (i.e. latest speculations).

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 05:50:22 [Preview] No.25107 del
why does hungary like paprika so much? never understood that

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 11:39:13 [Preview] No.25118 del
>all kinds of animals
I don't know any pig, cow, ant, rats being symbol. Only exception is tungus people which are literally settled mongols. Considering the fact nomads cant herd pigs, it makes sense for them. Hence of their name, (tungus=domuz=pig).

Deer might be more of your uralic element, as closest thing we had is goat. We even had a state known for goat symbol such as karakeçililer (dark goats) it's probably not their official name but they known as like that because they carved goat statues and had dark goats in their flag.

I wish süleyman wasnt so braindead. We could let hungarians do their own thing and focus on seas and portugese threat but he greatly disregarded it despite the warnings. I feel bad for Turks (which I include tatars as well) and hungies couldnt get along . One of the reasons why I hate religions generally, it actually divides people more than it unifies them.

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 12:36:38 [Preview] No.25119 del
you see hungarians as brothers?

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 16:15:09 [Preview] No.25125 del
short answer: no, but in some parallel world we could be.

Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 19:07:30 [Preview] No.25137 del
So crowns are part of the royal representation.
That's it. I thought it will be longer, but this is enough.
The Hungarian Holy Crown was a coronation crown, it was for anointing the new king. It is kinda special snowflake among these because it is represented more than a tool, it represented the country and the will of the "noble nation". Also probably the House of Árpád especially the Habsburgs (with the exception of Josef II) put emphasis on the fact that they were crowned by the Holy Crown, during the feast of the coronation the Crown was placed next to the king so the participants could see that they were crowned by it and they are the continuation of the Árpáds (on the female line).
A doctrine was formed around the Holy Crown during the centuries, mostly a customary law, tho it partially(?) was written down in the 16th century in the Tripartitum, which supported with some legal considerations both for the king and the nobles, clergy in the matters of the country. For example no new law drafted by the new king was considered legal and in effect until he was crowned with the Crown and in certain circumstances while Hungarian kingship was inherited, the new king was elected first by the estates, the "noble nation", and only after this could be crowned, sometimes coronations weren't legal according to the doctrine so they had to be repeated, some of our kings were only elected kings, because proper coronation weren't possible for them. They new laws had to be confirmed after the coronation.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 05:19:44 [Preview] No.25152 del
I meant "a number of animal species" when I wrote all kind. You are right, other animals are excluded, the pig isn't one tho. Great many steppe people herded pigs (they even had poultry for that matter) - the huge amount of pig bones among the archaeological findings proves that - and this has cultural impact too, for example a 10th Pecheneg chief was called Tonuzoba (domuz + aba).
It is very simplistic view to think steppe people were horse herders who roamed the steppes constantly. Or maybe I should call it false. They even had constant settlements with artisans.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 10:42:44 [Preview] No.25162 del
>steppe people
I only referred nomads. And khazars and pechenegs were half nomads (dig info about that)

>It is very simplistic view to think steppe people were horse herders who roamed the steppes constantly
no. I never said they only herd horses and never even impled they constantly roam. They roam according to climate, weather and stuff. They have words for summer roams and winter roams for a reason. The ones who have constant settlements were half nomads or settlers like tungus-manchus and I agree they were quite developed for their full nomad types.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 11:22:32 [Preview] No.25166 del
werent khazars jews

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 11:28:50 [Preview] No.25169 del
Khazars are a Turkic nation. Most of them arent even jews it's just their ruling dynasty were judaists. The state was full of christians, judaists some muslims and Tengri followers. They werent even that much of a central state, so claiming (not saying you did) all nation is jew is outright stupid.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 12:46:41 [Preview] No.25178 del
hey man im just asking

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 12:50:03 [Preview] No.25179 del
Khazars were Turks that converted to Judaism.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 13:09:07 [Preview] No.25180 del
think I have koestlers book the 13 tribe somewhere in my shelves he writes about that

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 13:13:52 [Preview] No.25181 del
Khazars were most likely converted by Sephardic jewish traders called the Radhanites.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 14:17:21 [Preview] No.25187 del
never said anything bad to you.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 16:07:03 [Preview] No.25191 del
Turkbernd summed it up, but here's my take:
Khazars were a tribe of Turkic steppe people who gained influence over others and founded a state of considerable power on the Pontic steppes. At one point the ruling dynasty and the aristocracy converted to Judaism, about that time quite a few Jews moved there, fleeing from Byzantines.
The conversion might happened so the khagans could stop the foreign influence spreading in their court which originated from both Christian and Muslim sources. It might have been also a show of status: "the emperor might have Christianity and the caliph Islam, but I, the khagan, am the same, I have my own religion too".
One khagan wrote a letter to a rabbi in Hispania, it is one important source about this matter. Maybe it is available somewhere on the nets.
The general population - which consisted several folks, among them Hungarians for a while (tho the exact nature of the relations between the Magyar tribes and the Khazar Khaganate is unsure at best) - followed many religions and religious practices, among them only the Jews were Jews.
There are great many speculations about the topic, but the actual available information - just as for great many steppe people - is little.

Well, the end of your post could read a little harsh.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 16:08:38 [Preview] No.25192 del
My miswordings then.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 16:24:35 [Preview] No.25195 del

Cohen (oy gewalt)
Kahn (khagan?)

cain was the dude who killed his brother to get the birthright I think

Is it just me or do we have a similarity here guys

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 16:31:26 [Preview] No.25200 del

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 19:01:06 [Preview] No.25206 del
>cain was the dude who killed his brother to get the birthright I think
Wow, that's some real biblical illiteracy you have there, Sven. Cain likely killed Abel because Abel's sacrifices were more favoured. The entire birthright controversy was with Jacob and Esau.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 19:12:00 [Preview] No.25207 del

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 19:15:20 [Preview] No.25208 del
Does this in any way tie into "Jesus is Hungarian"?

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 19:18:33 [Preview] No.25210 del
I can combine Jacub and Esau into Jesu.

Bernd 04/25/2019 (Thu) 21:29:09 [Preview] No.25214 del

Bernd 04/26/2019 (Fri) 07:08:42 [Preview] No.25222 del
Yakub is literally just the Arabic version of it.
Also, apparently the Nation of Islam was originally started by an Afghan immigrant and later became for blacks.

Bernd 04/26/2019 (Fri) 09:45:26 [Preview] No.25223 del
sorry for not reading the bible every evening like a good boy

Bernd 04/26/2019 (Fri) 21:18:58 [Preview] No.25264 del
>I won't forget you are responsible for the Habsburgs...
We should have left you to the Turk, together with the Serbs and Greeks.

Bernd 04/27/2019 (Sat) 15:38:38 [Preview] No.25287 del
And who you might be to decide the fate of the other nations?

Bernd 04/27/2019 (Sat) 15:52:19 [Preview] No.25288 del
Literally who?

Bernd 04/28/2019 (Sun) 19:47:10 [Preview] No.25317 del
(5.19 MB 5100x1500 what-is-nomadism.png)
After over 1488 hours in gimp. There would be some tale for this but in the balance between my level of tiredness and caring enough is tiredness which weighs more right now. But the picture speaks for itself. I hope at least.
Half-nomadism is a half-cocked label for something historians didn't understand back in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century and now they are just going with it because they got used to the trope.
Add your onions, I'm curious how you see the thing.

Bernd 04/28/2019 (Sun) 20:29:20 [Preview] No.25318 del
I don't see how exactly this contradicts with what I said. I already said they nomad around according to seasons and climate. Even today the word yaylak(summer place, usually mountain platos or anywhere with mild climate) and kışlak (kış literally meaning winter, understandably it means winter place)

As you said historians back then didnt really understand it. As for semi nomads khazars were one afaik and I cant remember which source they even had unique architechture so this confirms, there were (obviously) permanent settlements but I assume people who herd animals still roam around according to climate.

From my perspective, with time nomads started to become more like semi nomads meainly because:

1)With raids and trade interactions they manage to create 'powerbase's

2)Migrations being not so profitable due to expanding border of the settlers

I would say interactions with foreign societies is very crucial for any kind of development. Ancient greece became a thing due to constant interactions around mediterranean. Türko-Mongols and ancient greeks(then romans took the flag) were the most open societies when it came to being open towards interactions during the antiquity. Afaik Xiongu even had vases and pottery that comes from hellenic world.

Bernd 04/28/2019 (Sun) 22:37:13 [Preview] No.25327 del
was the ottomans nomads? they came from turks in mongolia right? or that area

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 09:12:21 [Preview] No.25337 del

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 11:54:52 [Preview] No.25338 del
oh boy why do you have to write such a long answer

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 15:38:12 [Preview] No.25341 del
Well, you ain't going out of your way to update us on Tropico 6 and Imperator: Rome...

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 18:10:52 [Preview] No.25351 del
The difference is fundamental between real nomadism and steppe "nomadism". Nomads move with the seasons so they can spend the whole year on the pastures. Two type of movements can secure that:
1. Move along the altitude, crossing climate zones "vertically". Live at the feet of the mountains when snow covers the peaks in winter but the vegetation is lush green down the valleys. Then when summer comes and down below becomes too hot and dry, the pastures in the mountains open up. There is no place like this in the Eurasian steppe zone, or in it's neighbourhood. There are places with snow all the time, but when the cold comes it's fairly the same both up in the heights and down in the lows.
2. Crossing latitudes, passing climate zones "horizontally". When it's too hot they move to the north because the greenery "moves" there, in summer south is too dry. Then winter comes and north freezes over but south turns suitable for their lifestyle. Basically the move between to zones, one with snowy and green phases and another with green and dry phases. Steppe people doesn't do this, they don't have such climates in that area to move with.

Steppe people remain in the same climate zone, the herders (some with families, others without) out in the pastures for three seasons then for winter they move billeting at permanent settlements. They change pastures because the hueg amount of livestock Hungarians at the time of conquest might had even 250 000 horses - plus other grazing livestock, cattle, goats, sheep in inestimable amount depletes an area fast. The viability of these pastures however not depends on altitude or latitude. A considerable part of their society lives on the permanent settlements, even livestock owners who entrust herders to care their stock while they do other stuff. During the three warmer seasons fodder is gathered for the winter, and when the time comes, the herds returns, they butcher the surplus animals and they stay put until spring came.

cont. Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 18:11:58 [Preview] No.25352 del
(83.34 KB 960x720 mongoose.jpg)
Now the people's whose stories we know and historians base/based their works had only limited contact with them, they met them as they broke into their territory with many horses, sometimes just with herders, other times war parties (each warrior went with several horses to campaigns - this might be the reason some sources give us inflated data of their numbers). So they only met these guys, so only gained impressions of them.
Looking through the borders into their territory was also useless, since their settlements weren't close to the border, due to their practice of leaving a wide stripe of land unpopulated (maybe because on horseback a neighbouring tribe could pounce them fast and the empty space gave some time to catch them coming) around their domain.
So these neighbouring folks had only seen a little out of them and the idea that they roam around like nomads was born. This was the historians later read in the sources those folks left behind. So they classified the steppe people nomads. Then came archeology and they found all kinds of stuff, and later (some medieval, especially Arabs - what I know of) sources also give some more hint. And this new data didn't fit. So they came up with the idea of half nomadism, and said it's the next level in their development to become sedentary (and feudal - as if that type of sedentism and feudalism would embody some higher quality, but since these were western scientists, motivated by their nationalism and oftentimes even chauvinism, they naturally considered their ancestor's ways superior - sometimes even went as far as calling steppe people gypsies).
But what development? In the Carpathian basin steppe people lived with little pauses from the 7th century BC actually from a little earlier to the 10th century AD or even later if we count the Cumans who were settled among us in the 13th and during these 1500+ years they lived pretty much the same, how I described previously. This land here is absolutely unsuitable for nomadism.

Ofc I acknowledge different steppe folk lived a little differently. Those south, southwest of the Aral built cities, with adobe brick walls, big temples, and irrigation systems in that deserty land. This wasn't the case north of there around the southern slopes of the Ural. For example.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 18:28:10 [Preview] No.25355 del
>. There is no place like this in the Eurasian steppe zone
Ural mountains, altai mountains, pretty much entire kırgızistan region, tien-shan(tanrı) mountains, they are all well suited for summer.

> When it's too hot they move to the north because the greenery "moves" there
I get what you mean, but I wish it was that simple. Nomads disliked too much north mainly because too much forest prevents their military tactic efficience and it gets more swampy. But traveling across north or south of river itil(volga) was a thing but again not that common and simplistic.

As for hungarians, hungary was literally wet dream of nomads due to quality dirt of Hungary. It's just requires to being not nomad and settling down. Mainly because smallness of Hungary and in general europe. Your lands being raidable by settlers is a no-no and in vast eurasian steppes infantry core armies couldnt catch up with nomads so it was huge advantage for them. But when the time passes gunpowder gave infantry core armies an edge and increasing urbanism worked against nomads. Having not so competent leaders also shouldnt be underestimated. By the way even today nomads exist in Turkey maybe I mentioned before.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 18:52:04 [Preview] No.25357 del
>I get what you mean
No. I see you don't.
The Urals - for example - is a bump. There is no time in a year, when in the hills are covered in snow but the their feet is lush green. Also no time in the year when up there is lush green and down the feet is dried out.
I don't think even Altai has that feature. When winter comes, all Inner Asia turns to frozen "hell". Nowhere to go for lush green pastures.
Hungary is horrible to nomadism because when the winter comes there is no place with greenery. Everything is covered in snow. And when it is summer there's no north to go or no mountains to climb for pastures. Also Hungarians lived the same before they arrived here.
Maybe the closest such mountain with the climate is the Kilimanjaro. Err, no, during upper paleolithic, mesolitic, and maybe early neolithic in Mesopotamia nomads lived. I think a Czech, Petr Charvát mentions in his book I can't remember the title.

Nomads follow the vegetation to live the same all year round. Steppe people don't live the same all year round.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 19:11:35 [Preview] No.25359 del
maybe a dumb question for a noob regarding nomads but why did the hungarians move to hungaria if it was ill suited for nomadism (and the same for the turks moving to turkey)?

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 19:17:53 [Preview] No.25361 del
(35.71 KB 435x435 90c.jpg)

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 19:24:48 [Preview] No.25363 del
But you know what?! This is an valid point. Why would nomads move where they can't nomad anymore? Because they weren't nomads in the first place.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 19:28:57 [Preview] No.25364 del
You say there is no good place to roam in eurasia during winter, but what you say is too tedious in eurasia. So having a good summer place was sufficient as they werent so overly populated.

You don't need lush green fields for 4 seasons to nomad around in eurasia.

Because livestyles change, because it's good place to settle down after fucking up their neigbours. Because you may eventually overpopulated and need to settle down. Because as khan you are not in charge of fucking everything and certain tribes decide to migrate.
Because nomads don't nomad for lulz, it's merely adaptation for their geography and won't likely to insist nomad around a place that is good place to settle down.

Assuming it wasnt rhetoric of course.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 19:55:58 [Preview] No.25365 del

it gives information where the hungarians came from but not why they choose to leave their nomadic lifestyle in the first place.

they did some looting in the area but that doesnt justify giving up their culture just like that.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 19:57:07 [Preview] No.25366 del
>Because nomads don't nomad for lulz
let me tell you about the word culture

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 19:58:44 [Preview] No.25369 del
>You don't need lush green fields for 4 seasons to nomad around in eurasia.
Nomads move where the vegetation is lush, they move "with" the vegetation.
Steppe people sit on the same place while nature changes beneath their asses, therefore steppe people aren't nomads. They don't fit into the definition. Calling them nomads is incorrect.
For nomads, their entire economy is depending upon them being in the same fertile surroundings, no matter if they are hunter-gatherers or herders.
For steppe people only a part of their economy depended on herding - which is in no way nomadic, but extensive pastoralism. Great many in their societies were artisans or did intensive agriculture.
Nomads don't build settlements.
Steppe people had permanent settlements with houses and other facilities. These places partially served for "billeting" the herds. To which they fed fodder (even grain feed!) which was gathered/produced by those who lived there all year round.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:03:49 [Preview] No.25370 del
>Steppe people sit on the same place
No, never said that. I just said you overestimate their expectations.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:05:55 [Preview] No.25371 del
They didn't have nomadic lifestyle. Let's call it extensive pastoralism for simpleness.
Even after the conquest they lived for a century like the same. The change came with the adoption of Christianity, which also meant the adoption of the western societal structure, which also went hand in hand with the adoption of their economic structure. Both of which are feudalism. In feudalism they don't need large amount of free herders but serfs. This meant the descent of great many Hungarians into servitude - but this again took about 200 years.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:09:32 [Preview] No.25372 del
>>Steppe people sit on the same place
>No, never said that.
I'm trying to direct your attention to this fact: they don't go after the vegetation, they let winter setting in and they prepare for the winter.
Nomads on the other hand do the exact opposite. Nomads aren't waiting for the winter they move before it sets in. Because none from their society gathers fodder so they can wait out the return of the suitable weather. They move with the suitable weather.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:09:39 [Preview] No.25373 del
often in history nomads settle down because of some different reasons, get soft and then gets conquered.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:12:39 [Preview] No.25374 del
I dunno what "nomads" you're talking about.
Tomorrow will continue. But then I want to refer to something else mentioned way above. About deers.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:14:07 [Preview] No.25375 del
They do go after suitable climates I just said you overestimate. It's very tedious thing to find lush green fields in ever season. Your definition implies there was barely any nomads even in present day Mongolia.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:17:06 [Preview] No.25377 del
There are no nomads in present day Mongolia, they are extensive pastoralists. If they think about themselves as nomads, that's basically Stockholm Syndrome.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:24:11 [Preview] No.25378 del
I said was, I used the word present day to point out the geography as it wasnt called Mongolia before, it wouldnt be appropriate.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 20:36:32 [Preview] No.25379 del
Also this isn't my definition. It is the definition. Just people got used to using the term wrong and it's hard to think otherwise.

Bernd 04/29/2019 (Mon) 22:01:27 [Preview] No.25383 del
>the definition
By whom? Show proofs, otherwise you are a yurt dwelling proxyhohol.

Bernd 04/30/2019 (Tue) 17:16:53 [Preview] No.25394 del
Frankly I'm cornered meself a little bit. But not too much tho, I will return to this but first, here are some links:
The first problem is there doesn't seem to be a concise definition, compactly fitting into a sentence, but more of somewhat lengthy explanations. The second, while what I wrote are all in there on these links, ofc the editors of these articles widened the parameters enough so one could shoehorn steppe folks into this.

Some notes.
The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions they might cultivate crops.
This actually means they sow some seeds in a place which they leave and move to the next place where they also sow seeds, then when they return to the first place they can harvest the crops, sow again and move to the next place to harvest and sow again. Beside their usual economical activities. These aren't field of wheat or whatnot, don't really plow or anything. It's more like helping certain wild edibles to grow more abundantly. Ofc these can be domesticated plants too I believe.
The EJ actually made me realize a third possible way to be nomad. In an area/region, where the weather is fairly the same year round (like Arabia) they can remain in one climate zone. This isn't true the the Eurasian steppe belt, since winter sets in erry tiem.

Bernd 04/30/2019 (Tue) 17:21:45 [Preview] No.25395 del
Some steppes are suitable for nomadism. For example the North American prairies. There some Indian tribes followed the buffalos' migration from north to south and back (directional nomadism).

Bernd 05/04/2019 (Sat) 13:50:46 [Preview] No.25543 del
Since this shitty weather forces me inside, it's time to do some constructive stuff here.

So let's talk about deers for a minute, as a backturn to this post: >>25118
Curious Turkic symbolism doesn't include deers since it was a fundamental part of the steppe folks art and spiritual culture at least up to the Huns and old Hungarian tradition is one of the links at the end of that chain.
Our word for deer is szarvas which means "horned one", a substitute peripharse instead an actual name to express it's sacral nature sames with wolf, farkas = "the one with tail".
One of our two origin myths includes the deer in it's "allegorical toolset", twice. First as a totemic progenitor: the mother of Hunor and Magor (Magyar) was called Enéh (Turkish: inek) which means female deer, doe, and it is still used in our language as ünő with same meaning. The second instance of the deer - this time a stag - in this story is a magical entity who leads the hunting brothers to west. The deer wears the Sun and the Moon and the stars on his antlers, it might be a transformed shaman or a godlike creature, maybe an allegory of the sky of some sort or our version of Tengri himself - if we had one.

cont. Bernd 05/04/2019 (Sat) 13:51:29 [Preview] No.25544 del
Old Hungarian art also features deer, although not in too great volume since artisans moved to an abstract direction from the steppe's animal style, with great more tendrils, palm leaves, curly plant shapes braided together. There is one peace which grabs exactly the moment of the transition from animal to plant. Maybe will try to find it.
Here are the examples.

Bernd 05/04/2019 (Sat) 13:52:13 [Preview] No.25545 del
(188.26 KB 628x550 belt-plaque.png)
(254.58 KB 1380x341 bone-plaque.png)
(545.35 KB 971x682 deer-ornament.png)
And now move to the Scytho-Hunnic era. These are all over on the related parts of Eurasia, as south as Pakistan. Their art features four species I believe, reindeer, elk, fallow and red. They were important to them for some reason. At Pazyryk they buried them masqueraded as deers. Sadly we don't know much of their stories, for some none at all.

Bernd 05/04/2019 (Sat) 13:52:39 [Preview] No.25546 del
(437.16 KB 663x577 deer-tapestry.png)
(572.75 KB 613x880 elk.png)
(747.85 KB 1309x742 fallen-stag.png)
(211.45 KB 624x509 garment-plaque.png)

Bernd 05/04/2019 (Sat) 13:53:24 [Preview] No.25547 del
(207.48 KB 430x799 horse-in-deer-mask.png)
(470.19 KB 549x846 petroglyphs.png)

Bernd 05/04/2019 (Sat) 19:27:58 [Preview] No.25559 del
Thank you for posting. It seems deers and elks indeed important and sacred to some degree but I wasnt aware of it.

"Deer cult in Anatolian folk culture is one of the most important values which Turks brought from the Central Asia. Today in Turkey, there are many legends and stories sanctifying deer and deer continues to inspire the modern literature and art. Deer with mother-tree was seen creator Goddess and source of life or ancestor of clan or family in Turkish cosmology. These ancient beliefs have made deer cult important in Turkish culture. In a time with the social and cultural transformations of the Turkish societies of Central Asia, deer lost its importance in belief system and culture. While wolf, horse and raptorials were being identified with political power, sacredness of deer was of secondary importance. However it kept its importance among the lower layers of these societies. After the conver-sion to Islam, it was believed that deer served and/or helped to the saints and people in need. After taking place in religious stories especially being involved in the cult of saints, deer cult consolidated its sacredness in the eyes of public. Societies changed their many beliefs and values after changing their social and cultural structures. Turkish societies also changed but sacredness of deer has been living in the memoirs of the Turkish societies in general. This put deer cult in a specific place in the Turkish culture. These matters about deer cult in Turkish culture are examined from a historical perspective and in terms of comparative method"

Found some pdfs about it but they are Turkish just quoting the abstract passage.

Bernd 06/02/2019 (Sun) 07:16:06 [Preview] No.26844 del
I wanted to make a little review about the Hungarian crowning mantle not just because it's an amazing piece of artwork but it has some interesting anomalies. So I started to "research" the topic, especially wanted to find a book nowadays used as the standard description of the mantle and it's history - now I see I won't find it online tho -, and I came across an article by the same author where he talks about the other coronation insignias. He says some interesting things about the Crown, some of which might even sound heretical among historians who research the Crown, but it's very compelling what he wrote. But there is one detail which makes it impossible for me to believe...
So I'll return to the Crown for a little because it also has some more interesting details and anomalies, beside the very conspicuous slanty cross on the top.

Not sure when will I finish the whole thing.

Bernd 06/02/2019 (Sun) 07:35:50 [Preview] No.26845 del
(276.63 KB 991x574 palast7.gif)
Wrong pic of the mantle.

Bernd 06/02/2019 (Sun) 20:22:50 [Preview] No.26849 del
Huhh, I actually made quite a progress. Almost done I have to say. But I still don't have the necessary illustrations in their entirety. I'm still undecided to go ahead and post parts today or the whole finished thing tomorrow.

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 18:24:11 [Preview] No.26890 del
As I mentioned in this thread (>>25137) the Holy Crown was one important artifact of not only the medieval but modern Hungary too. It wasn't just considered the origin of sovereignty but a legal person in an abstract way too. No wonder it keeps engaged those who are busy solving it's mysteries. And one mystery is the main one: it's origin.
Traditionally it's tied to our first Christian king, Saint Stephen I. It is considered his crown which he was coronated back in 1000 (or 1001) with. As a source from the early 12th century says, he acquired crown and blessing from pope Sylvester II. It doesn't say however that this was The Crown and it even has the implication that there was no crown at all. Since at that time in many cases crowning meant more of anointing with oil and/or girdling with a sword than putting an actual crown on the head. So maybe our Crown never touched Stephen's locks.
So the grand question is who made the Crown and when. Just as many explanations were given as to the problem of the misaligned cross.

cont. Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 18:28:39 [Preview] No.26891 del
If we look into the written sources we gain very little insight. Sadly depictions (paintings, drawings, statues, coins, etc.) aren't helpful either. Then the only source remains the Crown itself.
So researchers took a look at the Crown. It has 19 enamel icons depicting named persons in an obvious dual fashion: on the rim everything is written in Greek but on the cross straps the labels are in Latin. So quickly they "took apart" the crown and said: this is two crowns, a corona graeca and a corona latina as if there were such crown categories anywhere in the world. The two actually can be taken apart without damaging the relic itself, they are riveted together and not soldered.
This however created new problems - liek: without a rim, how the cross straps stood?; it had to have another rim, no?; where is this hypothetical rim?; were the cross straps really an independent crown?; etc. - first and foremost now they had to deal with not one but two crowns' origin, when they were made and by whom?
It is impossible to answer these with any level of certainty in case of the cross straps, because there is no information on it which could lead us to a date, the named figures are the apostles (8) and one image of Christ (Pantokrator). But recently they simplified this by figuring out: it is really possible that the cross straps were made so they can create the Crown in it's current form. It wasn't a previous crown but was an addition to the rim to create a new one out of the rim. For some weird reason they still can't stop calling the straps a "corona" tho.

cont. Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 18:36:09 [Preview] No.26892 del
(221.22 KB 1000x673 HC-backside.jpg)
(1.73 MB 984x992 Geobitzas.jpg)
(1.40 MB 926x935 Kon.jpg)
The lower part however - besides a Christ (Pantokrator), 2 archangels and 4 saints - contains three lay figures at the back who are more or less identifiable. One icon says: geobitzas pistos krales Tourkias; the other kon basileus romaion ot porphurogenntos; the third (which isn't on the surface but above the rim, just as well the Pantokrator in front): ikh mienikho pistos basileus romaiono, duk. The shit historians have to deal with.
Ok, so we have a king (krales) and two emperors (basileos). But who are they? The king is of Turks, Byzantian sources oftentimes called Hungarians Turks, that's no problem. The problem is his name, we know not one Hungarian ruler who was called "Geobitzas". Nada. But with a hussar trick this name can be resolved as Géza whom we had a couple, even the father of Stephen I was called Géza. This name however was misspelled in many forms, Geuso, Duso, Jesse, etc. but never Geobitzas.
The emperor on level with Géza is a purple born one, someone whose name starts with Kon. That would be Konstantios or Constantine, they had a few from the latter, the first one is more conspicuous.
The dude above them, certain Mienikho (on exclusion basis this has to be the name) which name is missing from all the lists of Roman emperors, is interpreted as Michael. There is liek a ton of this name too, but when they forgot how to spell Mikhael is beyond me, it's not even a foreign name as Géza (assuming actual Greek/Byzantine artisans made these enamel plates). This icon gives another clue: duk, 10 out of 10 historians says it's short for Doukas which pinpoints Michael VII from 1067-1078 as the subject of this portrait.
Historians were very happy, they got an exact date and to this date they can match a Géza and a Kon: that's Géza I (1074-1077) and either Constantine X Doukas (1059-1067) or Konstantios Doukas (1060-1078, junior emperor).
Awesome huh?

cont. Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 18:38:45 [Preview] No.26893 del
(71.63 KB 397x600 Doukas1.jpg)
(62.28 KB 434x600 Doukas2.jpg)
But the enamel disk of Michael isn't fit into it's place. All the icons have a socket, especially made for the icon but his is bigger than the socket and it got riveted to the crown. Moreover even a dilettant like me can see it's differences in style compared to the other enamel plates. Conclusion: it's not original for this item. No?
How historians deal with this situation? They largely ignore it, they found a plausible explanation and call it a day. Not everyone tho. Ofc those who believe in some alternative origin - it was Attila's crown, or persian made - don't like this explanation; but there are other acknowledged researchers with legit background and published results (like the one whom I mentioned in the post here >>26844) who also see the Michael icon's secondary placement so they reached for other explanations.

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 18:41:10 [Preview] No.26894 del
I actually know the king of Turks thing.

As for christianity I thought you guys were christian about a century earlier.

>a corona graeca and a corona latina
maybe to have some arbitrary claim on both roman empires? ofc one was kys'd already.

Speaking of hungarians have you guys any attemt to convert orthodoxy or any other denomination?

cont. Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 18:45:37 [Preview] No.26895 del
So now the lower crown, the rim, the "graeca" is considered an earlier product which was laying in the emprerors' treasury and at the time of Géza I, they slapped the Michael icon on it - to signal the donator - and sent it as a gift. As a part of a deal.
But this solution leads onto other rocky roads.
Sending a crown to someone meant you were the suzerain over him. Michael VII was barely suzerain over his own bowels not the Hungarian king. Also a suzerian's depiction is more fitting to the place where the Pantokrator is at the front, and not the back! This whole thing however can be sidestepped, since not just men can wear crowns, not exclusively but in the Byzantine court it was customary for women to wear ones. And Géza himself with the deal gained a wife, a Byzantine princess and the crown came with her. She was the one who was gifted with this present. It was a female crown anyway, sp researchers claim.
But it is a huge crown, just look at poor Charles here >>25095 and here >>26844 , even if his heda was small a female's head is small too. The rim without a top would just fall down to her neck. All right - says the researcher, it is exactly how it should be because it was made for the female hairdo and whatever plus headgear was worn beneath it. Now this is the world of pure speculation tho. What fucking kind of hairdo can hold up a kilo metal (2056 gram the whole Crown, let's say the rim is only 1000)? One can keep it on her head but it needs to rest on the head. And what hairdo
And frankly what kind of female crown for princesses can include the Pantokrator right up above the person's brow? The Pantokrator has a very specific palce in iconography, it means the almighty, the ruler, the one who judges. Back then they didn't just used this shit for decoration they used them for their meanings. The Pantokrator's place is where it is know, over the brow of a king. Or maybe it was the crown of an empress originally?
There are depictions of Byzantine female crowns however, somewhat really is similar what the rim should be in itself tho the Holy Crown looks similar how these pictures depict the emperor's crown., and those haircuts...

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 18:55:50 [Preview] No.26896 del
Grand prince Géza, father of Saint Stephen took the cross, the western one, as part of his politics, but he sacrificed to the old gods the same.
The corona graeca and latina expressions are modern inventions. There is an alternative explanation the bilinguality of the Crown: it was used for initiation and certain rites demanded the usage of both languages, like when they ordained a priest, or when they built a temple first they chose the spot then draw a big cross onto the place, then wrote the latin and greek alphabets along the axis' of the cross. I dunno about these claims' reliability.
>have you guys any attemt to convert orthodoxy or any other denomination?
Before the Conquest our forefathers met Cyril and Method, and some might converted to their faith. Also it can be theorized that by the time of Saint Stephen quite a few Hungarian followed the Byzantine rite. Grand prince Géza's brother himself too (who was baptised as Michael).
This question of yours is very interesting since at that time Christianity approached the Schism and maybe Hungary was a place where the two branches struggled for influence.

cont. Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 19:00:44 [Preview] No.26898 del
(1.26 MB 1024x1001 Geza-ChroniconPictum.jpg)
(144.57 KB 605x1091 Porphyrogenetus.jpg)
But let's jump back a few steps. Let's say it's an earlier artifact compared to the addition of the Doukas plate (about 1074), but then the two other icons, of Géza and Constantine/Konstantios are also additions of that time since they lived about then. But it means the socket of theirs weren't made for them, they still could perfectly fit in but not the Doukas icon? And no they cannot be cut to size since this enamel if it's damaged it starts to crumble, this is why the Doukas plate wasn't cut to size either. Their socket also can't be altered more easier (if at all!) than poor Michael's. Moreover all the historians firmly agreed they are original for the crown many even say the Doukas icon is as well tho but that would mean those guys depicted aren't even Géza I. and Constantine X or Konstantios, since they were made when the crown, way before these guys' time.
All right they still can be grand prince Géza (~970-997), father of Stephan I, and Constantine VII (913-959) or VIII (1025-1028) who were really called Purple-borns unlike the other two "Kons" I mentioned above. This solution has two drawbacks. One, why would these two included together? The dates don't match either way. Two, why would a Hungarian ruler's imagery was used on a piece of item which was worn in the Byzantine court (especially if the user was 1. female; 2. empress)? Makes no sense.
But maybe it was sent to prince Géza, but then why would anyone from the Hungarian court order to put Doukas' icon onto it 70-100 years later (or even later anytime)? And who was in the now empty socket covered by Doukas? And why would anyone from the Byzantine court sent a crown to Géza when he pursued a pro-western politics (pope and emperor)?

cont. Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 19:03:38 [Preview] No.26899 del
There are great many pitfalls and impossible questions in the "crown-research" as some call it, and I'm not surprised great many theories were given birth. Maybe I'll pull out a few, the more interesting or the ridiculous ones, or some claims about the crown (seen some reconstructions of the hypothetized "corona latina", they are really fun, maybe I can find them).
The history of the Holy Crown was investigated by many people - professionals and amateurs alike - both with great care and great fantasy. I wonder if other, foreign piece of artifacts was researched with such thoroughness? For example the Iron Crown of Lombardy as we now it today was really made and used by whom we think it was? I've never actually looked into it.

cont. Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 19:04:08 [Preview] No.26900 del
The End.

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 19:10:49 [Preview] No.26903 del
kc tier, skull shaped crown would be cool though.

>Before the Conquest our forefathers met Cyril
only one step away from being pseudo russian, geg'd.

>Two, why would a Hungarian ruler's imagery was used on a piece of item which was worn in the Byzantine court
maybe they didn't know it was used by a female or just didn't care.

>Byzantine court sent a crown to Géza when he pursued a pro-western politics (pope and emperor)?
to not let him slip away? check the date and see what were byzantines doing during that time. maybe they were waging war in somewhere else and didn't like the idea magyars turning against them.

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 19:24:40 [Preview] No.26904 del
(92.02 KB 1024x683 tzar-crown.jpg)
(54.10 KB 238x231 turanpepe.png)
I like the Russian crown.

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 19:43:01 [Preview] No.26907 del
it's nice and original.

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 20:49:52 [Preview] No.26917 del

That's crown from pre-Petr times. In Empire another crown was used.

Bernd 06/03/2019 (Mon) 21:01:39 [Preview] No.26919 del
faggy and wannabe Louis XIV style.

this post has been sent by boyar gang

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 05:17:19 [Preview] No.26923 del
This: >>26919
She doesn't even have a beard, befitting for proper Russians.

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 06:33:50 [Preview] No.26925 del

That's "westernization". Thanks Petr.

Actually, there were widely circulated folk conspiracy stories of 18th century about Petr I. They say that proper czar was replaced by Dutch and Germans when he was in his long travel abroad (and then started westernization). People said that he had different height and face before, different habits etc. Some called him an "antichrist".

Different versions of story says that he was putted in stone wall in Riga and replaced by lookalike person, putted in barrel and send into sea by Dutch, jailed in Stockholm. Another series of stories say that he was replaced in child times by foreign kid.

Sankt-Peterburg was built with heavy human casualties, no one in sane mind would start building large european city in goddamn flooded swamp. Except maybe some crazy Dutch.

>She doesn't even have a beard, befitting for proper Russians.

She was another German agent. She also conquered Crimea - it was start of long-term plan for sanctions. These Germans are evil.

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 10:52:17 [Preview] No.26927 del
Do you believe any of those and dislike him?

Well serfs going to die in one way or another, atleast they make good use. I wish we still could do it nowadays too many cattle like humans wasted for nothing.

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 11:55:46 [Preview] No.26929 del
(80.56 KB 500x461 sans-serf.png)
>Do you believe any of those

No. But I don't think that they are completely impossible. Tsar travelled in Europe for two years. He was with escort of course, but in these times without proper communication, some things could happen (especially when escorting nobles also often were Germans or English).

>and dislike him?

No. I don't have emotional opinion about him. There are plenty of ways how Russian history may go without him, be it westernization later or fully indigenous development. It would be fun to see second thing, but it often ends bad.

>Well serfs going to die in one way or another, atleast they make good use. I wish we still could do it nowadays too many cattle like humans wasted for nothing.

Well, serfdom isn't fun at all, but it isn't slavery. There were periods in Russian history when serfs lived considerably well and didn't suffer so much. Did SPb worth it? Probably, at least in 18-19th century, when positioning of city did matter.

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 14:37:37 [Preview] No.26931 del
I think it's worth it though some poorlings that didn't deserve to suffer is dead.

Some people die and you have one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I think it's a fair trade.

>fully indigenous development
Maybe.. I think it was mostly a dilemma either embrace heritage of golden horde or embrace rome (which created western civ) the most.

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 16:41:17 [Preview] No.26933 del
>a dilemma either embrace heritage of golden horde or embrace rome
And they kinda managed to sit between of those seats.

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 17:30:59 [Preview] No.26935 del
civilization wise they are western now. culturally they are very good mix inbetween. I kinda have love-hate relationship with russians but wouldnt slander them. They managed well for good amount of time.

Bernd 06/04/2019 (Tue) 20:42:49 [Preview] No.26948 del
(47.21 KB 589x393 russia-mascot.jpg)
>Some people die and you have one of the most beautiful cities in the world

Personally I have no city at all.

They could build good city with less struggle I think. But whatever, it doesn't matter because it is done already so I'm ok with it.

>I think it was mostly a dilemma either embrace heritage of golden horde or embrace rome (which created western civ) the most.

As >>26933 said, Russia, especially after 18th century, often dreamed about some kind of "third way". Optimistic person may say that it happened, especially after 1917 (really some third way), pessimist may say that that horrible chimaera is a crime against humanity.

Although this also doesn't matter much now.

Bernd 06/05/2019 (Wed) 16:34:46 [Preview] No.26970 del
>Personally I have no city at all.
Get one.

Bernd 06/06/2019 (Thu) 19:24:49 [Preview] No.26986 del
(801.96 KB 906x762 Jesus-n-pals.jpg)
(174.29 KB 598x600 Archangel_Michael.jpg)
(1.53 MB 943x939 Archangel_Gabriel.jpg)
You know what, Bernd? We already got to know the three lay figures, but who are the other guys? Let's see.

First the rim:
We already met with Christ the Ruler. Below him we can find two archangels.
On his right (our left) is Michael. Defeater of Satan, who throws him to the Earth; Leader of the army of God.
On his left is Gabriel. Herald of God, the Announcer of John the Baptist and Jesus.
Maybe noteworthy: they are the only two archangels named in the New Testament.

Bernd 06/06/2019 (Thu) 19:26:48 [Preview] No.26987 del
(1.33 MB 928x902 St_George.jpg)
(1.41 MB 928x954 St_Demeter.jpg)
Let's move one row backward and not toward one side since these icons are paired up. So in the next row we can find Saint George (not the blue outline of his halo) and Saint Demetrius (of Thessaloniki) both of whom are military saints/martyrs.
The difference is that Saint George personally fought the Dragon - which in another thread (probably about Satanism) we "established" is Satan himself - just as the dude one row before him: Michael fought with Satan.
Saint Demetrios on the other hand often considered to fight against the enemy of Christianity via proxy: there's a story that one gladiator killed many Christians and Demetrios converted another gladiator, who - aided by his newfound faith - killed the heathen opponent. So he has an aspect that is in line with Gabriel's, both of them are the men of the Word.

Bernd 06/06/2019 (Thu) 19:28:30 [Preview] No.26988 del
(1.07 MB 968x913 St_Cosmas.jpg)
(945.10 KB 946x920 St_Damian.jpg)
The third line - now we are on the back half on the crown - is the twin brothers: Saint Cosmas and Saint Damain, physicians, martyrs. They healed with pure altruism. I don't think they have from that perceivable duality we can observe at the previous saints.

So for me the pictorial message of the lower part of the Crown is about the role of the king. He is a ruler, a judge, but the servant of God who is the only suzerain above him. He is responsible to spread Christianity by Arms and by Word, both as a leader of masses and as champion in person. He also has to care for his subject's well being, curing their physical and spiritual illnesses (maybe this role has something to do with the "royal touch", laying on hands).

Bernd 06/06/2019 (Thu) 19:31:30 [Preview] No.26989 del
I want to revisit the Doukas icon for a moment or two. I was wrong it isn't riveted to the Crown now, it is soldered with soft soldering (it should have been done by hard, or maybe brazing - not sure about the correct term, but I think gold hard soldering differs somewhat to brazing -, I read this type of soft soldering eats away that gold in humid conditions, so now the crown was put in a controlled environment to pause the process). But it was riveted there earlier.
This enamel plate also has other curiosities, that three holes above Emperor Michael's head. The one on our right a weird shaped one, like a pear, lightly touches the halo and it has a proper rim. Above that little to the left, that's punctured hole with jagged edges. To our left the third is right on the halo, but this one is really strange the outside edge has a rim but the inside doesn't, in fact it cracked the enamel.
We have older pictures of the crown, photos and drawings. Here's two which are more than 100 years old. You can see, that the hole on the left, it doesn't go into the halo, it's a half circle and has a rim where it touches the halo. So that whole was drilled through. And on the other side it went through Saint Thomas' icon behind the Doukas disk. You can see on pic #3 that the gold strap was punctured twice (the lower two holes) even the burr around them are observable. But the burr means they weren't even used!
And lastly, just to show how big is the Doukas icon... they had to remove the line of pearls below to fit it there. Apparently it's 26% bigger than the socket behind. It's obviously wasn't made for that, this size can't be a mistake. A millimeter or two maybe, but not this.

Bernd 06/07/2019 (Fri) 05:19:39 [Preview] No.27001 del
Two more notes for the rim:
1. In the icons only the figures are enameled, the background is gold.
2. The rim is made of "green gold" which is a gold with higher silver content, i.e. lesser quality.

Bernd 06/08/2019 (Sat) 10:00:01 [Preview] No.27019 del
The review on the next batch of icons is starting to get into shape. But before I'd get onto it I have to put the fact forward that whatever interpretation I give about the pictorial message of the Crown, it's basically mine as here I wrote: >>26988
Great amount of research were done by many people - I read somewhere that 40 different explanations were made up of it's creation - but it seems to me very few of them actually tried to see what those depicted figures represent and what message they want to convey to the observer. Most researchers stand for the idea that the Crown was made from two parts so it can't have any unified message.
But the two parts can't have one and one on their own? - I ask. At that time literacy was extremely low, even among nobles and sometimes priests couldn't write and read. Relaying information through a pictorial medium was very handy tool (even today it is, just think of computing, GUI and icons revolutionized the use of computers this made it available for the great masses to stomach it) and they used it all the time. Frescos, reliefs, mosaics, statues weren't just decorative purposes, they weren't created because "hey here's an empty space fill it with something nice" but because every figure they depicted held a message in itself.
Ofc with scenes we have an easier job recognizing things. The Imperial Crown of the HRE - the only other crown with enamel plates, the Monomachos-crown might wasn't a crown at all - has such scenes and even captions for those who are able to read hence too smart to understand pictures anymore but lonesome, standstill figures could be and were also symbols, allegories and metaphors of a range of ideas. Those who lived back then it was clear. We, here in our secular world, are now often blindsided by our own genius and well-informed nature, we just know better.
I'm not trying here to decrypt the message, or give a hypothesis of it's meaning I just try to show some unusual things, some peculiarities and wonder why these characters were chosen. However I see only one author who really gives a thought, and a couple more who make some effort. But the one is generally shunned and considered pseudo-scientific researcher. So I was left to my own devices and decided to turn to W*ikipedia to enhance my modest "who-is-who in the Christian mythology" knowledge, while I'm checking these half a handful of writers for their ideas.

Bernd 06/09/2019 (Sun) 15:42:08 [Preview] No.27050 del
(6.14 MB 1521x2148 St_Peter.jpg)
(3.98 MB 1364x2040 St_Andrew.jpg)
(5.32 MB 1491x2197 St_Paul.jpg)
(3.01 MB 1386x1633 St_Philip.jpg)
Now we should move on to the cross straps. Here the enamel covers the icons as a whole and the gold of the straps are finer.
On the top laying the Pantokrator, we met that picture already, so I won't linger here much, but I want to interject one thing. This depiction of the Pantokrator with two cypress on his sides are unique to these two icons on the Crown, art history doesn't know another.
But let's get started.

Six of the eight apostles are visible in their entirety.
On the left strap - on the right hand of the Pantokrator - above lays Peter. The label says SCSPETRVS. He has the key - two in fact - as usual. What else can we tell, we'll see later.
Below Andrew - SCSANDREAS - who was Peter's brother. While the pope sits on Peter's chair, the patriarch of Constantinople is the successor of Andrew. He holds a book, probably the Gospel since that his attribute.

On the right strap above they placed Paul, paired up with Peter basically. Labeled SCSPAVLUS. Now that's curious. Latins they used V instead of U. On every occurrence on these plates it's V and even the first one in Paulus it's V, just the second isn't. This guy is a special kind of apostle, isn't one from the original Twelve (or the revised Twelve), he is the example that even for the most wicked there is a salvation. He wasn't just a generic sinner but a persecutor of the disciples. If the whores and tax collectors are loved by God then him is loved even more. And frankly after Peter his was the most important role in the new religion.
Funky thing: traditionally depictions of Jesus with Peter and Paul on his side show the two apostles in reverse compared how they are placed onto the Crown. This led to the speculation that the arrangement of the apostles were changed.
Below Philip - SCSPHILIPVS. We saw why Andrew might have been placed where he was, but Philip apostle has no relation of any kind with Paul. This also looks like an anomaly. It gets a little weirder. We assume these are all apostles but the Crown doesn't say it in any way it says only that they are saints. And there is one Philip in Paul's life, the Evangelist who was visited by Paul. Maybe this Philip the one on the crown? Moreover sometimes the two Philips are mistaken with each other and/or thought to be the same. Accidents happen.

cont Bernd 06/09/2019 (Sun) 15:44:23 [Preview] No.27052 del
(972.42 KB 636x919 St_John2.png)
(453.08 KB 380x558 St_Jacob.jpg)
(741.21 KB 633x798 St_Thomas.png)
To the front at the feet of Pantokrator John was planted. On the label SCSIOhS can be read. Sounds like a rough abbrevation. Strange tho, not spelling it with proper H. Or without an N despite the wide enough space. So wide in fact that the craftsman added two round blue thingy with a cross on them to fill it. On the other hand the back "leg" of that h protrudes kinda short, almost looks like an n. An h-n ligature perhaps?
To the back - at the head of Jesus - is Jacob, namely SCSIACOBVS. The twelve apostles include two Jacobs, he can be either but one of them is the previously named John's brother. They can also be paired up. On the other hand Jesus' brother was also James, a martyr. Both his and the younger's attribute is a club (among others), what the figure of the icon holds in his right hand can be called a club with a little stretch, no? And why he has dark hair as if he was young, while John looks old?

This also might be worthy to take a look. Who surrounds the closest Jesus? Three of those four who were recruited in the first round, the three who were with him at the Transfiguration - if we assume James of the Crown is the older. And the one who wasn't part of the Disciples but was called by Jesus himself from the Heavens. Why he's special I already described.

Now comes the one with less visibility - he is covered by Emperor Micheal at the back -, Thomas, according to the label: SCSTHOMAS. This one is also strange the T looks as if it was a t or a combination of a T and an L. The one who doubted Jesus' resurrection. But at least after he got his proofs he believed. This guy is a knower, he has to know before he believes. Anyway why is he on the Crown but not someone else? What's his role - beside to get tortured because Doucas just didn't want to remain his place? Kek, he had to poke Jesus' wound now he was poked with a drillbit and got wounded. Poetic. Am not saying he deserved it tho.

But good old Tom and Paul, they also hold a key. Figuratively. The aforementioned researcher, not the "pseudo-scientific" but the legit one (for now he is one, we'll see the future; in case a Hungarian reads this: it's Tóth Endre), who recognized the Doukas icon as a secondary addition, gives new perspecite for the dating of the cross strip. He says these atypical letters, the t in Thomas and u in Pavlus were actually not uncommon on Byzantine coins. Eastern Rome kept minting coins with Latin inscriptions which often contained these type of letters as long as about 1060, when they left Latin behind in favour of Greek. Previously they thought the cross straps were later works, maybe even from the 12th century and were made in western, Italian or German workshop, but it seems as the rim the "graeca" is older than 1074 and Byzantine creation, the straps are older than 1074 (1060) too, and Byzantine.
Thanks Thomas and Paulus!

Bernd 06/09/2019 (Sun) 15:47:32 [Preview] No.27053 del
I left the first one (if we observe the crown from the front, he would be the first one to notice if not for Jesus) to the last because it's another anomaly which deserves a more detailed inspection.
The last apostle is Bartholomew, or in Latinized: Bartholomaeus. Or more than likely he is. Because we can't see this icon today. I tried hard to find a photograph with google online, and elsewhere in articles, and in books which shows at least a few letters at the corners, but no avail.
So the Pantokrator at the front simply covers his icon. You can see how the ornaments on the rim bend a little inside. But maybe that wasn't the case all the time. At least two drawings of the Bartholomew icon were preserved from the 19th century, which means there had to had been some view in.
The first one is from exactly 1800. This is fairly unknown work and I had to take a screenshot of a modern book which has this picture in it. This drawing doesn't give us a full picture only the top of the head of the dude and the label: ARTHOLO. Granted the artist made some mistakes elsewhere, enough to compare his version of John with the real one we can say he wasn't the most accurate, but he gave back the inscription of John's precisely with the h-n ligature, the space filling motifs and all that, so I would assume the Artholo caption is precise too.
The problem with this drawing would be that it was published in a book of previously mentioned researcher who is considered to be "pseudo-scientific" and I don't think anyone else mentions this among the modern scholars. However other 19th century authors know about this "Artholo" inscription or at least the existence of this drawing - one article even mentions that the "SCSB" is missing due to a nail which was driven through and damaged it. I found another book of the same writer purchasable online but not what was published in 1800. So both the artist and the picture exists surely.
The next one was published in 1886. That says SCSBARTHOLO and depicts a full figured apostle. It's in a book of a renowned scientist of the Crown-research. His picture is used by everyone since then, but neither had the opportunity to personally take a look. He wasn't the drawer, but was part of the team - and probably the leader of it - which was allowed to inspect the crown. The artist however had very good eyes and reliable hands, that we can state. So since this picture was the basis of all later analysis' there was nothing new published about this Artholo since then. Noteworthy: his version still ends with -artholo, and doesn't have the -VS ending the other saints have.

Bernd 06/09/2019 (Sun) 15:57:41 [Preview] No.27054 del
But in 1945 the National Socialist government left the country, fled to the west with the Germans and they took the Crown with themselves. From them the Americans confiscated it and sent it to the US. They gave it back in 1978. Then, a few years later (I think in 1983) a group of goldsmiths (actually 3 electric engineers, a mechanical engineer and a metallurgist) was allowed to study and examine the crown. The whole process was recorded on film by the "royal" television. I haven't seen a second of the footage sadly I dunno if it's available to anyone.
They looked behind the Pantokrator with the help of strong lamps, halogen lamps, fundus lens and laryngoscope. Two of them did it and both firmly stated: it reads ARTHOLO, the plate slid lower down in the socket and the icon is broken, most of it is missing. They also determined that the cross strap behind the icon is bent forward so it flexes to the broken plate and fixes it in place in the socket.
Later one dude from this group started to write about the crown a lot with wild ravings and frequently little basis so everyone started to take their findings less seriously. Also it is "found out" (as if it was a secret) their relation with the "pseudo-scientific" researcher (based on what I know about his works I think he has unusual ideas and great imagination but I wouldn't label them "pseudo" for this) and got attacked from the "officials". I think if they had just presented their findings, without adding any comments and making conclusions, it would have been better.
Another company of goldsmiths made an investigation in the early '90s (93-94 I think), and they are referred to frequently since, even Hungarian Wikipedia presents some of their findings and opinions. I couldn't get any of their reports from online source, probably with the help of libraries I could read them but that's just too much effort for our purpose (and probably money). Nevertheless the available material of theirs tells nothing about the Bartholomew icon.
I read however that the aforementioned Tóth Endre - the one who is considered legit - recognized the claim of the first group about Artholo as true.
What this means to us? Not much, but we can smile on the joke that he was flayed so his skin is missing from the Crown.

Bernd 06/09/2019 (Sun) 16:00:06 [Preview] No.27055 del
I found other interesting tidbits. I might continue this series of the Holy Crown.

sage Bernd 06/10/2019 (Mon) 08:16:38 [Preview] No.27076 del
Why are there so many goddamn threads from this gypsy on here? Is he a mod?

Also Stephen I's crown is a lie, he never wore it

Bernd 06/10/2019 (Mon) 08:23:44 [Preview] No.27077 del
The vast literature on the subject reached consensus only on the two points that (i) the crown which has borne his name for centuries, never embellished St Stephen’s head, and that (ii) the crown was assembled from parts with different provenance.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13015/1/13015.pdf, pp. 424

Gypsy BTFO

Bernd 06/10/2019 (Mon) 13:15:47 [Preview] No.27092 del
Just a quick post for today in this topic.
I gathered a handful of theory of how the hypothetical "corona latina" looked like. Most of them operates on the basis that there were 12 apostle icons originally. Some questions if those were on a crown at all before they were placed on the Holy Crown. Since today it seems sure it was never a crown in the first place and back in the day they recycled other items to create a new one it could have happened. But we have no actual evidence, so the icons may or may not were made specifically for the crown.
And since we're talking about the icons, in the previous posts about the apostles ( >>27050 and >>27052 ), look at their eyes, they all squinting. While the figures of the rim have directional looks, they look toward the front or stare back straight to anyone who looks at them (typically the two emperors) these ones on the top aren't. This squinting look might imply they doesn't watch this material world around them, but they look to the "other side", into heaven.

I won't post the head relic holder again, you can find it here >>26899
I think right now this is the post popular solution to a most likely nonexistent problem.

Bernd 06/10/2019 (Mon) 14:37:06 [Preview] No.27097 del

Bernd 06/27/2019 (Thu) 19:49:50 [Preview] No.27627 del
I continued the search for anomalies and curiosities on or related to the Holy Crown. Came across a striking and very original remark about the rim's icons.
Here: >>26986 the archangels have a childlike face.
Then here: >>26987 the warrior saints are look like a teenager.
Then comes the row of the healer saints: >>26988 they are young adults with beard.
And at the back of the Crown >>26892 we can find an adult Geobitzas with long beard (the position of his eyes fit into the order of the previous sets of icons).
That Emperor Kon however doesn't fit into this system, looks young and stares straight forward. The researcher who made this observation concludes his icon is a secondary placement (he bases this on several other facts and observations not only on this).

Bernd 06/27/2019 (Thu) 22:28:22 [Preview] No.27628 del
Fuck off gypsy

Bernd 06/28/2019 (Fri) 05:52:53 [Preview] No.27629 del
The next two peculiarities aren't with the Crown but the (Hungarian) Wikipee articles about the Crown.
I'm gonna take the simpler one first.

A Hungarian noble, certain Révay Péter, who hold an important office leading a county, was trusted as a Crown Guard at the dawn of the 17th century. He was there with Mathias II when he was crowned in 1608. This guy wrote a book about the Holy Crown, with the KC-tier title of De sacrae coronae regni Hungariae ortu, virtute, victoria, fortuna, annos ultra DC clarissimae brevis commentarius which was published in Augsburg, 1613. It was re-published a few times since proved to be a very popular work, I think on the Hungary only the Bible ranked more popular than this. The topic of this book is more of the spiritual and judicial work than an analysis of the Crown as an item or piece of art.
The book contains however a very concise description which became of the basis of certain speculations. "Official" researchers dismiss his book as a source since his description isn't clear and he seemed to made some mistakes. However his book came with an illustration, a depiction of the Crown which looks quite different from the real one.
Here's a screenshot of the Hungarian Wiki page which compares the drawing in the book and a later one from 1790. And the subtitle says: "Révay's drawing of the crown (above) and the depiction based on the official inspection of 1790 (below)"
The problem is that it isn't Révay's drawing. Originally it is an engraving made by a German artist, a certain Wolfgang Kilian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Kilian), who had never seen the crown, and only could use the little what Révay wrote.
Also there isn't just one but some (all?) later editions use another illustration which is very similar to the first one but still contain a few differing details.
So why the Wiki says it was made by Révay?

Bernd 06/28/2019 (Fri) 11:02:00 [Preview] No.27642 del
Nice fairy tales gypsy

Bernd 06/28/2019 (Fri) 17:41:08 [Preview] No.27686 del
I'm liking your thread a lot OP. Please keep posting. Pretty much anything involving Eastern European and Slavic history is interesting to me.

Have you ever thought of making a pdf for download for this thread(minus the replies)?

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 07:39:01 [Preview] No.27701 del
Thanks, I'm gonna continue, yes. If it makes Bogdan butthurt it just makes things more sweater. Even though nothing what's written should cause anyone butthurt.
This pdf thing isn't a bad idea. Other threads I made could also go into separate documents, Time Travel Thread for starters it died already but others might have interest in it. Maybe could be used these to support Endchan in some way, Odili has a Patreon for that, maybe could be made available for download there or something. What I write here couldn't publish under my name anyway.

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 11:46:34 [Preview] No.27711 del
why flying always lurk around the crown? why cant powerful soldiers, guns protect the crown or something more creative lurks around?

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 12:00:09 [Preview] No.27712 del
flying angels*

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 13:27:52 [Preview] No.27713 del
It represents the divine origin of the royal authority. Back than the source of sovereignty wasn't the consent of the people but God, so they thought. Also in the case of the Holy Crown the motif relates to the folk tales/myths I wrote here >>25095 at the 12b point. However I dunno if the picture was inspired by the myth or vice versa, or if they related in any way.

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 13:39:20 [Preview] No.27714 del
but putting humans or non divine beings would be.. more humanistic. as humans we have crushed our delusions. we dont need them anymore.

as long as it's not purely political and tries to rewrite history and traditions putting something wordly would be better.

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 14:03:30 [Preview] No.27715 del
That particular depiction was made in the 17th century. And - for example - our days' coat of arms where angels stand also originate from times when they mattered. Or have some other meaning.
And it's not really a delusion, divine could represent moral which still should make sense these days.

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 16:31:04 [Preview] No.27716 del
(113.50 KB 429x585 Reading.jpg)
I think Palemoon and Firefox has an option that lets you save a page as a pdf. Though I'm not entirely 100% sure.

You can also save a copy of an entire page by pressing cmd(or control) and the s button if you wanted to. But this won't let you expand the images inside a thread. They'll be in the default thumbnail display.

Another final and good option is making it yourself using Libre Office.


You can just put this thread's text inside a document, arrange the pictures, decorate if you want to and export it as a pdf. It surprisingly gives you a lot of options when making a pdf. Even giving you the option to embed external urls inside of it.

Bernd 06/29/2019 (Sat) 20:27:02 [Preview] No.27719 del
Yes, thanks, I did those stuff for one reason or another in the past. Now I thought about looking into Scribus but it might be an overkill when an LibreOffice Writer could do the job, I can edit, format the text and place the pictures around, maybe even make little descriptive captions below them. And some editing, re-drafting and correcting the text is in need.
I also thought about doing it with html, and convert it with Calibre. But that's too much manual work.

Bernd 06/30/2019 (Sun) 13:05:36 [Preview] No.27733 del
Later we will return to Mr. Révay because he adds a very controversial detail for Crown researchers, but for now let's continue with the other curiosity in the Wikipee articles.
This time it isn't on the page of the Crown. In 1993-94 another group of goldsmiths was allowed to examine the Crown, most likely because the so called Crown Committee wasn't pleased by the results of the previous band, who can be suspected that they wanted to find answers to certain questions and dismissed other facts they could have included in their work but didn't fit into their agenda.
This Committee was set up right at the moment when the Crown returned home from the US, and was the most influential authority in Crown-research up until 2000, since they could decide whom to allow in the vicinity of the Crown. By the 90's it was consisted of four people, an archaeologist/art historian, a museologist/art historian and two goldsmiths. The new goldsmith group was basically them.
I didn't have access to their reports - I think I mentioned this before, and I think it is an awful shame but this is what it is - so I read what's written on the Hungarian Wiki article about this. There are some interesting things here but there is one particular one about the "Corona Latina", which we already know it wasn't a crown at all in any point of it's history.
The article says that the goldsmiths found evidence that the cross straps were longer and contained the missing 4 apostles of the twelve.

Bernd 06/30/2019 (Sun) 13:11:23 [Preview] No.27734 del
On pic #1 it is fairly visible even to us that where the icons are placed into their sockets the gold plate has rectangular depressions. And here: >>26989 the "backside" of the Thomas icon is also a fair example. According to Wikipee similar depressions, or rather the outset of them were found by the goldsmiths on the end of the straps.
For us (the general public and not just us here in the thread) it would be nice to see actual photographs of these, sadly the article missing such.
I found an article in scientific journal however by the de facto leader of the Crown Committee (Lovag Zsuzsa) from 1986 where she published several photos of the cross strap pieces, two of them depict the lower parts which are joined to the rim. #2 and #3 this one is upside down are the photos in question. Granted they just black and white and not very good resolution, however we should see the signs of those initial depressions of the icons' sockets. There are none. The only observable unevenness is the result of the riveting process.
For reference #4 is a shot of a strap and the central piece (with the Pantokrator above), the depression is clearly visible on that.
The colored examples (#1 and the Thomas icon referenced above) also show no sign of such depressions tho it can be argued the angle makes it hard to recognize them.
It is possible that only one strap or maybe the two not published in the article - where I found the photos - have that feature, but that would mean only that one or those two had "extensions" and icons on them.
The members of the Crown Committee subscribe(d) to the hypotheses that say originally the cross straps contained the icons of all twelve apostles whatever it was (crown, relic holder etc.) before it was assembled with the rim, so maybe it was a wishful thinking on their part when they believed they saw those depressions, when they mistook random deformations with them. It was the verification of their own ideas so maybe they read more into them than they should had.
Or maybe the author of that article is in some monkey business - since the original reports can't be easily accessed. (In case a Hungarian reads this and has access to them: please share!)

Bernd 07/02/2019 (Tue) 20:21:48 [Preview] No.27808 del
As promised. now about Révay Péter, crown guard.
Briefly I wrote about who he was and for our purpose I don't think we need much more. For a reminder this his book about the Holy Crown and related topics:
De sacrae coronae regni Hungariae ortu, virtute, victoria, fortuna, annos ultra DC clarissimae brevis commentarius. Augsburg, 1613.
Second edition: couldn't find data - third, extended edition: 1659, by Nádasdy Ferenc justiciar (judex curiae regiae) - later editions (based on extended): Nagyszombat, 1732, 1735, 1749
One central question in the Crown-research is the three ruler icons on the back of the rim, them: >>26892 and their authenticity: if they are original to the Crown and if not when they were placed onto it.
We saw here >>26893 and here >>26989 that the Doukas icon doesn't fit at all and in general those researchers who question that those plates were on the Crown put Emperor Michael on the first place to be a suspect of a secondary addition. He is followed by Konstantine/Konstantios and Geobitzas is the third.
This is where Révay comes in the picture. In his book - as I mentioned - he gives a vague description of the Crown and a generalized list whose pictures can be seen on it. He finishes this list with a very interesting item: he says at the back of the crown on the rim above (where Doukas resides) the makers of the Crown put the depiction of Virgin Mary.
For a while now the "offical" line just waves away the problem this report represents, caliming that Révay wrote a bunch of nonsense, usually taking the image from his book (here: >>27629) and say: see how could we believe to Révay even his drawing looks nothing like the real Crown. So when they want to do a short job on this, they pull ad hominems instead of addressing the question.
Ofc there are some real arguments against it why the Virgin Mary couldn't be there, or how he could make the mistake to "put" her there even tho he saw several times the Crown, he could hold it in his hand observe it if it needs reparing (twice before the first publishing of his book and 3-4 times later).
There are also questions that how, when and who would have changed Mary to Michael who in 1790 was doubtlessly in his place, and those who accept Révay's report blindly usually blame Emperor Joseph II with the "vandalization" of the Crown who didn't even bothered to get crowned as a Hungarian king and tried to rule us as emperor. But where did he get that Byzantine icon which is more or less similar to the others? Or where he got a goldsmith who could make a fake one? Or why would he even cared to act so?
Much more likely this explanation here: >>26895 how Doukas get on the Crown.
Anyway, the Virgin Mary is/was very important to Hungary. According to the legend, Saint Stephen just before he died offered the Crown and the Country to Virgin Mary and among Catholics the kingdom was called Regnum Marianum for a long time. In this tradition Révay's report would fit splendidly, in a kinda poetic way to be honest.

Bernd 07/06/2019 (Sat) 16:09:31 [Preview] No.27861 del
I'm looking for actual arguments against Révay's statement that the Virgin Mary was on the Crown where now Michael Doukas is.
It does seem to me that up until the these years (maybe to 2017) there isn't any actual evidence were presented only speculations why he could mistake those two person, so basically those researchers who believed the authenticity of the Doukas icon and cared enough to spend some words on Révay, they tried to make up stuff to invalidate the contradictory evidence what Révay's statement means in relation their Doukas theory.
Only very recently was found something concrete, however I wouldn't bet my life on this either. So before the coronation of Mathias II (1608) the Crown was held "captive" in Prague by the Habsburg, until the new king-elect ordered to it's return to Hungary. On this occasion was Révay selected to be a crown-guard (with another) and he could examine the Crown both before and after the coronation. Then after this event during the coronation dinner it was displayed publicly many could walk up to it and check it out. Based on this muster one observer did make a drawing but it was lost for a long time, only was recovered recently and this new team of researchers could take a look at it. According to them while it is very faint they could make out the outline of a labarum the figure in question is holding in the hand, which cannot be an attribute of the Virgin Mary, but Doukas has one so it can only be the emperor.
I couldn't find the actual picture - maybe they published it in a book, I hope so - but it might be a wishful thinking on behalf of them. I found another interesting detail about Révay's observations...
In the first edition he mentions he noticed Greek letters on the crown and in the extended edition he says that on one icon he could spell out the letters KON, and based on this he recognized emperor Constantine I (the Great) in the icon, who gave a crown to pope Sylvester I, then later this crown was given by Sylvester II to our king Saint Stephen.
Now, if he observed well enough to recognize Greek letters, and he understood that one dude there is a Konstantine (albeit his conclusion, which Konstantine he is, is wrong), and it was obvious to him that this guy is an emperor, how could he confuse Mary with another emperor?

Picrel is just a fantasy how a supposed Virgin Mary could look like. Also there are some other info which might worth for me to check out.

Bernd 07/08/2019 (Mon) 08:02:29 [Preview] No.27876 del
This board is just one pathetic gypsy talking to himself.

Bernd 07/09/2019 (Tue) 19:22:17 [Preview] No.27924 del
Just an fyi, most people wont help support anything that does or encourages anything shady
I'm speaking about the some of the banners here, if I could be more blunt about the issue
>lol we're just being ironic and passive aggressive xD
People will still be turned off and wont pay anything. Even I don't feel like posting here so often because of it

Bernd 08/01/2019 (Thu) 17:50:25 [Preview] No.28382 del
Today is Swiss national holiday. As Hungary we don't celebrate independence, but the foundation of the country (although it was some sort of independence from Habsburg). The other countries had one, so we needed one too and summer is the best time for a day off. I just noticed that the United Kingdom doesn't even have such thing as national holiday, which celebrates the country itself.

Bernd 08/01/2019 (Thu) 19:51:06 [Preview] No.28385 del
(122.65 KB 1024x581 Augustweggen.jpg)
That's lovely. Happy Birthday eSwitzini!

Bernd 08/01/2019 (Thu) 20:38:20 [Preview] No.28387 del
Hungarians are not human
t. magyar

Bernd 08/01/2019 (Thu) 23:12:50 [Preview] No.28388 del
yeah erste august(?) it is. coolest fireworks time.

>although it was some sort of independence from Habsburg
well HRE wasnt a habsburg empire, there was some other dynasties that took over by election. you get your foundation after 30 years war right? just like netherlands afaik.

Bernd 08/02/2019 (Fri) 05:23:06 [Preview] No.28389 del
Well I wouldn't go that far to call us superhumans but yeah, for some extend I agree we are a little bit more special.

Habspergers are a Swiss family. They also claim suzerainty because they were dukes, it's not an emperor thing. And the communes had to fight to kick them out.

Bernd 08/02/2019 (Fri) 05:23:42 [Preview] No.28390 del

Bernd 08/02/2019 (Fri) 10:42:33 [Preview] No.28394 del
>Habspergers are a Swiss family.
yeah they were counts or barons used to be. around aarau if I recall right.

But I didn't know that, I had no idea about that, good to know.

Bernd 10/12/2019 (Sat) 09:25:47 [Preview] No.30319 del
stay uup

Bernd 10/12/2019 (Sat) 09:27:32 [Preview] No.30324 del
We have so many threads to save. I had a chat with BO and we think we should set up an archive somewhere somehow.

23rd October, Revolution and War of Independence of 1956 Bernd 10/23/2019 (Wed) 06:49:13 [Preview] No.30837 del
National Holiday today. Made threads previously but don't want to open a new one now. Maybe should write something, an aspect of the thing or just about a detail. Will see.

sage Bernd 10/23/2019 (Wed) 10:29:24 [Preview] No.30844 del
underage gypsy

Bernd 10/23/2019 (Wed) 10:30:16 [Preview] No.30845 del
>We have so many threads to save

I think you missed the point of anonymous imageboards, stupid gypsy

15th March, Revolution and War of Independence of 1848-49 Bernd 03/15/2020 (Sun) 16:19:47 [Preview] No.35166 del
It's national holiday time!
Since the related thread was lost (the one of October 6th and the Martyrs of Arad) I'll make the celebratory postenings here. I chew a little bigger than I could bite for one sitting, but it seems I've plenty of time in the near future to finish this topic.

Bernd 03/15/2020 (Sun) 16:22:10 [Preview] No.35167 del
Or rather bit more than I can chew... but...

Today I want to introduce you Görgey (or Görgei) Artúr, a hero of the War of Independence, who could have been the Hungarian Napoleon, but his tragedy was that his many qualities didn't cover the field of politics, so he was cast aside and labeled as a traitor, especially after he had to play the ungrateful role of the capitulating leader.
He lived a long life (1818-1916) most of it in obscurity. He grew up in an impoverished noble family with his nine siblings. In his early teen years he enrolled into the Kaiser's army, studied at the sapper school at Tulln, served as infantryman then hussar (in the Kaiser's Leibgarde too). But being an officer in peacetime wasn't much of a career, he left to pursue his interests instead, learnt chemistry (his publications were widely acknowledged). After his fifteen minutes of fame during the War, he spent some time in prison, and then while he did a few valuable works (like helping the new Defense Force to form in 1868), his name faded into the background.
His knowledge in military sciences was fairly deep, and was complemented with his innate talent for them. He had the mathematical and technical knowledge of military engineering, got to know the inner working of a general staff, understood organization and training, had insights into the problems of logistics. During the war he put them in good use, and as importantly his performance on the battlefield was swell, he parried operational challenges, and made strategically sound decisions. His personal bravery and sense of duty didn't lack either. I don't like to use superlatives, but he really was a damned good officer.

Bernd 03/15/2020 (Sun) 16:26:22 [Preview] No.35168 del
(1.33 MB 1602x1106 24_00n.jpg)
Now I didn't write the event history of the 1848-49 Revolution and War of Independence in previous national holiday threads which makes it little hard to introduce a new face or a concept related to the whole happening. So here, when I talk about an important soldier of the War, I really should outline at least the military events to some extent, and it gives an opportunity to direct light to his exploits throught the struggle.
The War was fought on three fronts, on the chief Western, and on two "auxiliary" operational areas, in Erdély (Transylvania proper) and in the Délvidék (the area now belongs to Serbia, Vojvodina). The latter two was consolidated gradually and could be considered pacified until the Russian intervention. The main theater of war was more changeable. It also consisted of smaller operational areas:
1. from Croatia and Slavonia toward Budapest
2. the main - from Wien to Budapest along the Danube, which passed the important fortress of Komárom
3. over the highlands
4. from Eperjes, through Kassa and Miskolc to the region of Eger
5. on the open lands of the northern parts of Danube-Tisza Interfluve, between Budapest and Szolnok
These were active during different periods of the War. Görgey himself was a key figure on all of them, tho in different assignments as he rose in the ranks with dizzying speed.

Bernd 03/15/2020 (Sun) 16:37:19 [Preview] No.35169 del
(1.52 MB 1084x768 Ozora.jpg)
(82.74 KB 634x415 Schwechati_csata.png)
He joined in the affair after the Revolution, in May. Enlisted to the military and Captain Görgey was entrusted with various organizational tasks, like recruiting, training, obtaining equipment and ammunition, and setting up the manufacturing of these. Right during these times he was noticed by Kossuth Lajos, minister of finance in the revolutionary government, then the prime minster/president of the second cabinet, and later governor himself, a great revolutionary, a central political figure, and who would deserve his own piece of discourse. Kossuth played an important part in Görgey's career arch and he became the source of blame which was shifted onto Görgey in the end. He probably both admired and feared the soldier's capabilities.
Then the first attack came on behalf of the Court, in 1848 September Jelacic, Croat Ban, moved against Budapest. Further to the East marched the troops of General Roth, whose job was to join Jelacic. Major Görgey commanded the vanguard of a unit entrusted to halt Roth and prevent the plan. First he forced to surrender Roth's vanguard, then helped to encircle Roth himself.
Jelacic was defeated and had to retreat toward Vienna moar liek Yellowcic amirite, where the October Revolution had just started. Colonel Görgey, attached to the main army, followed. On the occasion the Hungarian leadership committed a great blunder (well, it's more complicated than that, but it is out of our scope now). At the Austrian border our pursuing army was halted to lament if they have the right to enter. And by the time they decided that hell yeah we should help the Viennese revolutionaries, the uprising was quenched and the Kaiserlich troops could face the Hungarian army alone, on their terms, and from both quantitative and qualitative superiority. Here the fate of both Austria and Hungary could have been decided and the whole inconvenience stopped, but instead our host was defeated and the struggle got prolonged. The battle was at Schwechat (1848 October 30), where Major General Görgey was now in command on the centre or the army. The battle was hopeless, he could only cover the retreat of his infantry with his cavalry, preventing their total destruction.

Bernd 03/16/2020 (Mon) 22:59:52 [Preview] No.35207 del
>Jelacic was defeated and had to retreat toward Vienna moar liek Yellowcic amirite, where the October Revolution had just started. Colonel Görgey, attached to the main army, followed. On the occasion the Hungarian leadership committed a great blunder (well, it's more complicated than that, but it is out of our scope now). At the Austrian border our pursuing army was halted to lament if they have the right to enter.
Was it feasible to march on Vienna? Even with the city in flames it must've been well fortified on the outside.

Bernd 03/17/2020 (Tue) 00:50:52 [Preview] No.35209 del
>Today I want to introduce you Görgey (or Görgei) Artúr, a hero of the War of Independence

Are there any statues dedicated to him? Is his life celebrated in Hungary at all?

>After his fifteen minutes of fame during the War, he spent some time in prison

Why though?

Any books or movies about him?

Bernd 03/17/2020 (Tue) 06:46:48 [Preview] No.35215 del
>it must've been well fortified on the outside.
Exactly. The imperial troops had to siege the city as rebels seized control (their military commander was Joseph Bem - or Uncle Bem as we call him - who was quite good at his job). Windisch-Grätz could have been caught with his pants down and beaten.

Yes. More photos of picrel:
Not really.
It's not easy to judge the case of Görgey. Both public opinion and historical view changed a lot with the winds throughout the past 170 years. Recently - for example - quite a few works were published which takes his side with suspiciously great enthusiasm and are sold as official view of authoritative scientists who gives us the true gold standard in the question (even in historical journals not just by the press and media in general). I wonder when the mantra will change again.
So I'm struggling with my source material, that's the reason I not yet finished his story.
>>some time in prison
I was mistaken, he was detained in Klagenfurt, he could move freely just couldn't leave.
>Why though?
That's part of the problem and I wish to explore that.
>Any books
Many. He even have his own, published during the internment of Klagenfurt: Mein Leben und Wirken in Ungarn in den Jahren 1848 und 1849. Was published in English as well, I post that too.
>movies about
I don't think so. But literary works was written, dramas, novels and such, so might one could be implemented I guess.

Bernd 03/18/2020 (Wed) 17:12:57 [Preview] No.35266 del
Additional map for this, it's basically Western Hungary (Transdanubia).
Orange: imperials.
Green: Hungarians.
Red dots: battles.
So Jelacic came from the SE ("Horvátország"), take a rout south of Balaton Lake toward Pest-Buda, then got beaten at Pákozd, on Sept 29. From there he retreated to Vienna ("Bécs"). Meanwhile his reinforcement was beaten by Görgey and Perczel Mór (he was the senior at that time).
Jelacic's troops consisted regular imperial troops, Croat grenzers and other irregulars. At Győr the latter parts were detached and sent back to Croatia.
The Hungarian main force after Pákozd instead of pursue the imperials, was drawn back to a settlement to the east, and after then they followed. I'm not sure about that battle at Győr on the 7-8th October. Anyway the revolution in Vienna happened on October 6th, our army delayed to cross the Leitha to 28th. Then was beaten at Schwechat on the 30th by Windisch-Grätz.

Bernd 03/19/2020 (Thu) 20:07:59 [Preview] No.35299 del
(72.59 KB 885x590 Görgey-n-Kossuth.jpg)
(272.75 KB 1065x1675 Perczel_Mór_1848.jpg)
(23.72 MB 4384x3128 Móri_ütközet_1848.jpg)
Then came the problems.
Kossuth shifted one gear up, worked day and night to organize the defence, to build up a new army, to balance out the endeavors of the so called Peace Party who wished to seek an agreement with the Court. He tried to be everywhere, tried to control everything. He even tried to manually control Görgey, the new commander of the freshly beaten army, whom he had just appointed. Kossuth, led by his idealistic view on how things should happen, often gave contradictory or quickly changing orders to Görgey who on the other hand founded his own ideas onto the reality of the actual military situation he faced. He was on the scene and was in direct control of the troops. This was also a difference, Kossuth saw the larger scope of the conflict, Görgey - at that point, since that was his job - only could judge, based on his slice of the war, though he probably followed news from elsewhere. Their opinion clashed, Kossuth wanted him to hold as many land as possible, and encouraged him to undertake a battle to gain time and keep up the morale of the country, Görgey on the other hand avoided combat, since the opponent was way stronger, and retreated.
Meanwhile the front moved eastward again, a battle was lost by an other army led by General Perczel, which allowed the approach of the capital. The "neighbour" unit was Görgey's and the lack of help from him led Perczel to nurse a little grudge toward the hero of our story. As a result of the defeat the government and the legislation fled from Pest-Buda to Debrecen and the marshalling area of a new army, which could possibly confront Windisch-Grätz - the commander of the Emperor's army -. was rebased along the Tisza river. Görgey retreated again and Castle Buda was taken, with the city of Pest on the other side of the Danube. Görgey moved his army to a bit north along the great river to Vác.

Bernd 03/19/2020 (Thu) 20:19:01 [Preview] No.35301 del
The political situation wasn't clear. The legal ruler of the country was still Ferdinand, then Franz Joseph (tho he wasn't crowned yet, and was considered as a usurper by the Diet, ie. the parliament), but now the country found herself fighting them. This presented a dilemma for the officer corps of the Defense Forces, more precisely for those who took an oath for the king. This dilemma and the seemingly unavoidable defeat induced a mass desertion among the officers, about one third of them left the service. (Note: the Hungarian army consisted two main types of units: freshly organized national guards and "old" k.u.k. units with k.u.k. officers who chose to obey the Hungarian government for a reason or another, and were integrated into the body of the Defence Forces. Also I call units inaccurately as armies, they are brigades, divisions, and corps, I just don't want to add more pointless work to look up which was which.)
So in the early January of 1849 Görgey gave a proclamation. He shifted the blame onto the wartime government for the situation the army found itself in - he saves himself saying he takes the blame for following their faulty orders - then he collected his view into four points: the operation of the army should be based on the constitutional Laws of April (of 1848) signed by king Ferdinand V, he refuses and will fight any kind of republicanism, he only accepts commands from the legitimate minister of defence, he will only accept any deal with the enemy as legal if it is based and the constitution and saves the honor of the army (if it ensures they aren't committing treason with their struggle).
With this move he managed to stop the desertion of the officers (tho some argue that officers stopped leaving their units as well where they got to know about the proclamation much later), however it led to some tensions with the wartime government and kinda implied he won't obey to Kossuth's orders.

Bernd 03/19/2020 (Thu) 20:30:06 [Preview] No.35302 del
But he deviated from the plans too. Instead of holding the line in front of the main attacking force of the Emperor, and backing toward the marshalling area, he chose to evade instead and started a march toward north east. While his move weakened the direct defense of the new center of rally it was quite unexpected for the imperial command. They sent a considerable force onto his chase, in case he breaks into Austrian lands, or threatens logistically important settlements and supply lines. Görgey basically stopped the enemy's advance at the region of the Danube just the same.
His part in the so called Winter Campaign was a mixed bag. While he and his subordinate commanders lost more battles than won, the strategical goal to distract troops, and then joining to the rest of the forming Hungarian force was successful. They achieved some feats, and did surprising moves (like re-digging a route through an unused mine from one side of a hill to the other, and then retreat through the tunnel), and in overall it was an adventure for sure, but while he went on this hike through the Highlands, Kossuth decided whom he appoints as the new commander-in-chief and that person wasn't the obvious choice Görgey, but - as a reaction for the Proclamation of Vác - a Polish revolutionary, General Henryk Dembinski. He had experience in that role but he was a brand new face around here which led to a couple of disagreements with a few key figures - among them Görgey -, and lost his first important battle against Windisch-Grätz (at Kápolna, on 1849 February 26-27, I have my suspicion that his failure was "helped" by those key figures just a little bit, but maybe I'm just too cynical). After the popular demand of the high ranking officers - sometimes called as a mutiny -, he was dismissed, but his "heir" commander-in-chief Görgey was also dismissed by Kossuth a couple of days later. Which was way less harsh treatment than the original plan that Görgey gets a bullet in his head for organizing and leading the mutiny instead of suppressing those who objected Dembinski's nomination as asked by Kossuth earlier. It turned out he just joined but not led and after personal meetings and discussions with Kossuth, their relation normalized and when the next commander-in-chief was resigned citing his illness finally Görgey got the position for good.

In the first map Bernd can find Görgey's and his junior commanders activity in the north western segment, also on the colored map.

Bernd 03/19/2020 (Thu) 20:46:14 [Preview] No.35303 del
(7.14 KB 300x168 serveimage.jpeg)

Is that a bad portrait or was This Island Earth a documentary?

Bernd 03/19/2020 (Thu) 21:14:33 [Preview] No.35304 del
He was a Habsburg...
He suffered from some level of retardation, maybe he had hydrocephal or something.

Bernd 03/19/2020 (Thu) 21:41:50 [Preview] No.35306 del
Apparently he had epilepsy, the hydrocephal is just my speculation. He had a sharp mind otherwise. He was fluent in six languages: German, Italian, Czech, Croat, French, and Hungarian(!). Could play several musical instruments. He had humor too.
He just was useless as a ruler.

Bernd 03/21/2020 (Sat) 05:10:46 [Preview] No.35337 del
>Is that a bad portrait or was This Island Earth a documentary?

Why that's just the Royals keeping the bloodline pure, bernd

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 17:24:47 [Preview] No.35367 del
(511.66 KB 1529x1101 Spring Campaign.jpg)
(144.23 KB 1044x724 Komárom_Fortress_02.jpg)
(567.35 KB 1000x706 Komárom-16th-Century.jpg)
Görgey was a swell choice for the commander-in-chief position. Units were concentrated, new were drafted and he used them well. He beat Windisch-Grätz at Isaszeg (April 6), and turned the tables. The Spring Campaign proved to be successful although the main imperial force managed to slip out of their hands. Nevertheless they pushed the front back to the western border, they broke the siege of Komárom - an important fortress at the Danube west from the capital -, liberated Pest and recaptured Buda Castle. The War of Independence reached it's peak, now most of the country was under the control of the Hungarian government. The Hungarian Defence Force proved it can be a match for the imperial army.
The new challenge was the political situation. In a previous thread (October 6th, commemoration of the Martyrs of Arad) I wrote that just before the Revolution our nation could take four possible ways to implement the reforms that finally would dismantle the feudal structures. These routs all had their proponents whom constantly argued about implementation. The paths:
1. Proceed in a very cautious fashion with the lead of the Habsburg Court, small steps without great trauma;
2. constitutional monarchy with the Habsburgs at the helm, but apply the changes without their lead, their role was of the passive consenter's;
3. constitutional monarchy without the Habsburgs, fuck them;
4. republic.

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 17:29:18 [Preview] No.35368 del
After the first path led to a dead end due to Metternich's reactionarism the Revolution started us with the second. The person of the king suited for this, since Ferdinand V wasn't much of ruler anyway. The aforementioned Laws of April was signed by him, providing a constitutional basis for the civic changes.
It was fine until the camarilla made Ferdinand to abdicate in favour of his nephew Franz Joseph, and launched the attack to end this little rebellion of ours. The problem was that maybe the Austrian Emperor could just put his crown down but not the Hungarian king. On the basis of the ancient law if you were Hungarian king then you were in it 4life, n keepin it real. A new king had to be elected first, even if it was a formality (it happened in the past that crowned kings elevated an elected king beside them, the heir apparent and they co-ruled), and then he had to be crowned with the Holy Crown during a ceremony with specific rules*.
So it was a possibility to elect Franz Joseph, and wait until Ferdinand dies, then crown F.J. But nor the government neither the Diet were willing to do such things, especially since F.J. and the Court did not want to hear anything about the Laws of April they wanted to restore absolutist rule. From Olmütz he imposed his own constitution on us in early March, which pretty much intended to abolish self-determination, and taking out the control from the hands of the Diet and the government**.
It made clear the Habsburgs won't let us get away with constitutional monarchy, no matter if they remained the titular rulers. So next month the Diet dethroned them and declared independence. Kossuth became the governor, and now we were on the third path. And the fourth. The Declaration of Independence didn't settle the form of government, actually it didn't settle anything. The Laws of April was considered still in effect which implied constitutional monarchy, but our Coat of Arms was changed to a Crownless one, the so called Kossuth CoA, which basically a republican CoA and we didn't have a monarch but a "civilian" at the helm of the country. Many officers were against the dethronement and many more felt aversion toward a republic - smelled too much jacobin and they hated that -, and as before in January this made a particular stratum of the officers and even soldiers feel as they were oathbreakers, and technically this could be held against them (and it was going to). By that time Görgey built up quite a reputation among the fellow officers, he was widely respected, so when he said it's okay, they followed.

*If we really want to be nitpicky we can judge that many Habsburg rulers of ours weren't actually our kings by those rules. Ferdinand V neither.
**On the other hand it implemented modern civic changes, so it can be viewed as path #1. On similar basis the Compromise of 1867 (which given birth to the dualist Austria-Hungary) can be interpreted as a midway between the first two routs, hence compromise.

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 17:33:38 [Preview] No.35369 del
(111.77 KB 885x590 Kossuth-és-Görgey.jpg)
After some courtship Görgey accepted the position of the minister of defence from Kossuth. For a while he tried to ride both horses - the position of commander-in-chief and the ministership - simultaneously but that made the leading of the troops inefficient. He met the Peace Party however, which wished to seek an agreement with the Kaiser. Military dictatorship was discussed, that he should take over the power and then make an agreement with Franz Joseph how to place it into his. According to his memoir, he refused them, in an article - which actually takes his side - I read he offered military takeover, but the Peace Party shied off. According to Kossuth he promised Görgey many times to help him to more power if he wanted it, but Görgey was reluctant, even make him agreeing the ministership wasn't easy. I guess he really didn't want political power, he was fine as a soldier, a high ranking one, but still just a soldier.

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 17:48:41 [Preview] No.35370 del
(130.14 KB 824x1300 Haynau.jpg)
(47.60 KB 435x568 Ivan_Paskevich1.jpg)
(590.88 KB 1529x1101 1849-summer.jpg)
New development was the Tsar's involvement in the War. The victorious spring triggered the Court to seek his help, however for the lack of precise information quite a few people (among them the Peace Party, and maybe Görgey, or even the members of the government) thought it was a reaction for the declaration of independence. The news arrived spring, the armies summer.
The plan was to face the Kaiser's and try diplomacy against the Tsar's. After the battles in the west didn't produce the results fast enough, the government decided to concentrate the armies near Szeged (in the south on the Great Plain) which was a silly plan since that allowed Haynau and Paskevich to join forces. Btw Haynau (the Hyena), he was freshly appointed to lead the imperial troops on Hungarian lands, after he was recalled from his Italian holiday mayhem. He was a tougher nut than Windisch-Grätz.
Görgey commuted between Pest and Komárom which served as the main base for the western operations. His division between his two office hindered him to serve optimally, finally his appointment as a minister was revoked (thanks for a mixup), he got a headwound which incapacitated him for a while, and they had to give up Transdanubia according to the new plan. They were late and a Russian unit stood already in their way. They had to evade which made their trip longer, and Russian envoys approached him but apparently they were just distractions to grant time for an encirclement. Görgey didn't let his army getting trapped but himself sent messages to Paskevich, in word and in letter. He prodded the Russian leadership if we could capitulate to them, and what would they think if they could place a Russian ruler above our country. Problem was he didn't have the authority to parley and the government didn't know about his diplomatic actions, they were informed after the fact.
Our armies had no time to unite. The main force was led instead of Arad to Temesvár by Dembinski, the place was in the hand of the enemy, and he managed to send the baggage train with the supplies elsewhere. For his failure he gave up the command, and Bem was trusted with that, he couldn't do much but went to battle against Haynau on the 9th of August, and our army got destroyed. Görgey stood at Arad where the same day he had a meeting with Kossuth. Kossuth reproached Görgey, but essentially they discussed the case if we lose the battle, Görgey raised the possibility of the capitulation.
Few hours later when the news arrived Görgey went to Kossuth and asked to give him the power, the Russians did't negotiate with the revolutionary government, only with the military. Kossuth resigned and Görgey assumed dictatorship. On 13th August at Világos he laid down the arms in front of a Russian general, Rüdiger.

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 17:56:14 [Preview] No.35371 del
(285.01 KB 1280x649 thorma_janos_arad.jpg)
(543.28 KB 2500x1876 Klagenfurt.jpg)
Mopping up left for the invaders, the remnants of the military dispersed. Some tried to give themselves up some put the border into target and left, officials and even a few civilians did similarly. The Ottoman Empire was a first station, there they could gain asylum, few stayed, most left to west. Kossuth himself went to Paris, London, America, tried to drum up support for the cause of the Revolution, he lived the rest of his life for this. The Emigration made this for its profession, rekindling the resistance, renew the struggle. They tried to exploit every possibility, great opportunities were the unification of Italy and Germany. Veterans of the War of Independence fought in great numbers in Italy, some even in the American Civil War***.
At home the iron fist smashed down with brutality, Haynau made sure of that. Officers and officials whom they could arrest were executed by the hundreds others imprisoned for a long time. Simple soldiers were press-ganged into the imperial army. On 6th October, the thirteen martyr, 12 generals and a colonel was executed at Arad (Bernd might remember), the Prime Minister of the first government was shot at Pest.
It's an enigma how Görgey got away with being the most prominent general of the Defence Force. He was relocated to Klagenfurt where he lived till 1867 in relative freedom, although he couldn't leave and couldn't get a job and had to live on the bare minimum provided by the Habsburg state. The most recent version of the speculation is, that after he fell into Russian captivity the Tsar threatened the Emperor, that they will bring Görgey to Russia as a badge of their triumph if they don't give him amnesty. Or they wanted to use the young (he was 31!) and talented general against the Habsburgs in case of a war. I think historians give rationalizations of dubious value, but if he really wasn't a traitor or an agent of the Habsburg Court (probably wasn't either), it is very likely the Russians pressured Franz Joseph and Haynau to leave him alone.

*** Here's a list of their names, saidly no English page:
First seven are generals.

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 18:02:18 [Preview] No.35372 del
(201.75 KB 1000x600 Vidin-castle.jpg)
But not the speculation around the lack of his execution led to the stigma which labeled him as a traitor, although it was part of it.
Kossuth - as I mentioned - went to emigration, on August 12 he sent a letter to Görgey explaining why he gave up the power to him and with more reproach, on the 17th he crossed the Ottoman border with his brain grinding over the events of the past year, and not a month later he sent his so called Letter of Vidin to the diplomats in England and France, to the emissaries and ambassadors of the Revolutionary Government still staying in foreign countries, so they have something to ask help with from the western powers. His goal was to demonstrate that not the weakness of arms but treachery led to the downfall of the Revolution, he wanted to give hope for a restart and explanation. The letter ofc reached Hungary too, probably was intended, so it was designed to revitalize and dispelling doubts in our strength. I read it and I also see a mind which tries to rationalize how they could lose from the sure position of '49's spring.
In this letter he recaps the events, and how Görgey sunk the morale of the army. How he managed to tie the officer's loyalty to himself, how they nurtured royalist sentiments, how they spread hopelessness, how they wasted lives and resources, how avoided combat when they should have and entered unnecessary fights when they shouldn't, how they conspired with the Peace Party, and how they continuously parleyed with the Russians. And as a closing accord he reached for military dictatorship, and how he pressured Kossuth with the help of several ministers to give up the governorship, and then laid down weapons before the Russians.
Kossuth was also surrounded with people who had little sympathy for Görgey, like Perczel and Dembinski, their voice was also heard, and many others who hopped onto the bandwagon and found faults in Görgey's decisions and moves throughout the whole War. Came the "what if" scenarios, which discussed up to this day, and almost as popular here like the similar exercises related to WWII, which Bernd is familiar with.
Following the years of the War Görgey being a traitor was a prevailing view, as a reply he wrote the aforementioned book, the Mein Leben und Wirken in Ungarn in den Jahren 1848 und 1849. This offered his side of the story which not just added shades for the question, but many veteran decided to absolve him and declare him as not traitor.

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 18:16:56 [Preview] No.35374 del
I read in an essay that during the interwar period a cult was built around him, as a great leader of the army, they looked favorably his figure. After WWII the communist historiography dusted off the accusation. Their reason to do so was that they needed to present Kossuth as a socialist forerunner who ofc was infallible in his wisdom and his work had to be undermined by the inner enemy, the traitors, which against the communist regime in the early 50's also considered as the greates threat. So basically they created a historical analogy from their story, and justification for their own actions.
Contemporary authors - at least those whose works used for Wikipee and newspaper articles - seem to accept Görgey's side more, even might without criticism. The everyday people... they don't give a fuck about the whole thing ofc, they are uninterested in the topic, those who dabble in history are usually nationalistic and frequently against Görgey - tho his character offers nationalists something to be proud of.
I think he was a talented commander but he didn't have the time to mature into the role of a general. It is hard to judge his real quality due to all the factors outside the influence of his person, and he only had a year to shine. As being a traitor, I do not believe that, even if he made a deal with the Russians, a capitulation for an amnesty, and he certainly wasn't a methodological saboteur, an agent of the Habsburg Court. Against the overwhelming odds which the Russian intervention presented, the chance of victory was minimal. And the little what we had was threw away by the blunders of other leaders (such as Dembinski). Laying down the weapons was the only thing to do.

I think the topic of '48-49 would deserve some posts, since it's one of the most important event in the modern history of Hungary, an arch and catalyst which led from the Reform Era to the Compromise and Dualism. Checking out the war in a bit more detail not concentrating on Görgey but follow other fellows a little. Examining the army maybe.

23th March, Polish-Hungarian Friendship Day Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 20:13:13 [Preview] No.35376 del
(111.13 KB 572x768 jozef-zachariasz-bem.jpg)
(603.52 KB 1548x1914 Józef_Bem.JPG)
(17.67 KB 395x241 lengyel-magyar.jpg)
Now that we're talking about Polish generals...

Bernd 03/23/2020 (Mon) 23:09:06 [Preview] No.35385 del
I feel like Eastern Europe has so much history over it that people barely know or talk about. So many heroes, tales and adventures have happened there.

You could spend ages talking about its history. Could probably make 50 different TV shows over it. Even more

>Polish-Hungarian Friendship Day

Will you be giving a history post about it? Should be good.

Bernd 03/24/2020 (Tue) 06:49:35 [Preview] No.35388 del
>Eastern Europe has so much history
There were as much epic struggles, dramas, and tragedies like everywhere else. But probably as we go back in time they will become less and less well documented especially compared to Western Euro happenings. Völkerwanderung is a great mystery for example.

Well I could write episodes of Polish-Hungarian friendship, about the threads the two country tied together with. The day I think is just an agreement. Some importance it has but I'm not sure what past event it commemorates.
>history post
I'm not sure how historical what I write, I'm working from primary and secondary sources (or in case of articles they can be tertiary basically) and sometimes I try to seek a consensus, sometimes I put those ideas forward which I feel right or more interesting or less discussed (I liek alternative explanations and I try to leave the more fantastic behind and make the rest agree somehow with the more accepted and established), and sometimes I filter things through my own interpretation like here >>35367 in case of that list or routs and when I return to that list for a comment - I've never seen it drafted or worded like that but for me it makes sense in my explanation the easiest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing bs here, if you check out the topics (eg. in Wikipedia) you'll find the factual conformity. What could be different is the conclusions, which even historians like to sell theirs as facts and it's even more frequent that a historian arrives to a conclusion - or a hypothesis - and the next one uses that as a fact to build his own onto that, and sometimes they use a conclusion - or hypothesis - so many times in this fashion that all will think it's a non-disputable fact. And it becomes a historical dogma noone dares to question..

Bernd 03/24/2020 (Tue) 09:28:52 [Preview] No.35390 del
but that's Murat Pasha

Bernd 03/24/2020 (Tue) 20:12:49 [Preview] No.35400 del
(956.64 KB 1026x1647 Kurshid-Pasha.jpg)
Poles are Turks therefore they are Mongols.
Also here's an Island Slav Turk general of ours.

Bernd 03/25/2020 (Wed) 00:44:23 [Preview] No.35407 del
A lot of Poles surprisingly defected to the Turks against the Austrians.

Bernd 03/25/2020 (Wed) 05:51:55 [Preview] No.35409 del
It isn't surprising. By that time the Ottomans were in decline and their threat to Europe/Christianity was very little to none. Poland was dismantled by three powers not one of them the Turks. They had their independent movements, I think chiefly against Russia, and after their failed tries many had to fled, they went toward Hungary where they weren't bothered much - Hungarian nobility and intellectuals (whom mostly from the nobility) understood and sympathized with them - but they could only stay in exceptional circumstances (like the 1848-49 Revolution and War of Independence) since the Habsburgs had extradition agreement with the Romanovs. One refuge were the Ottomans.

Bernd 03/28/2020 (Sat) 20:24:19 [Preview] No.35516 del
So let's talk briefly about Polish-Hungarian relations, the possible sources the sympathy and friendship between the two nation.
Our history intertwines since the formation of our statehood. In the beginning it was on the level of foreign politics, the Piast and Árpád dynasties strengthened their relation via marriages. Very notable example is our king Saint Ladislaus (ruled: 1077-1095) whose mother was Polish princess. Due to the inner struggles of the House of Árpád, his father prince Béla with his brothers had to fled the country and found safe refuge in the Piast Court, he even led an army of theirs against Pomerania.
Back then the Hungarian dynastic politics had four chief partners: the HRE (with Bohemia), Poland, Kiev and Byzantium. There were other relations, and webs of marriages, but these were the main ones. With the decline of Byzantium, and the Mongol conquest this reduced to the first two, though important marriages were bargained with powers further to west, which helped the Anjou's onto the throne of Hungary after the House of Árpád died out ont he male line.
The strategical nature of our relation with the Polish Kingdom remained intact. First with Bohemia they created the V3 (Congress of Visegrád) which was an alliance and a commercial agreement between the three rulers. Then Anjou Louis I inherited the Kingdom of Poland, and our states formed a personal union. His daughter, Jadwiga followed on the throne (she was canonized recently, another saint of the Polish-Hungarian relations), and her marriage made possible for the Jagiellonians to acquire the kingship. They become not just important partners for the Hungarian rulers, but gave three kings for us as well, one died tragically on the battlefield of Mohács in the struggle against the Ottomans.

Bernd 03/28/2020 (Sat) 20:27:16 [Preview] No.35517 del
This struggle became a common cause of ours for the coming centuries from the appearance of the Ottomans on the Balkans. With our country torn three after the fall of Buda (1541) the Polish foreign politics dealt with two Hungarian states, the Kingdom with the Habsburgs, and the Principality of Transylvania with her changing ruling families. The relation of the Princes to the Sublime Porte varied during this era, some were more independent than others, some had better relation with the Habsburgs, some dreamed of winning the Kingdom for themselves. One however was approached by some representatives of the Sejm, they offered Anna Jagellion's hand in marriage to Stephen Báthory, and with her the power over of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After him, the Princes saw the relations with Poland even more important if it's possible, but more importantly the interactions between the two nations (if I'm allowed to write this term somewhat anachronistically) started to change, from high politics it moved onto lower levels as well.
Gonna continue from here.

Bernd 04/06/2020 (Mon) 01:56:08 [Preview] No.35674 del
>Instead of holding the line in front of the main attacking force of the Emperor, and backing toward the marshalling area, he chose to evade instead and started a march toward north east. While his move weakened the direct defense of the new center of rally it was quite unexpected for the imperial command. They sent a considerable force onto his chase, in case he breaks into Austrian lands, or threatens logistically important settlements and supply lines. Görgey basically stopped the enemy's advance at the region of the Danube just the same.
This sounds foolish at first, why would he retreat from the enemy's main invasion corridor (which I guess, after the Danube was secured, that the next Habsburg target was to cross the Tisza and get to Debrecen) and move away from it to the less relevant highlands? But it seems the Austrians were also dazzled by this foolishness and played along, so they were more foolish. Or maybe they in this case they thought their logistics would not allow a push that far with Komárom still untaken, and/or cared about facing armies more than catching territory. How much more progress could they have made on the main invasion corridor if they had just ignored Görgey? From the map it seems Jablonowski and Csorich could have instead fought in the push o the Tisza. Or maybe moving everyone on this corridor would leave them vulnerable to a a flanking attack by Görgey coming down the highlands.

>3. constitutional monarchy without the Habsburgs, fuck them;
And which other noble house could take the throne?

>The most recent version of the speculation is, that after he fell into Russian captivity the Tsar threatened the Emperor, that they will bring Görgey to Russia as a badge of their triumph if they don't give him amnesty
This Russian favoritism is really intriguing. He couldn't provide any aid to the Tsar while living in Klagenfurt, maybe return to Hungary to fight the Habsburgs again if another revolution were to happen at a time Russia were hostile to Austria, but that would be an unlikely combination of events and out of mind in a time the Kaiser and Tsar were friendly. Was it just respect from his earlier negotiations to fold to Russia?

Bernd 04/06/2020 (Mon) 15:57:43 [Preview] No.35684 del
(899.73 KB 776x880 Hunyadi.jpg)
(543.66 KB 2502x3520 Horthy_1943.jpg)
>northern by-pass
I will look into his memoirs about this. But.
I know there were considerable amount of reinforcement in the Highlands, and maybe even supplies. The towns were traditionally rich (originally Saxon - liek Zipsers - and Swabian settlers founded mining towns) and important industrial centers. At first Görgey wanted to break the siege of Lipótvár which was held by 1500 patriot against Simunich's 5000 men, from there they could have reached Pozsony easily (earlier the seat of the Diet, due to it's closeness to Vienna), or move to either Komárom or Győr, all three cases would landed them behind the imperials and on their supply lines.
The imperals also could hope for some popular support in the Highlands (or Upper Hungary), among the tót part of the Northern Hungarians those who speak Czech funny a priest named Hurban recruited irregular force against the Revolution this movement was way less considerable than today the Slavic nationalists of Northern Hungary try to imply, the main body of the tóts sided with the Hungarian revolutionary government.
So Görgey had to be kept in check. Windisch-Grätz sent a force from his troops, which made his army weaker. He also wanted to concentrate more units onto the Great Plain, most notably Schlick's, but at that moment when Görgey left, Simunich's too. I read that the imperial high command didn't have reliable intel nor about the strength of our forces neither their exact location this made W-G cautious (maybe even confused).

>And which other noble house could take the throne?
I dunno if they had any plans on that, or who wanted to elect whom. In practice Kossuth became governor and weren't much talk about coronation.
Our kingdom without a king can work fine. The Holy Crown is the embodiment of the kingship, and the source of royal power. During the middle ages a tradition formed which is now called Holy Crown Doctrine (I'm not aware an official translation of the name, it contains/contained both customary and written law) which treats the Crown basically both as an abstract idea (with notions such as the will of the people) and as a legal person (such as the owner of the crown lands - this part can be familiar). From 1446 in the absence of a king (during interregnums for example) a governor (gubernator) gets elected and rules instead the king, the legal basis and the practice of this rule was regulated on ad hoc basis, there weren't explicit guidelines for that I think, but generally were under the supervision of the Diet/legislation (as the will of the people and the will of the Crown).
The kingless kingdom works as a republic with a "civilian" at the helm. In case of Kossuth, he was called a governor-president - which probably made many peeps twitchy, projecting a republican turn. Anyway keeping the kingdom in our case is a question of tradition and the continuation of a thousand year old legitimacy.
As a nice touch, the Prime Minister of the first "responsible" government as they called it responsible to the Parliament not the king took an oath to the Holy Crown. They took it seriously.
Picrels: first and last governors.

Bernd 04/06/2020 (Mon) 16:04:56 [Preview] No.35685 del
>This Russian favoritism is really intriguing.
I dunno what the Russian leaders had seen in keeping him around. Sure it quickened the end of the war and spared many life on all sides, but was that important to them? Some prestige, the capitulation meant, for the Tzar, but was that much? Well Haynau fumed about it at least, maybe the Russian generals enjoyed rubbing it in or something. Did they respected him? We have no insight into their thought process, no written source historians now about.

cont. Bernd 04/14/2020 (Tue) 18:07:26 [Preview] No.35916 del
With Báthory quite a few Hungarians arrived to Poland, nobles, officials, priests, scientists, artists, chiefly to help him, but he also acted as a maecenas. It is a safe bet to assume with previous "exchanges" of rulers a certain amount of Hungarians went to Poland, and Poles arrived to here. But they were from the upper echelons of society can't really consider them as relation of the two people.
This relation started in the late 17th century, when a movement rose in our kingdom which simplistically can be called as anti-Habsburg. It had religious taint as well, but chiefly was a centralization-decentralization struggle. On one level the court pursued absolutist notions, on the other they wanted to integrate our kingdom into their empire, rule it via the empire's administration and not as a separate state. The background for all that was the receding Ottoman grip on the occupied third of the country. In the struggle the so called kuruc movement formed, and it culminated in the 1703-11 Rákóczi War of Independence, and the first dethronement of the Habsburgs (Rákóczi Ferenc II was offered the Crown by the Diet, he refused he was fine with the "dux et princeps" titles, interesting fact: as a foreshadow of 1848 and the disintegration of feudal ties, they also introduced universal taxation). Now the fighters of the kuruc side - from the lowly peasants to the highest nobility - often found refuge on Polish lands, where they were welcomed fairly and allowed to reorganize and put together new ventures.

Bernd 04/14/2020 (Tue) 18:14:50 [Preview] No.35917 del
Then in the 18th century, the dice turned, and Poles found themselves in the pickle. By the end of the century their state ceased to exist. The official political ties lost entirely between the two countries, but those who were persecuted in Poland, or on the ex-Polish lands could find safety in the Hungarian Kingdom. Hungarian intellectuals - especially those who were influenced by the new ideologies of the Enlightenment era - followed the events of the neighbour, articles and books were written about Polish topics, in poetry the motif of the Friendship appeared for the first time. Kościuszko was held in breddy high regards and after the failure of the Uprising he led, many rebel were hidden here.
During the November Uprising (1830) the Hungarian counties collected donations and offered monetary support. Some went to Poland and joined the military to actively participate. Our leading politicians and personalities of the Reform Era openly gave voice of their views on behalf of the Polish cause. When the end came, refugees of the Great Emigration were helped through the country so they could reach their western destinations. In '48-49 the veterans of this Uprising not just fought in our armies by the hundreds, but led them too. Until then they enjoyed safety in our country, despite Austria extradited Polish subversive elements to Russia, and they expected that Hungarian authorities arrest and deport such people. They didn't.

Bernd 04/14/2020 (Tue) 18:28:39 [Preview] No.35918 del
(30.77 KB 347x400 Wysocki_Jozsef.jpg)
(70.92 KB 768x479 legiony-1848.jpg)
(169.11 KB 939x659 Dualism.jpg)
During 1848-49 Poles participated actively both in the Revolution and in the following War of Independence. Their emigration greeted it wholeheartedly, they saw a possibility to expand the revolution to Galicia and then who knows what could follow (this is a rare "what if", what would have happened if we had won?, maybe we could have helped the revolution in Vienna?, and then the Italian uprising?, helping Poland gaining independence?). They organized the Polish Legion (Legiony Polskie) and every unit and every men were directed to there, this unit was used independently. Quite a few soldiers left the imperial army (Poles from Galicia served there) and signed up at ours.
Then in the next Polish uprising in 1863 the Hungarian emigration helped as they could, the homeland still suffered the opression which folled the revolution.
The Dualist Monarchy (Austria-Hungary) meant peace, and Poles came to find work. Some settled here, but most was just seasonal. Polish civil organizations formed here, Polish subdivisions were added to already existing ones (e.g. in the Alliance of Hungarian Lawyers). An important institution was formed, the Hungarian-Polish Society which became a focal point of deepening relations and organizing events. Ofc, these groups weren't just cultural or friendly, they often actively supported the cause of Polish independence.

Bernd 04/14/2020 (Tue) 18:53:29 [Preview] No.35919 del
I would be interested if there was a closer camaraderie between Hungarian and Polish soldiers (who fought in the newly formed Polish Legion), but I've no data about it.
Trianon parted us, no more common frontier, Hungary became isolated, and our foreign politics concentrated on the revision of Trianon, while they tried to rebuild the destroyed and plundered country. Poland was a freshly restored state, it's land was a battlefield during the Great War, reorganizing, rebuilding was the chief immediate goals after the war.
As for foreign relations, it was friendly, both country held the other important in what-if scenarios. Poland generally pursued peaceful relations with their neighbours, tho it had conflicts with Czechoslovakia, just like us, in case of an open conflict we could regard each other as allies. Since Poland saw the threat in the Soviet Union, Romania was a potential ally on that front, so they tried to sooth our conflict with them.
There were quite a few loose federal concepts in the minds of some politicians when they thought about the future of the Central Eastern European countries (sometimes supplemented with Italy in their calculations), but these theories were closer to fantasy than reality.
By '39 Poland expressed concerns that Hungary got too close to Berlin, but after the first revision we got back the eastern parts of the lost Upper Hungary, the common joy of restoring a part of the thousand years old border won over the bad feelings. Our leadership furthermore told to both Polish and German diplomats that we won't participate in a war against Poland and won't allow German troops through our lands either - our politicians referred to the traditional friendship. In secret we also warned Poland about the German attack.
Civilian ties weren't severed either, the Hungarian-Polish organizations worked on during this period. And some provided a mean when Hungarian volunteers wished to fight on the Polish side, right after the war broke out.

Bernd 04/14/2020 (Tue) 19:01:28 [Preview] No.35920 del
In '39 September Poland was divided again. Soldiers and civilians en masse crossed our border and we helped them to flee and even allowed the Polish resistance to organize their army, despite German protests (although had to take some formalities as if we were doing something about it). Emigrants could set up civil institutions here, press, courts, schools, libraries, cultural events, all supported by the Hungarian state.
During the Warsaw Uprising a corp of ours - stationed in the neighbourhood - helped with food, ammunition and looked the other way when it came to Polish troop movements and flight.
After the German occupation the leading figures of the Polish emigration were arrested, some were executed at place, some ended in Mauthausen. During '44-45 were marched to Germany to forced labour. I think the Jews from Poland - some thousands arrived - were transported to Auschwitz.
After the war most returned to Poland, but some settled at us.

Bernd 04/14/2020 (Tue) 19:07:30 [Preview] No.35921 del
(941.03 KB 1500x813 Poznan-1956.jpg)
(95.32 KB 904x666 V4.jpg)
Again the two countries were cut off form each other and the tourism in the following one and a half decade were basically non-existent, so beside politics there weren't much contact between the two nations. But the events of 1956 showed the living sympathy and camaraderie between us. For the similar societal background both nation reacted similarly to the forced stalinization, in '56 first the Poles had an uprising in Poznan, then for the popular demand a softer government was installed in Poland by the Soviet. Our protests in October were organized as a sympathy movement toward the Poles, and these protests turned into the Revolution and then and independence war. Polish reaction followed, they also held protests in solidarity.
From the 60s our economy became more free, here people even could buy certain western goods. The whole Block everyone came here to do their shopping, among them Poles. But Poland offered a more liberal cultural and intellectual atmosphere, displays of modern art and cinematography, so people went there on holidays, Poland meant a window to the world. By the '80s the "underground" opposition also had ties, risky documents and books were published in the other country, for example documents of '56 in Poland, but documents of Katyn in Hungary.
After the regime change we remained on the same course, NATO, EU. The V3 was resurrected again, and now it's V4. Tourists come and go, and our workers do their job together in Western factories if the choose to move there. We have streets named after Polish people and places, statues and monuments in commemoration of past events. We have this Friendship Day, and some official gestures always made (e.g. Orbán when won the election, as a PM he visited officially Warsaw first).

Bernd 04/14/2020 (Tue) 19:14:09 [Preview] No.35922 del
(761.40 KB 1080x1080 1555482812248-0.jpg)
As a summary we can say that the friendship between our nations is a modern thing, despite the millennia old relations, which actually didn't went further than any two neighbouring medieval countries' did. But certain circumstances in those times denied real enmity from formation.
Between our countries a formidable and well defined border stretched, the Carpathians, which prevented convenient border conflicts, petty raids. Settlements up there were few, far, and small, not worth the effort. Our rare conflicts therefore had different reasons, and different theaters, the Bohemian throne was such a cardinal point for example.
On the other hand we had similar enemies. Both country lay along the east-to-west/west-to-east highway, as obstacle to any expansions from these directions. German hammer fell on us both not on one occasion, and had to fight against various eastern neighbours, most notably had to suffer from Mongol-Tatar invasions, campaigns and raids. Although we had the Carpathians as a nice cushion from the east, while Poland is entirely open, another highway run through our country, from the south, south-east. First Byzantium, then the Ottomans were the anvil when the aforementioned hammer fell, and ofc their roles changed, often had to suffer the punches from the powers of the south, where the Ottomans in the end became a common enemy for us and the Poles.
Tho I have to add, during medieval times certain societal characteristics developed - such as the highest percentage of nobility and it's consequences - which allowed and caused similar mentality to evolve.
So the rivalry eluded us but suffering from similar fate - losing independence, suffering from similar societal backwardness - created mutual sympathy and understanding. Giving mutual assistance was the next step, and the common cause and more importantly the common struggle finished up forming the friendship.

Even today we are walking in the same shoe, have to jump the same obstacles, licking the same arses, eating the same turd sandwiches. We have similar reactions to events, similar interests which influences these reactions. Not many issues we could clash about. We have to kinda watch each other backs too.
Many of our people perhaps don't care, but many other still keeps the sympathy alive.

Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply