COMMENTS ON FOMENKOLOGY: MY COMMENTS No. 2

HUNGARY AS OBSERVER OF BATTLE OF CHRONOLOGIES?

B. Lukács

President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Co-president of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Member of the Astronomical Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

RMKI KFKI (CRIP), H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

ABSTRACT

A. T. Fomenko, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, differential geometer claims that (European?) history datings are fatally wrong before 13th century, AD. Historians seem generally believe that he is fatally wrong. I suggest to use Hungarian history for deciding the question; I explain the suggestion.

1. INTRODUCTION

Academician and department head (differential geometry) A. T. Fomenko, with coworkers, claims that the usual historical dating system is wrong. The suggested new system, with some simplifications, seems the following (see [1], [2], [3], [4] and citations therein). I emphasize that the following list does not imply my opinion in any sense: I list the statements of the new school for comparison. See my previous work too about "New Chronology [5].

I used Refs. [1], [2], [3] and [4] as standard sources for New Chronology, and I will not cite them again and again. The aim of Number 2 comments is to confront Fomenkology to standard Hungarian history + some evidences. The reason is as follows. The Carpathian Basin (which is a synonym in history for Hungary; between 1000 and 1920 AD the two names mean one entity from two aspects: geographical and political) is almost closed, especially on the North and East where mountain ridges well above 2000 m separate lowlands within and outside. Therefore direct Eastern influences were rare in Hungarian history. In addition, Hungarian Kings, as far back as we can go, emphasized that, while they belong to Western Christianity, they do not recognise any emperor above them: neither Eastern nor Western. While the royal title and the crown (either the same as our Holy Crown, or not) came from the Pope of Rome (Sylvester II), it did not involve papal vassalage (as in Croatia it did) and the Holy Crown of Hungary is closed above (while the Croatian one is open; one can compare them on the official coats-of-arms of both countries).

So in the scenario of New Chronology one would expect special position for Hungary: more or less an observer of the struggle of West and East. The World History of New Chronology is a huge "prediction" of the theory. New Chronology alters the possible interactions, connections &c. A theory, according to Sir Karl Popper, is a theory if it can be verified or refuted by comparison to evidences &c. I suggest to anybody wanting to prove/disprove New Chronology to compare it to Hungarian data. But Hungarian history is not too well known either on the West, or on the East, therefore I have written this Comment.

Sect. 2 recapitulate some claims of New Chronology. Sect. 3 compares Hungarian national history in Old Chronology and World History in New Chronology, from 1000 to 1301. Chapter 4 lists arguments against an idea that Magyars, founders of Hungarian State and original speakers of Magyar language (often improperly called Hungarian), were phantoms or mythical ancestors. Sect. 5 tells details about the affair in 1241-42 when Mongols (in Old Chronology) or Russian State (in New Chronology) occupied Hungary for cca. one year. Chapter 6 shows an example how to use Hungarian history to check New Chronology (when it will be complete). An Appendix give the ruling times in Hungary between 1000 and1301 in graphic form.

It is not my task to check the Chronologies. Old is self-consistent for Hungary.

2. A SHORT RECAPITULATION OF NEW CHRONOLOGY'S SCENARIO

In this Chapter I formulate statements as if New Chronology were proven.

From 1300 AD Old and New Chronologies more or less agree, except for serious falsifications in Russian history made in the XVIIth century by the new, Romanov, dynasty. These falsifications were made for discrediting the old Russian dynasty, because it still controlled some part of Russia $1. The previous dynasty represented a "more Eastern" style of rule; some South Russian nomads were integral parts of the Russian state and gave the mounted warriors. They are the so-called Tartars (an Europid-Mongoloid mixed stock with more or less Turkish language); the Mongolian invasion and empire is a misinterpretation of the Greek terminus technicus "megalos" or "megalion" = "great". So "Mongol Orda" (herd) <-- "Megalos Orda" = "Great Army". Popes of Rome (Catholic popes; note that there are Kopt Popes even recently in Egypt) keep their seat in Rome (Italy) from 1376, previously maybe in Nice (to 1305) then Avignon.

The previous two centuries contain the second half of classical antiquity and first half of Middle Ages. Significant territory of the Eastern part of Old World belongs to an Universal Empire, but Western Europe is in conflict with the central government. The emperor rules from Constantinople, called also Second Rome, Troy and Ierusalem. Western Europe was hostile to the Empire. In this period 4 big wars were made, cloned later many times by historians. The list of the true wars goes as:

The First Crusade. It seems that its chronology is more or less the same as in Old Chronology, so from 1096.

The Crusades one century later leading to the Fall of Constantinople in 1204. Latin-governed Constantinople plus Italy is preserved in history as ancient Rome in Latium. The Greek leaders of the Empire flee, and establish emigrant governments. The Greek Imperial dynasty (Palaeologs) from cca. 1220 upwards is genuine and source of ruling times for many earlier dynasties. Catholic Popes are the Constantinople Patriarchs of the Latin era of Constantinople.

The War for Constantinople plus the Hohenstaufen Wars in Italy. The Latin Empire in Constantinople was not stable; from 1215 there was continuous war in the Aegean area. In 1261 Michael Palaeolog reoccupied Constantinople (but Latins remained in possessions of some territories). The Popes go to West. This war, and the almost synchronous Hohenstaufens vs. Charles Angevin, gave the idea of the Troyan War (so Homer must have lived after 1268 AD). Aeneas flees from Troy (=Constantinople) and founds Rome in the second half of XIIIth century.

The Ottoman-Byzantine War. It started at the end of this period asnd the greater part of this long war is already in times where the chronologies of the two paradigms agree. This war ends practically in 1453, although for some years still isolated spots fight (Peloponnesos; Trapezunt).

The second half of XIth century is the start of the Christian Era. Jesus Christ is born in 1054 (Crab Supernova as Bethlehem Star) or in 1063 [6]; maybe in Antiochia. At the beginning the capitol of the Empire is Alexandria; maybe it is transferred to Constantinople during this century. Western European barbarians as Iulius Caesar and Brutus organize conquests. The first half of XIth century is classical antiquity. The earliest possible time for the start of the Peloponnesian War is 1039 [7], so that is the time for Greek paganism.

Between cca. 700 and 1050 AD the capitol is in Alexandria. As a big port, it was central to a Mediterranean civilisation. However, Ref. [4] explicitly states that in the Alexandria period shipping was rather coastal. This is important now, since the Carpathian Basin is more or less open to the South, through the Adriatic coast (now Croatia). Note that Alexandria (cca. 31oN, 30o E) is really not far from Dubrovnik (Ragusa), 43oN, 18oE). However, not for coastal shipping. If ships stick to coasts, Dubrovnik is almost the antipode of Alexandria in the Mediterranean. Then in the Alexandrian period of New Chronology's World History the Carpathian Basin was far, so quite independent of imperial influence, indeed.

3. A COMPARATIVE LIST OF EVENTS AND PERIODS OF HUNGARY IN NATIONAL HISTORY VS. WORLD HISTORTY OF NEW CHRONOLOGY

There was no Hungary before 1000; however in the present context "Hungary" is the Carpathian Basin, and the Basin exists sine Lower Miocene. It is a special spot on Earth, having a high geothermic gradient [8], almost lunar titanium concentration at some places [9], a special barium-rich spherule type not known from anywhere else [10], [11] and a language is spoken there very far from any similar ones. Instead of further delay let us see the comparative list.

While the Hungarian side is Old Chronology, some events may be practically unknown outside the Basin or told otherwise. I cannot help this. Archaeology of the Basin is mainly a local business.

We go as follows. Hungarian Old Chronology and World New Chronology will be compared century after century. Hungarian Old Chronology is Normal font, World New Chronology is Italics.

AD IVth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Pannonia is Roman province, capitol is Aquincum, (Óbuda, (northwestern Budapest) $2. Dacia is Gothic? Various German, Carpic (Albanian?) & Celtic tribes in the Northern mountains. Jazygs & Roxolans (cca. Alans, Osets) east of Danube.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

?

Vth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Huns take Dacia and the territory east of Danube. In 433 by an agreement they take over Pannonia. Tanhu (Son of Heaven) Buda until 445. 445-453: Tanhu Attila. From cca. 450 Hun wars against Western Roman Empire. In these wars dies the military governor of the city Buda (=Aquincum), his grave is found in 1961 at the Pest side not far from the fortress Transaquincum, the Eastern bridgehead of the city $3, [12]. Attila dies in 453; Tanhu Ellac (?). German revolt, the Nedao Battle in 454, the non-German and non-autochtonous peoples of the Hun Empire go to the East, north from the Black Sea, where Attila's youngest son Irnac founds the Bulgarian State. East. Goths arrive in 455, Fenékpuszta Battle of East Goths and Romans of W. Emperor Avitus, with complete Gothic success. Roman administration leaves the Basin. Tunguzka-type impact at Szilvágy [13], [14] on Sept. 7, 456. Cities Aquincum, Savaria & Scarbantia continue but with poorer and scanty population.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

?

VIth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Migration period. Longobards (Lombards) west of Danube, Gepids east of Tisa. Avars (from Altai) arrive in 567. 567: Longobard-Avar alliance agains Gepids, success. 568, Easter Monday: Longobards go to N. Italy, present Lombardy. Avars settle E. of Danube too. Khagan Bajan.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

?

VII. c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Avar-Croat alliance. Some Croats are transferred from the Krakow area to the Adriatic. The transfer appears before 614; in 614 the first combined Avar-Croat raid against Dalmatia. In 626 combined Avar, Slavic and Persian attack against Constantinople, unsuccessful. The end of the Bayan dynasty, cca. 630; unrest. Cca. 680: a new wave of horsemen

arrives, maybe from the direction of the Caucasus (archaeological indications), in the same time as foundation of Danube Bulgaria (681; Khan Asparuch). Population is extremely mosaic-like, Western, Eastern and Siberian. Onogurs in the Basin from cca. 670; same r-Turkish as Bulgars $4.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

?

VIIIth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Obscurity in the Carpathian Basin. Slow spread of (W.) Christianity, mainly on W. 791: Charlemagne attacks, completely defeated. 795: Eric of Friuli attacks, the tudun of the West goes over. The khagan is defeated, baptized in Aachen as Theodorus; vassal of Charlemagne.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

Ptolemaic dynasty in Alexandria, from cca. 700.

IXth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Bulgarian State occupies the lowlands E. of Danube. Avar Khagans are sometimes mentioned, last in 840. W. Emperor Louis gives lands to the Mattsee monastery in 860, bordered from the east by "Marcha Uuangarorum", cca. the Onogur Marches; the first Western mention of something similar to Hungary and Hungarian. Slovakian ethnogenesis starts on the north cca. in 875. In 880, Svätopluk, "King of Hungarians" (kral' Uhorska, in Slovakian $5) starts the baptization of Slovaks (and, obviously, Onogurs); according to Slovakian tradition. 894: Death of Duke Svätopluk. Fights for his throne. 896: Arrival of the Magyar tribes from the East, led by Duke Árpád. The Magyar Conquest. 899: Alliance of Árpád and King Arnulf of Germany against Italians. Death of Arnulf; Magyars take over Pannonia. Complete conquest of the Basin.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

Ptolemaic dynasty in Alexandria. Aristotle?

Xth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Magyar ducal lists are preserved (with some doubts at the beginning). Military expeditions to the West, and sometimes to the South, as far as the Atlantic shore and Arab Hispania. The middle of the century: ducal power is declining, tribal leaders are almost independent rulers. 955: Augsburg Battle; a Western raid organised by Chiefs Lehel & Vérbulcsú instead of the Árpád dynasty fails; according to ducal propaganda only 7 maimed Magyars returned. 955-972: Archduke Taksony; he invites Petshenegs to keep ferryheads against possible German attack. Villages still exist with claimed Petsheneg ancestry, supposed Petsheneg antropology is seen in spots. 972-997: Archduke Geyza. Quedlinburg embassy to the W. Emperor. Uneasy peace, Christian missions. Strong connections with the Passau bishopry. Son of the Archduke, Vayk, is baptized as Stephen. 997: Archduke Stephen. His wife is Giselle of Bavaria, daughter of the Bavarian Duke (later Emperor). 1000: foundation of the independent archbishopry of Gran (Esztergom), organisation of Hungarian Church as part of the Church directed from Rome, Italy. End of 1000: Pope Sylvester II sends a crown from Rome to Stephen. Christmas: Stephen I, Apostolic King of Hungary, is crowned in Gran with Western rite.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

Ptolemaic dynasty in Alexandria. Transition from hieroglyphic ("Hebrew") script to Greek alphabeth.

XIth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Kingdom of Hungary starts. 1000-1038: Stephen I. Struggles with Bulgarians and then Germans. The heir apparent Emmerich dies; no more sons. Peter Orseolo, son of a Venetian doge, close kin to Stephen, is nominated (optimal choice for independence: Venice is Western Christian but vassal of the Eastern Empire). 1038-1041: King Peter I, first. He prefers foreigners; revolt. 1041-1044: Samuel I. Either not Christian or "bad Christian". Social unrest; Peter I and Emperor Henry attack, Samuel I slain, Peter again king, accepts the crown from Henry as vassal. Therefore unrest; tribal leaders invite back the sons of Basil, brother or nephew of Stephen, executed after 1020. All later Hungarian Kings descend from the executed duke, if at all, and not from the Holy King, therefore obscure formulations can appear in chronicles. Dukes Andrew (from Kiev, son-in-law of Duke Yaroslav) Béla and Levente (from Cracow) return and win. Peter is executed, Levente (still pagan) mysteriously dies. Andrew is King, Béla is Duke of the East. Andrew has some Kievan ties. Struggles for power. 1054: formal split of Rome and Constantinople; Hungary in whole goes to the Western Church. 1061: Andrew dies, Béla I King. 1064: Salamon, son of Andrew is King. Hungary starts to help Croatia, whose dukes struggle against Byzantian overlordship. (Croatian Church belongs to the Pope.) Marriages between the two dynasties. 1071: Manzikert Battle. Seldjuk Turk army utterly defeats Byzantines near to Armenia. Eastern Empire must regroup to the East, Croats revolt. Geyza I (son of Béla I) is King, Ladislaw duke. 1076: Zvonimir I of Croatia (his wife is Helena, sister of Geyza & Ladislaw) is a vassal of the Pope. 1077-1095: Ladislaw I. 1083: Stephen I is consecrated in the Western Church. (He will be done so in the Constantinople Church in 2000.) 1089: death of Zvonimir. His son dies in 1091, then unrest. Queen Helena nominates her brother, Ladislaw, the sabor accepts. However Ladislaw's pacifying expedition is stopped in Krbava Mountains by local Greek Orthodox population (exactly the same site as in the 1991 Serbian revolt in Croatia). Then Cumans attack through the Eastern Carpathians (Byzantine plot?), Ladislaw goes to East, and Croatia becomes the territory of his nephew Koloman. 1095: King Koloman of Hungary. First wave of Crusaders cross Hungary: incidents. (Because of strange language Crusaders believe to have arrived.) Koloman defeats the Crusaders, and transports them to the Byzantine border.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

Ptolemaic dynasty in Alexandria (Old Rome) to cca. 1050-80. 1039: Possible date for the start of the Peloponnesian War. (Alternative: next century.) The Komnenos dynasty transfers the capitol to New Rome, Constantinople. 1054: Crab Supernova & birth of Jesus in Antiochia. Then various religious events. 1081: Alexios I Komnenos. First Crusade: Westerners to Eastern Asia Minor e.g. Antioch.

XIIth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

1102: King Koloman of Hungary is crowned King of Croatia in Biograd na Moru. Transient problems between Croatia and Rome because the King states the vassalage defunct. From hence to 1918 the person of the Hungarian and Croatian Kings is the same but the states are independent. Kings: Koloman until 1116; Stephen II (son) 1116-1131; Béla II (nephew) 1131-1141; Geyza II (son) 1141-1162. Then parallel kings because strong Byzantine influence under Emperor Manuel I, son of John II and Piroska (Irene), daughter of Ladislaw I (also with strong W. connections): Stephen III (son of Geyza II) 1162-1172; Ladislaw II (son of Béla II) 1162-1163); Stephen IV (son of Béla II) 1163-1165). In 1172 Béla III, ex-heir of Manuel, returns from Byzance, and rules until 1196. Then Emmerich.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

Komnenos dynasty? John II (1118-1143) & Manuel I (1143-1180)? Unrest? Angelos dynasty, Isaac II & Alexios III. Kingdom of Ierusalem on the Island of Cyprus.

XIIIth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

Emmerich until 1204. From 1202 the Fourth Crusade, organised partly by Venice. Crusaders sack the Adriatic port Zara of the Croatian Crown, then go to Constantinople and occupy it in 1204. Foundation of the Latin Empire of the East. Hungary occupies border provinces and is in friendly connections with both the Latin Emperors of Byzance and the emigrant Nikean Empire. Ladislaw III (son of Emmerich) 1204-1205; Andrew II (son of Béla III) 1205-1235. Andrew builds ties with France, with French Crusader states in Asia Minor, with the Latin Emperors, his wife is German from Merano, and the heir's wife is Maria Lascaris from Nicea. 1217-1218: Hungarian-Austrian Crusade in Galilee. Hungarian kings and pretenders in Transcarpathian Galicia. The economic power of Andrew is weakening; both the great lords and the masses of light horsemen get greater roles. The Chart of Golden Bill: right to revolt against the King under certain conditions. 1234: as member of a Dominican mission Brother Iulian (Magyar) founds the Eastern Magyars (see later). 1235-1270: Béla IV. First he tries to remake the economic changes. Confiscation of lands, claims to power. 1236: Mongol victory over Kumans and Volga Bulgars (Batu). Some Kumans arrive at Hungary, led by King Kuthen. They are organized as light cavalry against Batu. Frictions between Hungarians and Kumans. Iulian's second expedition: Eastern Magyars have been swept away by Batu. Béla tries to organise defence, but his policy is unpopular, so "let the King and his Kumans go against Tartars". 1241-42: "Tartar roaming": invasion of Batu. He takes the greater part of Hungary, burns, kills and sacks, then, with indefinite damage, withdraws. Because of the strong connection to Fomenkology, it will be treated in a separate Chapter. King Béla flees first to Vienna, where Archduke Frederick sacks him and forces to cede 3 Western counties. Then the King flees to Dalmatia and is hidden in coastal castles. The Tartarians try to get him, then withdraw. A year after (?) Béla takes back the ceded counties. 1246: Austrian-Hungarian battle at the border; Archduke Frederick is slain and the Babensberg dynasty extinct. 1252: Hungary takes Styria. Border battles with Austria. 1259: Khan Berke offers alliance (against West?). The King refuses; the heir Stephen marries Elisabeth, granddaughter of King Kuthen. (Western) Kuman light cavalry is integrated into the Hungarian army. 1270-1272: Stephen V. 1272-1290: Ladislaw IV Kuman. Unrest during his rule. He is against Hungarian leaders; his allies are Kumans, later some Tartarians too. Anti-Christian letter to the Pope telling that he would like to kill Christians "until Rome" with Tartarian sabres. 1282: Hungarian-Kuman battle (of Ladislaw vs. Oldamur) at the site of Hódmezôvásárhely. 1285: Ladislaw invites (?) the Nogay Tartars. Nogays roam to Pest, Kumans sack Northern Hungary. Ladislaw takes his own capitol, Buda. 1287: new alliance with the Nogay Tartars. 1289: Crusade against Ladislaw; he stops the crusaders. 1290: Kumans (?) kill Ladislaw. Andrew III: the last of the House of Árpáds (until 1301). Angevins of Naples openly claim the throne.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

1204: Crusaders take Constantinople = Troy = New Rome. Latin Empire, Pope is the Latin Patriarch. Some members of the Angelos court, including historians, flee to England, give the Angelos name to the new country, and establish some similarities between Byzantian and English histories. Russian dukes and Archdukes appear with Tartarian names (e.g. Genghis Khan=Yuriy Daniilovich, Batu Khan=Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Vladimir, 1238-1246? "Batu" attacks Poland, Silesia and Hungary, but only for raids, and then withdraws. The Kalka Battle in 1223 is not a battle of Mongols and Kumans; or Petchenegs, or anything but Russians and Poles. In the meantime the emigrant Nicean Greek Empire is established, and from cca. 1220 both names and ruling years are original, not clones. Cca. 1260: Troyan War, Greeks vs. Franks (Turks, Troyans) for Troy=Constantinople. 1261: Greeks win, Franks leave Constantinople, a leader ("Aeneas") goes to Italy and founds Italian Rome. Latin Patriarchs go to Nice (?). Charles of Angevin fights the inheritors of Emperor (of the West) Frederick II the Hohenstaufen, cca. 1268. These two wars trigger the tradition of the Troyan War. In Constantinople the Palaeologue Dynasty.

Beginning of XIVth c.

HUNGARY, OLD CHRONOLOGY

1301: The original dynasty of Magyar tribes is extinct. "Feudal anarchy." Pretenders. Charles of Angevin, from Naples, with the support of the Pope, wins in 1311. Border wars with Tartar successor states for Moldavia and Walachia; continuous struggle with Venice for Dalmatia; peace on the "Russian" and Byzantian borders.

WORLD, NEW CHRONOLOGY

Outside Russia chronology is correct. In Russia the Russian State, Megalion Orda is flourishing. The Pope is in Avignon.

 

 

Here I stop. Henceforth the two Histories do not differ for Central and Western Europe, and for the later times Hungary cannot help too much in comparison and check. For Carpathian Basin events see e.g. Refs. [15]-[19]; for the Early Kingdom practically all history books agree in main events. I close this Chapter with brief comments.

I am not surprised on the idea that chronicles may lie, and actual ruling dynasties greatly influence the chronicles. Anyway, medieval chroniclers were supported by the court & aristocracy. We know examples when Wm. Shakespeare was polite with past of the Tudor Dynasty. I have my doubts with Hungarian chronicles at some points, but it seems they are matters of emphasis and interpretation, not direct falsifications. Except maybe one point. After the Augsburg Battle in 955 the Germans, with infantry and heavy cavalry were not in the position to catch the Magyar army consisting entirely of light cavalry. So ideas that only 7 maimed warriors were able to return are rubbish. The Árpáds did not like the expedition led by somebody else, and when it became unsuccessful, told that "Look: this happens if not the rightful leader leads".

From this time Hungary can have only one King in the same time. When Turks kept the middle of Hungary occupied (between 1529 and 1686) and Hungary was divided in fact into 3 parts, the Eastern (Transylvanian) part recognised the Hungarian King (in Vienna) while actually fighting him; and the Parliament of the Western part made laws for the Turkish territory, which the Turks accepted for the Hungarians. I do not know how the dialectics of unity and multiplicity worked in medieval Russia.

In a multilingual/multicultural society leaders have different names for different subjects. In Hungary the phenomenon generally meant only translation. Founder King Stephen I is I. István in Budapest and Stefan I (Prvy) in Bratislava (Pressburg, Pozsony, Presporok; the last name is the Slovakian). One level higher, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria (1848-1916) was Bohemian King Frantisek Josef (1848-1916); and he was Ferenc József, the Apostolic King of Hungary & ... Galicia & Lodomeria & ... Jerusalem... (1867-1916) in Hungary, while Franjo Josip (1867-1918) in Croatia. The Hungarian Kings Béla I-IV were Béla for Magyars, for the Slovakians they were Vojtech, for the Germans Adalbert, and I do not know the Kuman name of Béla IV, although he was crowned as King of Kumania. Archduke Witold of Lithuania (until 1430) was called Vitautas by Lithuanians and Vatat Bey by his Karaite bodyguards. While I have doubts that Ghenghis Khan would have been a European, and even more a Northeastern Slav, he may have had two names.

Now I have listed the Hungarian tradition for the centuries full of clones/fantoms according Fomenkology. I do not believe that pre-1300 rulers (so the Árpáds) would be clones of Angevins Charles Robert and Louis the Great, or of Sigismund of Luxemburg, later German Emperor. Ruling times do not support the idea and individual histories are quite different. However still one may ask if the Árpáds existed at all, or even, if Magyars existed. So in the next Chapter I discuss the existences; in another the questions posed by the "Tartarian Roam"; and then, if I am convincing that Early Hungarian history existed and still exists, supporters and attackers of New Chronology are kindly ask to consider this body of data for check of New Chronology and in general, of Science.

4. ARE MAGYARS CLONES/PHANTOMS IN HISTORY?

Modern genetics claims that recent population of Hungary fits smoothly to the Central European distributions [20], except for, maybe, some Chromosome Y variants [21]. If somebody finds that the present Hungarian genetics fits smoothly into the environment, then he claims that the present Hungarian population is genetically cca. Slavic+Germanic.

But a significant part of the Carpathian Basin has Magyar traditions; according to a statistic compilation in the 70's more than 50% of the population of the Carpathian Basin told himself Magyar at official censuses around 1970. And the Magyar tradition is the "Eastern origin", as eastern at least as the Maeotis (Azov) region. I can list some alternative explanations:

1) Modern genetics cannot do something; yet. Remember Ref. [21] which is able to see differences at least in Chromosome Y.

2) Magyars existed 1000 years ago but for now they in fact died out [20].

3) Magyars did not exist at all; they are mythological ancestors.

Obviously only 3) invalidates the specific traditions. If 3) is true, then the population of the Carpathian Basin (for any purpose) invented nonexisting ancestors; then it may invented also pre-1300 history for them. OK, such legends are not unheard of. However it would be much more difficult to invent a language from nothing; and it would have been even more difficult to invent Magyar language from nothing. We will see in due course, why.

Magyar population speaks the Magyar language. (Hungarian language does not exist.) And Magyar is quite unique language in Central Europe; I will tell immediately, why. Then this language must have been carried into the Basin; or invented there. But it is not an invented language because we know relatives, only far; so it was carried. Then the carriers were Magyars, and they, of course had history & tradition. Of course, some of the traditions as we know now may be inventions.

The Magyar language is not Indo-European. There are only a few languages of Europe (defined in this context as without Russia). I list them all.

Basque in the Pyrenees. Most probably last remainder of a population from Ice Ages.

Maltese in Malta. The population is an inheritor of Carthaginians (Semitic) plus an Arab (also Semitic) superstratum.

Jenisch: a mixed language of wanderers in some Swiss mountain regions, probably a lingua franca containing even words from extinct pre-Roman languages.

Turks: Ottoman Turks in Thrace, Karaims in Lithuania & Crimea, Gagauz in Moldavia, Tartars in Moldavia, Roumania, Bulgaria & Crimea.

Uralic languages: Lapps in Norway, Sweden & Finland, Finns, Estonians; Livs in Latvia; and Magyar in Hungary.

But even the Uralic group is quite diverse. Uralic is first classified as Samoyed vs. Finno-Ugric. Samoyed exists only in Russia. Finno-Ugric of course classifies as Finnish (as a wider class of languages containing Lapponian, Estonian &c.) vs. Ugric. Magyar is Ugric. We will not discuss the Finnish branch further; Finnish languages are near to each other but are rather far from Ugric. Not Finno-Ugric readers may simply accept my word that a Hungarian without Finnish practice cannot interpret even the headlines of a Finnish newspaper; although here or there he may (or may not) guess a word.

Now we have remained with the Ugor subgroup. It contains recently 3 languages: Magyar (15 million), Ostyak or Chanti (20 thousand) and Vogul or Manyshi (6 thousand). Chanti and Manyshi are more or less mutually understandable, as 2 Neo-Latin or German languages. Magyar is farther, but sometimes a simple sentence about fundamental needs could be guessed. The differences are compatible with historic claims that Magyar separated from the 2 Ob Ugors cca. 2-3000 years ago and after the influences on them were quite different. E.g. Magyar has now a lot of Turkish, more definitely Bulgarian Turkish words, absent in Manyshi & Chanti. The same is true for Greek, Latin or German words; however some Iranian loan words are common.

As for example manush=man. According to linguistic near-consensus this word is behind the first syllables in Magy-ar and Many-shi. So, indeed, the name which are used for themselves have common origins in these 2 Ugric groups.

In Note $6 a few Manyshi, Magyar and Finnish fundamental words are compared to see the degree of similarities, both absolute and relative.

Without going into the details of Ugric prehistory, Magyar may have been only one component in the group entering the Carpathian Basin in 896 AD. Namely, tradition tells that the Magyar tribal alliance contained seven tribes: Jenô, Kér, Keszi, Kürtgyarmat, Megyer, Nyék, Tarján. Possibly the Megyer name was inherited by the tribal alliance; linguists tell that the difference is trivial. Now, 4 names are Bulgar Turkish, 1 is other Turkish and 2 are Ugric. One is Megyer. Maybe some tribes were originally organized by Bulgar Turks; and look: Onogurs giving the name for Hungary, were also Bulgar Turks. Then the strong Bulgar Turkish influence on Magyar language is not surprising at all.

Now let us see the present sites. Magyars live in Central Europe around the 20o E, while Chantis and Manyshis in Western Siberia, behind the Ural Mountain, around longitude 65o E. That is some 4,000 km distance. Possibly they lived on the western slopes of Ural a thousand years ago; but that is still a distance.

OK, maybe the Ugric population area was a strip and only the two endpoints remained. However this is improbable too. True, the Eastern extension of Russian language is new, from the last thousand years. Previously Finno-Ugric populations lived there, and even now there are the Komi and Udmurt (50o E), Mari and Mordvin (45o E); the Meryak, Muromak and Meshcher around 40o E died out in the last centuries. However these peoples are northern (cca. 55o N), not conquerors at all, and they are Finnish languages, not Ugric. There is no Ugric language between Hungary and the Ural.

OK, not now. But maybe earlier. And indeed, Brother Iulian in 1234 (or in 1236), somewhere along the River Volga, near to Bolgari, met Magyars and spoke with them [22]. But that is not the remainder of a continuous Magyar area but that of a forking, or some Magyars remained in the original home. Indeed, there is the big cemetery in Bol’she Tigani. The original discoverer Khalikova rather believes that she got proto-Magyars before forking [23], Fodor rather believes that it is the cemetery of Eastern Magyars after forking [24]; I cannot decide. But it seems that Magyars are there archaeologically identified, so they existed (East of Volga) at least in IXth century.

Then first note that the Maeotis region is cca. 40o E, more or less the "elbow" of River Don. Maeotis is central in Magyar traditions, telling that the people, or at least some part of it started thence. Now, also, some chronicles hint that not everybody went to West, some part remained, or went to South, or East. Pope John XXII about 1320 gave instructions to a mission located in Tbilisi that somewhere in the neighbourhood there is a group led by Yeretamir "from the blood of the holy kings of Hungary" $7. Now, of course, Yeretamir could not be descendant of Hungarian Kings, because all descendants of the House of Árpád became extinct in 1301. However they may have had kinship back to before Prince Årpád. And if Brother Iulian found people along Volga with whom he could speak in Magyar, they simply were the group remaining on East. 20 degrees latitude are still a distance. Magyars of Prince Árpád must have traversed at least this distance (in 2 centuries), otherwise no Magyar language would be known in the Basin.

OK, but maybe Brother Iulian were simply mystifying. Who else saw the Eastern Magyars? Although you cannot disprove the existence of a unique language, I am going to answer this. Along the Black Sea Venetians had a colony Tana (at the site of the ancient Tanais, if you believe in Old Chronology), at the mouth of Don, and Genoese had Caffa at the Southern Crimea. Now humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini writes [25] that Travellers found a pagan group with Magyar (he writes: Hungarus) language and habits east of Tanais. OK, a reference to Brother Iulian? No; he cites the story of a Veronese merchant returning from Russia. And if somebody still doubts even Enea Silvio Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II; a research has evaluated slave market activity from Caffa, a Genuan port in Crimea from 1289-90 [26]. Obviously the majority was sold by Tartars and acquired on the mainland at the periphery of Tartar territory. One can make the following Table for "nationality":

 

Abhasian

6

 

Bolgarian%

2

 

Cevian^

2

 

Chirkassian

25

 

Hungarian

1

 

Indian

1

 

Kumak

2

 

Lezg&

11

 

Maniar

5

 

Russian

4

 

Syrian

1

 

Unknown

6

 

Altogether

66

____________________________________________

% From the names &c. Volga Bolgarians.

^ This nation is not identified.

& Or Laz, from Georgia?

Really the majority is from the neighbourhood; the Indian and Syrian may have come with long-range caravans, and the Hungarian is a mystery. The others of course could be catched by Tartars. But what is the Maniar nation?

The scholar who collected the data argues in the following way. The port is Genoan, the notaries are Genoan. In this time Genoan orthography used -ni- instead of the litterary Italian combination -ngi-. So Maniar=Mangiar. Now, Magyar in that time was pronunciated as "Magiar", with the same Italian orthography. So only the extra "n" would need an explanation. But Manyshi shows that originally was there a nasal; I would not go into details of comparative Manyshi/(Eastern) Magyar phonetic evolution. Most probably the 5 slaves are Magyars from the East. Indeed, some half a century earlier the Magyars of the East lived near to Volga Bolgars; the Bulgarians of the East. And now 5 Magyars were catched by Tartars, and 2 Bolgars.

Also, it is useful to observe that the 30 year old sclave, worth of 130 asper, named Paulus, is not Magyar; he is Hungarian. I do not know what was the first language of Paulus, but the officials asked nationality, not language. One cannot be a Hungarian if at least his/her ancestors never saw Hungary. (Magna Hungaria is an absurd term; it was coined by humanists. The territory appearing on a lot of maps in the XIVth and XVth centuries was the old home of Magyars, before Hungary. But: what is the Latin word for Magyar?) The 5 Volga Magyars are called Balabam, Teronda, Archona and 2 Margaritas. It is almost sure that Archona and the Margaritas were named by the slave merchants; Balabam and Teronda seems original, but they are not Magyar names. Balaban is "hawk" or such in some Turkish idiom, and Teronda is unknown. Anyway, here are the Eastern Magyars existed in 1290, maybe Western Magyars existed earlier and were able to found Hungary. It is pointless from our present viewpoint if they died out after founding Hungarian dynasty + history.

One last remark. During World War I, in 1915, the Austro-Hungarian Common Ministry of War performed a statistics among Moslim prisoners of war from Russia. There was 6985 POW in the statistics. Of them 6325 was Tartar, the others small groups. 10 were Mozhars (in Vienna orthography Moscharen, but Hungarians know quite well the Austrian way of speaking and writing non-Austrian idioms). So maybe some Eastern Magyar groups survived in Crimea or Volga Tartar environment until 1915. So much from this.

5. TARTARS IN HUNGARY

In the spring of 1241 somebody attacked Hungary and they were utterly successful. However the server on which this material is found has the domain .hu. Any mystery here?

I use the neutral subject "somebody", because this is an argued question between Old and New Chronologies, although now the chronology is not in doubt. Usual history tells that Baty, son of Dzhochi, son of Genghis, the Mongol, attacked; the Fomenko group claims that the attacker was the legal Russian State, and "Baty" was Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Archduke of Vladimir & Suzdal. I do not want to take sides in this argumentation, but tell the story from Hungarian viewpoint.

The Hungarian King, Béla IV, got the first information that an attack is possible, from a Dominican, Brother Iulian, as already told. Originally an expedition was sent from Western Kumania. There the conversion of Kumans started by Dominicans; in 1227 the mission bishopry of Milkó was established [27]. Milkó was just outside of Hungary, and Hungarian monks were strong in the mission. A lot of Hungarian monks could speak Magyar and may have had tradition about Eastern Magyars. The aim was obviously for looking for possible Christianisation, to the Volga. Brothers Iulian and Bernhard performed the task. We now know from Constantine Porphirogenetos that in the Xth century still regular connections existed between Carpathian and Eastern Magyars; later the connection broke, but it seems that some memory was kept and one of the aims of the expedition was to look for them. Iulian found them near to Volga Bolgars and reported in Milkó, Esztergom, and to Rome, in letter. On the second expedition in 1237, he reached the Russian city Suzdal, some 400 km from Bolgar, capitol of Volga Bulgars, but could not continue because news arrived that Tartars (I think this term is acceptable to Dr. Fomenko) already defeated the Volga Bulgars. So he reported to King Béla that he was unsuccessful and Tartars come. In the later seven and half centuries the plans of the King were amply discussed: maybe an organised immigration. Germans were immigrating into Hungary from the middle of XIIth century, Kumans will arrive immediately; why not Magyars? However now they cannot be reached because of Tartars.

Hungarian history reconstructs the event as follows. Genghis Khan fought the Kumans in 1223 at the Kalka River, near to Maeotis. Maybe he won, but not decisively. In 1236, however, Batu Khan (this is the Hungarian form!) decisively defeated somewhere near to Bolgar the Kumans and Volga Bolgars. One part of the Kumans was subjugated, the other fled to West. From Walachia they asked for permission to enter the Carpathian Basin. Béla permitted and told them to act as light cavalry if Tartars arrive.

On Dec. 6, 1240 Kiev was taken by Tartars (according to Fomenko, by the mounted troops of the Russian dynasty; according to Orthodox history, by Mongol conquerors of Russia). The Hungarian authorities immediately got the information, but there was no panic. Partly because it was not sure the aim of Tartars, partly because self-assurance was high, partly because the atmosphere of internal politics was anxious. Anyway, the Northeastern passes were barricaded, the bloody sword was carried through the Basin, the palatine went to the border with a small guard and the Parliament was assembled. (The Basin is closed from North and East. It is not so easy to enter.) On Feb. 10, 1241 Tartar embassy arrived and asked to give over the Kumans. The claim was refused. Some historians tell that the ambassadors were killed, but I think nobody knows the details. On March 12 the Tartar horsemen started to enter through the Verecke pass, the same as taken by the Magyars in 896. On March 17 the Tartar troops took Vác, some 40 km from Pest where the Parliament was assembled. The Archduke of Austria, Frederick, arrived to Pest, initiated a panic, and the population killed Kuthen, King of Kumans; then the Kumans turned against Hungarians. (I must emphasize that 760 year old propaganda is possible in any detail.) In the next days two other bodies of Tartar horsemen entered the Basin; on the other hand King Béla collected 60,000 men-at-arms, which was something. Batu retreated until the Sajó River (still lowland) and there was the main battle at Muhi. As allies, Hungary had only the Johannite knights, some Croats and the King (rather Pretender) of Galicia (the brother of Béla; without troops); the Kumans were neutral. The battle lasted 2 days, but at the end the Tartars won. As an army the Hungarian army ceased to exist. The King fled to the west on the high northern territory, which did not fit to the Tartars, with a handful of bodyguards, elevated to high positions later. When he arrived to Vienna, the Archduke of Austria blackmailed him, took the portable treasury and forced him to sign the cession of 3 counties. Then the King fled to Croatia, and remained in shore castles.

So far everything is clear. All main Hungarian sources, including chronicles and gestae written down before 1500 tell either this, or do not tell some details at all. Henceforth the stories diverge.

Anyway, the situation seems hopeless (from the books). The main army does not exist anymore, the King is on the seashore and the Tartars roam the country. In the Bavarian Niederaltaich abbey somebody makes the entry to 1242: "This year, after 250 years of existence, Hungary has been destroyed."

However, modern historians, comparing many brief notes, can see more details. First the King returns to the Danube and smaller troops keep the Danube line until Feb. 1, 1242. Then the Danube freezes and the Tartars cross. The King is back in Dalmatia, under siege. Chief Kadan is sent after him, and he demands the King from the locals. They do not obey. For some time the King is in the castle of Spalato, then in Trogir (or vice versa), with a handful of troops; we know the names of all officers. Then in one day, the King sees that Chief Kadan retreats. Soon no Tartar troops can be reached.

We now know that Batu, on the right hand side of the Danube, went towards the Lower Danube, to Bulgaria, and thence left the Hungarian sphere of observation. The first question is: when did they leave Hungary? If they wanted to kill, they needed some months after February. Since west of the Danube the 1241 autumn agricultural processes were (more or less) performed, crops can have been collected at late summer. Some historians cite the jasak, the Mongolian "law" telling that dynasties of the acquired territories must be killed without successor. Then they must blockade the castle where the King is hidden until the defenders die in hunger. Since they cannot blockade sea traffic, they cannot obey their own law, which will have some consequences.

Now let us see the sources for the duration of Tartar occupation. [28] was an official compilation, for the daughter of the Hungarian King. The text about "Tartarian roam" is very brief; but it is brief at the next kings too; my translation: "The Tartars remained in Hungary 3 year long and, since in that time farming was impossible, more died from hunger than from sword or became captives. Then King Béla returned from the seashore." So until 1244; indeed, 2 years without crops. Practically the same is written in [29]. That was published in 1488, already printed. It seems that the court offices had this version.

Now let us see 2 Turkish sources. It seems that both work from Hungarian sources, the first from a codex once in the royal library, but the original sources are not extant. Tarih-i-Üngürüs, i.e. Hungarian Chronicle ($8) is a manuscript, written around 1565 by Mahmud Terdjüman. the other is Macar Tarihi, by anonymous author, from cca. 1740. Both chronicles are published in Magyar translation in [30]; if anybody wants to consult with the original texts, look for more library information in the Introduction of [30]. Tarih-i-Üngürüs is quite detailed about the Tartar incursion, although we cannot know whence come the details. Its concept is that the whole affair started with the Kumans near to Hungary, enemies of Tartars. It tells about long travels of King Béla into Rome where he got some troops, then to the Rhodes Johannites with the same results. He seems to have concentrated them in Croatia. The leaders of Hungary, in the meantime, fought with Austria, with fluctuating results, then went also to Croatia. In the meantime Batu attacked Bulgaria and Byzantine lands. Then the Tartars returned (to Hungary?) and wanted to attack "the German land". However Austria was heavily defended. So instead they went against Bohemia and Moravia, burnt everything and destroyed for 3 years. (Not in Hungary!) Then they took Gran and Stuhlweissenburg. But King Béla started with the new troops back, sailing. (So from Rhodes.) Hearing this, Batu destroyed Buda, and went back to Tartaria.

Macar Tarihi gives a shorter report, so I translate all. "In the year 1242 innumerable troops of the Tartar people demolished many parts of Transylvania and Hungary [in the text Erdel ve Macaristan $9], destroyed and sacked all their properties. This went so for two years, then left with pharaonic prey."

Modern sources are more detailed than Hungarian chronicles, but less than Tarih-i-Üngürüs. (Note that Mahmud Terdjüman is a neutral source: he does not sympathize with Hungarian kings who are misbelievers, crazy &c.) As a representative I cite [31]. The author is far from romanticism. Let us start from the freeze of the Danube, in February, 1242. The Tartars cross the Danube and try to take Gran (on modern maps Esztergom) and Stuhlweissenburg (Székesfehérvár), the two royal cities. In Gran they burn the city but cannot take the castle. In Stuhlweissenburg they even cannot burn the city. (Interesting; in Russia they could take castles.) Then they go to the Dalmatian seashore, at the beginning of March, to get the King. "And since Kádán has seen that the water [to the castle] is unsurmountable because of the depth of mud, and all his attempts to get Trau [Trogir] have proven hopeless, he took his troops and along the Adriatic seashore, to south, left Hungary. [$10] The other Tartar troops also withdrew from Hungary...Batu, with the main army, went to Bulgaria, along the Danube, through Sirmium."

Now we should know, when left Batu and the others. Hungarian chronicles and Mahmud Terdjüman suggest 1244. Macar Tarihi 1243. Modern Hungarian sources tell 1242, and (Danube) Bulgarian history supports this: "At this time, 1242-1243, Tartar hordes invaded the country, burning and pillaging and taking many prisoners." [32]. Since the text then explicitly mentions Khan Batu, this is the same expedition, so indeed the Tartars left Hungary into the direction of the Lower Danube not later than the summer of 1242. The same is told by [33]: "to summer the troops have got out of [Hungary]" $11. True, this is not explicitly contradictory to Tarih-i-Üngürüs where Batu left for Bulgaria, then went back; but that is a too complicated story and King Béla's later letters do not support the idea that he would have got troops from Rome, as in Tarih-i-Üngürüs.

If we accept 1242, then remains the month. Now, Hungarian sources rather are silent about the month when Batu left to Bulgaria, except [34], where on the map March is indicated. For light cavalry March of April is really proper to start a new campaign, because of grass.

Henceforth again sources more or less agree. King Béla went home, took back the 3 counties from Frederick, Archduke of Austria, and when Frederick attacked (in modern books it is 1246), he was slain, the end of the Babensberg dynasty.

Now, because synchronous Hungarian records tell not so much, let us see a Western one. A French cleric, eyewitness, writes a letter to a French Archbishop, and an English monk freshly puts it into his history book [35]. The historian is Matthew Paris. The letter is written by Ivo de Narbonne, originally a cleric from the diocese of Bordeaux, to Gerardus de Malemort, Archbishop of Bordeaux, from Wiener Neustadt (some 10 km from the Hungarian border). The Tartars started a siege; Ivo de Narbonne claims to have been eyewitness. The city was successfully held by 50 foot soldiers and 20 bowmen. The Tartars collected a great number of captives and ate them "as bread". They left the bones to the vultures but those did not touch them. Specifically, the old or ugly women were given as food to the ordinary Tartars. The officers first raped the virgins. Then they cut their breasts, those were eaten by the chiefs, and the officers ate all other parts of the virgins. Then appear the Archduke of Austria, the King of Bohemia, the patriarch of Aquileja, the Duke of Karnten and the Marquis of Baden, therefore the whole bloody mob flees back to Hungary.

Now, this is as a parody. From the text I am sure that either Ivo de Narbonne did not meet a Tartar, or he was applied by them and did something which should not known by the Archbishop. Tartars did a lot of killing, OK; but surely not for food. I never heard horse nomads to be accused with regular cannibalism. Horse nomads may be poor, but they have at least animals. I can guess why to eat young girls rather than young boys (look for pork as an analogy); but why to eat old women rather than middle age men? Observe that Russians accused sometime Northern Nenec with cannibalism (Samoied is "self-eating"; absurd because they eat reindeer), but never Southern horse nomads. And so on. These are stories; now we tell such to terrify small children. I do not know why Ivo de Narbonne tells such a story; either Westerners are really terrified, or this is political propaganda (for the Pope or for the Emperor, Frederick II the Hohenstaufen?). It is clearly a propaganda for Frederick of Austria; can anybody tell me, why a French priest and an English monk make propaganda for the Austrian Archduke? But it will have no result (later). If Westerners got the military information from such sources, then the Hungarian State was a collection of (relative) geniuses.

Indeed it is interesting to compare the de Narbonne letter to a letter of an anonymous Hungarian bishop to Guilleaume d'Auvergne, Bishop of Paris, also in the book of Matthew Paris. I think that this letter was written at the end of 1240, just after the Tartars occupying Kiev. The bishop had two captives, who originally were Tartar spies; the Russians catched them and sent to Hungary. So there was some cooperation between Kiev and Hungary? The Bishop tells a completely impossible, but not mystic story about the origin of Tartars. Obviously he did not know originally anything, and the captives did not want to give him real information about their homeland. However his text is rational, and otherwise more or less true. He writes about the army: extra horses, leather armament, strong bows. True, and something quite different from Western ways. (It was the Hungarian stile some 200 years ago, and it is similar to the Kuman way, only better.) He gives a rational anthropologic description: short legs, long body; Mongoloid characteristics. He speaks about "Hebrew letters" which they use; it is not impossible on the steppe from Khazarian times. He tells about the specific "Tartar discipline" among the troops, and closes the letter with a prediction that beware; we shall see this with our own eyes in 5 years. So he sends the letter to Paris for informing the authorities. Real information; maybe the West liked better stories in which Tartars are just eating girls when the Archduke of Austria appears and herds them back to Hungary. The prediction of the Hungarian bishop was conservative; Hungary saw the Tartars in some months; the West never.

Now let us try to do anything with the sources. According to modern Hungarian sources, the Tartars occupied the lowlands. East of the Danube they had one year to destroy; west of the Danube one month. Then they went to Bulgaria. Maybe they wanted to go back later, maybe situation was unstable until 1243, but they did not really return. I think the French letter does not need much discussion. Maybe there is the Archduke of Austria, Frederick, behind Ivo de Narbonne's letter, but no problem. He will be slain soon.

Then we must ask 2 questions. What was Batu's aim with the attack? And: what was the attack's result?

For the first question I can only guess; maybe the group of Fomenko can find out something. The problem is that the only demand of Batu, of which we know, is to handle over the Kumans; and he cannot achieve this even after his victory. However Hungary was founded by steppe people, so I can suggest an aim. Nomads, when taking a new territory, go further, and weaken the neighbours, to have peace. We did the same 1100 years ago. This does not necessarily mean that the Batu dynasty was new in Russia; if they came from a southeastern part of her, maybe they acted similarly. But this is not even a hypothesis; I simply can observe that Batu did not want to acquire Hungary, and did not seriously try to fulfil the jasak. (Of course, why not to kill the King if it is easy?)

Now, anything was the original aim, what was the result? It seems that practically nothing! Of course a lot of Hungarians were killed, but this in itself was not a success for Batu, either he was Baty, son of Dzhochi, son of Genghis (or Toktaobeki, the Merkit?), originally Temüjin, the Mongol or he was Yuriy Vsevolodovich, Archduke of Vladimir. Namely, in 1249 King Béla allied with Daniil Romanovich, Archduke of Galicia, for whom he asked a royal crown from the Pope (!). So Southwestern Russian princes continued to make alliances with Hungary even after Batu's excursion. Also, Batu did not give any help to Austria. (I do not know if he wanted to.) Even during the Tartarian interlude Hungarian troops in Western Hungary fought the Austrian troops, when returning from Croatia, King Béla took back the ceded counties and four years later Frederick was slain. So in 1241-42 some significant parts of the Hungarian army must have remained intact. It seems that the only, transient, gain of the Tartars, either Mongols, or the mounted army of Russia, was Walachia. Kumans were pushed to Hungary.

There is a popular explanation for the Tartar exodus before they were able to achieve anything. The High Khan, Ögödey, died in December 1241, and Batu wanted to return to Karakorum, to the kurultay, to be elected High Khan. In contrast we know that the kurultay did not assemble for years, Batu did not go to Karakorum, and even if there, he would have had very slight chances. He was son of Dzhochi, the first child of Genghis, and, as it is known, well before his birth Katun Börte was abducted by a Merkit (!). Genghis and Börte probably never were sure who was the real father; anyway they named the son Dzhochi=Guest. Now imagine the chances of the (suspected) grandson of a Merkit to be High Khan of Mongols before true Mongols. Indeed in the "Secret History of Mongols", which, of course, may contain internal propaganda) we can read the arguments of one son of Genghis, Chagatay, against the eldest son Dzhochi, in the presence of Genghis, about future High Khans: "How might we tolerate that this Merkit bastard govern us?" [36]. I think Baty would have got this counterargument in any kurultay. (Of course, this paragraph is valid only in Old Chronology.)

I cannot decide from this Chapter if Baty was a Russian, a Tartar or a Mongol, maybe Yuriy Vsevolodovich of Vladimir himself. But my aim is only to call attention to Hungarian sources.

From Hungarian illustrations, however, the average Tartar was a regular-faced fellow, which means moderately Eastern, maybe not full-blooded Mongol, but at least so Eastern as a Kuman.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: TO THE ATTENTION OF HISTORIANS FOR OR AGAINST "NEW CHRONOLOGY"

My opinion is that History is a science. If so, its statements can be proven or disproven; in principle in any time, in practice sooner or later. If one suggests a change, that change leads to other changes too. In principle the whole History must be rewritten; in practice it is impossible to draw all consequences, but at least the important ones can be drawn, and the new picture must be better than the previous (with less unexplained points and less self-contradiction; some always will remain). And from these points it follows that, with few enough exceptions, pure national histories may be the first step, but that step is only the first.

There will come other points too, but I show a specific example for these ones. I wrote this study to show the merit of Hungarian history in the dispute between Old and New Chronologies.

Take Old Chronology, and write down cca. the XIth century in the Western Empire, Hungary and Russia (Kiev). We get:

 

W. Empire

Hungary

Kiev

 

   

 

  

Vladimir I

 

Henry II

Stephen I

978-1015

 

1002-1024

1000-1038

Svyatopolk I (son)

 

  

1015-1019

 

  

Yaroslav I (br.)

 

Conrad II

 

1019-1054

 

1024-1039

  

 

 

Peter I, Samuel I

 

 

 

1038-1046

 

 

Henry III (son)

Andrew I

 

 

1039-1056

1046-1060

Izyaslav I (son)

 

  

1054-1068

 

Henry IV (son)

Béla I (br.)

 

 

1056-1105

1060-1063

 

 

 

Solomon (s. of And.)

Vseslav

 

 

1063-1074

1068-1069

 

 

Geyza I (s. of Béla)

Izyaslav I

 

 

1074-1077

1069-1073

 

 

Ladislaw I (s. of Béla)

Svyatoslav II (son)

 

 

1077-1095

1073-1076

 

  

Vsevolod I (br.)

 

  

1076-1077

 

  

Izyaslav I

 

  

1077-1078

 

  

Vsevolod I

 

  

1078-1093

 

 

Koloman I (s. of Geyza)

Svyatopolk II (s.of Izy.)

 

 

1095-1116

1093-1113

 

Now, we learn from Hungarian history books that

1) Stephen took the daughter of the Bavarian duke Henry (later Emperor Henry II), Gizelle as wife;

2) Andrew, either as refugee in Kiev, already as King, took the daughter of Yaroslav, Anastasia, as wife and their son was Solomon;

3) Solomon, still very young, took the daughter of Emperor Henry III as wife, just cca. when Henry III died and his son followed;

4) German leaders helped Solomon against Geyza and Ladislaw, and for this Anastasia gave a nice sword to the Duke of Bavaria. The sword was called the sword of Attila; a few years later the sword was transferred to somebody else and then slew that fellow. A German chronicler wrote that OK, what else may be expected from Attila’s sword; now it is in Vienna, but the Austrians believe that it is from Charlemagne.[37].

For these points Old Chronology is self-consistent. However in New Chronology Stephen I and maybe Henry II should be moved upward, because otherwise they live before Jesus Christ and Stephen I was Apostolic King. Maybe Yaroslav must be moved up too.

How much? This is a real question, but let us continue. If the three national histories do not move with the same time gap, the self-consistency breaks down. Of course, maybe the wife of Andrew I was not Anastasia, daughter of Yaroslav; the oldest Hungarian texts speak only about the daughter of "the Ruthenian ruler". Good; then Russian historians should tell us who was the ruler giving his daughter to Andrew, King of Hungary. In German-Hungarian connection thing are simpler because the Niederaltaich abbey has a good archive.

Now assume that New Chronology finishes the King Lists of Russia and Germany. then we can fit Solomon; he was cca. 12 year old when Henry III died and the Kiev archduke gave his daughter to Hungary cca. 30 year earlier. Thence we must go back one and half generations and arrive at Giselle, daughter of another Emperor Henry. I would be curious.

Now comes the next point. Of course, it is possible that this part of Hungarian history is also a clone or a phantom. I do not believe; but a science is not matter of belief. So I make two statements about history of Árpáds. First: we have the right hand of Stephen I. Of course we will not C14 analyse that, because one does not destroy even a small part of the Holy Right. But we have the undisturbed grave of Andrew I, and one and half century ago we scientifically unearthed Béla III (died in 1196); and if not him, we can analyse his wife, Anne de Chatillon. Unfortunately, a lot of royal graves were disturbed when the cemetery was occupied by Turks, but we have the bones, so many C14 analyses would give statistically interpretable results; and in some years we shall be able to make mtDNA analyses from the bones (indeed we could do it now) and then the bones can be classified. Second, the pattern of ruling times (given in the Appendix) does not remind me to later dynasties; we have shown in 1975 that the statistical properties of the First Hungarian dynasty differed from the later rulers [38] (later dynasties did not exist; later kings were elected), so I cannot find the original, whose clone would be the Árpáds. But I am not a historian; this is not my task. I only tell that Hungary, although loosely, binds Western dynasties with Eastern ones.

And, indeed, Fomenko’s work calls our attention to an important point. I am convinced that there was a true and objective history. But I am also convinced that chroniclers, historians, politicians falsified it a lot and made wrong guesses too. And we cannot get Truth directly, because we cannot get back to Past. (Causality; the problem belongs to General Relativity but at least in our neighbourhood light cone structure seems enough not to get closed timelike curves; for an introductory textbook see [39].) So, we must check and check; and there are very few "sure facts" in history, except that are deduced via Natural Sciences, mainly from remnants, in the Present.

Hungarian history generally did not use eclipses for dating. One exception is the start of the Conquest. As seen in Sect. 3, Hungarian history divides Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages (Old Chronology) of the Carpathian Basin as follows.

Until cca. 433: Roman era. Pannonia belongs to the Roman Empire (after 395 Western Roman) and Roman influence is great to the other parts.

433-455: Hun era. Huns take over in the Basin. In 454 an uprising of German subjects forces the Huns to evacuate and withdraw to North of the Black Sea, but they send thence the Eastern Goths to the Basin, who defeat the returning Roman army in 455. Romans evacuate for ever.

455-568: German era. Many German tribes and nations in the Basin. The biggest are the Gepids and Longobards.

568-795: Avar era. Avars, from the Chinese border and Altai, defeated by Turks, arrive in the 560's. They take all the Basin in 568. The end is the victory of Eric of Friuli (Frank Empire) in 795. The era is subdivided as Early 568-680 and Late 680-795; or Early 568-630, Middle 630-700 and Late 700-795. Namely, archaeology sees changes in weapons, ornaments, symbolism and even in anthropology. The simplest explanation is arrivals of new tribes.

795-896: Divided Basin. Pannonia belongs to Charlemagne and successors, the Eastern half to Danube Bulgaria, on the Northwest maybe Moravia is organising and on Northeast Slavic tribes live independent life. The Frankish part is a mosaic: Bavarians, Avars, Slavs and Onogurs, at least.

Then 896 is the Magyar Conquest, the next century is the era of Magyar tribal alliance and from 1000 the Kingdom of Hungary.

Now, this is Old Chronology, but the area is archaeologically well evaluated and all the eras mentioned here are well documented.

The Conquest is in a period when the West already amply used Christian era dating and events of the Basin were recorded in Bavaria. Greek texts also appear (but the dating system is different). From Western texts it is clear that the Conquest must have happened between AD 888 and 903.

There is a Greek report of a solar eclipse which would put an event of the Conquest to 895 in Old Chronology; however as we see from the Parliament decisions about 896, Hungarian chronology does not use too much that eclipse. In addition, for our present purpose the exact date of the Conquest is unimportant. Dating of the Early Kingdom is based on cca. contemporary Bavarian and German texts (dated according Christian era), on Hungarian chronicles, whose earliest parts come from the second half of the XIth century, but the first extant compositions are from XIIIth century, and, in smaller extent, on Byzantian texts and chronology.

Now, New Chronology believes that Constantinople was not an Imperial capitol until, say, 1081. Now, earliest Hungarian data do not depend on Constantinople. Dynastic connections started rather with the Komneni, who exist in New Chronology too. However there are Greek texts about the Conquest. It would be interesting to know the opinion of New Chronology who wrote these texts.

The situation is not so clear in the Avar era. Between 630 and 790 both Eastern and Western reports are extremely rare from the Carpatian Basin, which is strange. No satisfactory explanation is known, although one may think of complete isolationism in the Basin. It is interesting that some Western authors do not observe the Conquest in 896 and refer the new tribal alliance too as Avar. This attitude may have led to the Latin name Hungarus, i.e. Hungarian (<- Onogur) of the state of the Basin from 1000.

I do not suggest any New Chronology datum for Hungary. As told, just after 1000 (Old Chronology) they strongly correlate with Western data, and New Chronology tells and will tell something about Western chronology in the time of Jesus Christ. I only repeat that Western and Byzantian chronologies are coupled through the Hungarian one from the end of the XIth century, at least.

As for the earthquake in Western Pannonia Sept. 7, 456 the ruins of Savaria and Scarbantia clearly show the event. The nearby crater-like structure, as told, permits an impactal explanation; I am not telling more here because the work is going on. An impact just after the turbulent year 455 with battles, arrival of new lords and massive emigration may remain obscure, so impact is possible in Old Chronology. However clearly if New Chronology pulled Old Chronology 456 up to post-Conquest times, then impact and New Chronology would be mutually inconsistent because the present population has no tradition about the event.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to thank Dr. A. Shanenko for giving some information about New Chronology, and to Dr. V. Gogokhia for some discussions. Of course, the author is responsible for all conclusions.

****

Written during the millenary celebrations of the Hungarian State.

APPENDIX: THE RULING TIMES IN THE ÁRPÁD DYNASTY

The Figure is the ruling time vs. sequence No. of Kings. If one wants to look for cloning, he can get later Hungarian Kings from e. g. [40], but they are statistically different [38].

A Hungarian King is a person who is crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary by the Archbishop of Gran. Two persons are doubtful, they were crowned by the Bishop of Kalocsa, and In that time the rightful king existed. They were parallel with the 14th King and are neglected here. The 2nd and 4th Kings are the same person. The "Tartar Roam", so Genghis’ grandson Baty or Archduke of Vladimir & Suzdal Yuriy Vsevolodovich happened during the 19th King. His ruling was the second longest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure: Ruling times in the Árpád dynasty, Hungary’s first dynasty. It became extinct on male lineage in 1301. Afterwards kings were elected. Compare to curves in Ref. [1].

 

NOTES

$1 In this context Russia is not the present Russia. Its western borders are Medieval Poland (the borderline is poorly defined), Hungary (the Northeastern Carpathians), and either again Hungary (the Eastern Carpathians) or a poorly defined line somewhere in Moldavia (on modern maps Moldavia + adjacent Roumanian territories to the Carpathians; the capitol of independent Moldavia is Chisineu, that of Roumanian Moldavia is Iasi).

$2 Some ruins can be studied. Aquincum had two (!) amphitheaters. It does not seem probable that we built them.

$3 The bones indicate European and Mongolian hybridisation. My guess is that the grave was near to his living site. As a nomadian, he must have lived on the east side of Danube (which is flat). For watering the nearby Rákos creek is a good possibility; its mouth is just beside Transaquincum.

$4 Most recent Turks speak z-Turkish or Common Turkish; Chuvash is r-Turkish. The difference is the end-consonants of some words (other differences strongly correlate with this). So öküz/ökür (ox); in Mongolian, which is not Turkish but related, üker. Therefore Common Turkish "oguz" (arrow, tribe) is "ogur"; "Onogur" is "Ten Tribes" in r-Turkish. Turkish words in Magyar are mainly r-Turkish, but it is a question whether from Onogur or from Volga Bulgar.

$5 As e.g. in the Calendar to 1708, Zilina. (Language is not exactly Slovakian, that was not yet defined, but some Western Slavic mixed idiom anyway.) The chronological table is collected by D. Krman, Lutheran Superintendent. I cannot give an exact English translation, but let us try. To year 880 he writes: "Sweropilus, King of Uhorsko, first leads Slovaks to Christianity". In Slovakian Uhorsko means Hungaria, the Carpathian Basin. However this date is prior to the foundation of Hungary. Still, Svätopluk=Sweropilus may be called Onogur, Onogurs were in the Basin, and Uhor is the successor of the form Onogur in Slovakian by regular phoneme changes.

$6 Examples for Finno-Ugric linguistic similarities can be visualised on fundamental words of simple lifestyle. So:

 

English

Finnish

Magyar

Manyshi

Parts of Body

 

 

 

 

 

eye

silmä

szem

sam

 

foot

jalka+

láb

laghl

 

hand

käsi

kéz

kat

Nature

 

 

 

 

 

water*

vesi

víz

wit

 

ice

jää

jég

jank

 

fish

kala

hal

khul

 

bream

keso

keszeg

kasew

 

horse

hevonen+

luw

Simple products

 

 

 

 

 

butter

voi

vaj

woj

 

arrow

nouli

nyíl

nyal

 

knife

veitsi+

kés

kasaj

Relations, abstractions

 

 

 

 

 

I

minä

én

am

 

name*

nimi

név

näm

 

full

täysi

tele

taghel

 

half

puoli

fél

pal

 

two

kaksi

kettô

kitigh

 

three

kolme

három

khurm

 

six

kuusi

hat

khot

Simple acts

 

 

 

 

 

come

jää

jön

jiw, jaj

 

shoot

lyö

ligh, laj

 

fill

täyttä

tölt

taghelti

 

he fills (sg)

täyttä

tölt

taghelti

 

he fills (def)

täyttä

tölti

taghelte

Of course, this is not a linguistic study. Only note that Finnish and Magyar differ for orthography, and Manyshi uses Cyrillic, so I have transcribed somehow. * means that Indo-European and Uralic roots (reconstructed) are similar, nobody knows why. + means that the Finnish word is not similar to the Ugric. The last 3 rows show that Ugric languages use different forms of verb if the subject is indefinite and if definite, while Finnish and all Indo-Germanic do not distinguish. This Table visualizes what the unicity of Magyar means; and that indeed Magyar is much nearer to Manyshi than to Finnish. However the majority of Magyar words are not similar even to Manyshi.

$7 I am just now unable to find library data for the "Yeretamir letter", except that the letter was sent on Sept. 29, 1329, by Pope John XXII. (Tardy L.: Régi hírünk a világban. Gondolat, Budapest, 1979.) or that there weasa Papal bulla mentioning the "Ungari Asiatici" of which excelsYeretamir, from the progeny of the Hungarian Kings (Gyôrffy Gy.: Krónikáink és a magyar ôstörténet, Budapest, 1948, p. 81). According to Tardy, the adressee was Yeretamir; I seem to remember that the letter was written to Bernhardus, Dalmatian mission bishop in Eastern Georgia. If somebody is really interested, he can start from here.

$8 Ottoman Turks followed more or less the Hungarian usage. The state is Üngürüs, mirror translation of Hungaria or Hungary; the language, people &c. is Madjar (now macar) just as the Magyar word. Note that now farther languages call both the country and the language on some name descendant of "Hungaria", neighbours "Magyar", and Roumanian and Slovakian distinguish.

$9 Erdel vs. Macaristan is the XVIIth century Turkish usage, sometimes Hungarian too. Here Erdel is the Turkish vassal Transylvania (in Magyar Erdély), while Macaristan (Magyarország) is all Hungary which is not Transylvania.

$10 Really, Kadan left Croatia, not Hungary. However there is no Hungarian, Croatian or Latin word for Hungary and Croatia together (neither in English).

$11 In this point I cite, of course, mainly Hungarian sources. But do not believe that national history would like to diminish the event. First, from Béla IV it is a Hungarian tradition to show our wounds to Europe, either real or not, although Europe is not interested. Second, Hungarian historians believe that they are better historians if they abstract themselves from Hungarian viewpoint. (Maybe they are right.)

REFERENCES

[1] G. V. Nosovskiy & A. T. Fomenko: Rus’ i Rim. Pravil’no li my ponimaem istoriyu Evropy i Azii? Izd. AST, Moscow, 2000

[2] G. V. Nosovskiy & A. T. Fomenko: Imperiya. Faktorial, Moscow, 1995.

[3] A. T. Fomenko & G. V. Nosovskij: New chronology and new concept of english history. British empire as direct successor of byzantine-roman empire. http://kulichki-lat.rambler.ru/moshkow/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt

[4] G. V. Nosovskij & A. T. Fomenko: Novaya hronologiya i koncepciya drevney istorii Rusi, Anglii I Rima. Fakti. Statistika. Gipotezy. http://moshkow.perm.ru/lat/FOMENKOAT/rus_ar.txt

[5] B.Lukács: Comments on Fomenkology: My Comments No. 1. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/FOMENKO1.htm

[6] V. S. Imshennik: Supernova explosions and historical chronology. Physics-Uspekhy 43, 509 (2000)

[7] A. T. Fomenko: The Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon’s Elongation. Celestial Mechanics 25, 33 (1981)

[8] B. Lukács & al. (eds.): Carpathian Basin: Evolutionary Stages. Proc. Fourth Symp. of Matter Evolution. KFKI-1993-32

[9] Sz. Bérczi, K. Brezsnyánszky, Cs. Detre, Z. Ditrói-Puskás, Nóra Fáy, Ágnes Holba, S. Józsa, I. Kubovics, B. Lukács, Gy. Szakmány & I. Tóth: High Titanium Basalts in the Solar System. Ant. Meteor. XXII, 9 (1997)

[10] Sz. Bérczi, Gy. Don, B. Lukács & P. Solt: Once More about the Recurrent Glassy Spherulae in Hungary (Comparisons with Glassy Spherules from Dome Fuji, Antarctica). PIECE’99, ed. Y. Miura, Yamaguchi, 1999, p. 9

[11] Sz. Bérczi, B. Lukács & K. Török: Snouted Spherules in the Carpathian Basin and on Antarctica. KFKI-1999-09

[12] I. Bóna: A hunok és nagykirályaik. Corvina, Budapest, 1999 (p. 252 and citations therein)

[13] A. Arday, Sz. Bérczi, Gy. Don & B. Lukács: Preliminary Report of Szilvágy-Patkó (Horseshoe): A New (Possible) Impact Crater Remnant in Hungary. LPSC XXX, 1384 (1999)

[14] A. Arday, Sz. Bérczi, B. Lukács, Gy. Don & P. Solt: Would We Detect a Semi-Recent Impact of an Icy Tunguska on Clay? PIECE'99, ed. Y. Miura, Yamaguchi, 1999, p. 1

[15] I. Bóna: The Dawn of the Dark Ages. Corvina, Budapest, 1976

[16] L. Várady: Das letzte Jahrhundert Pannoniens. Corvina, Budapest, 1969

[17] E. A. Thompson: A History of Attila and the Huns. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1948

[18] Bóna I.: Nagy Károly nyomdokain. In: Évezredek hétköznapjai (ed. Szombathy V.), Panoráma, Budapest, 1973

[19] D. Sinor: History of Hungary. Westport, Conn. 1976

[20] L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, peoples and languages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 7719 (1997)

[21] Ornella Semino & al.: The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective. Science 290, 1155 (2000)

[22] E. Szentpétery: Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, Budapestini, 1938., Vol. 2, p. 535

[23] E. A. Khalikova: Bol’she Tiganskiy mogil’nik. Sov. Arkh. 1976/2, p. 158

[24] Fodor I.: Bolgár-török jövevényszavaink és a régészet. In: Magyar Östörténeti tanulmányok, eds. Bartha A. & al.) Akadémiai, Budapest, 1977, p. 79.

[25] Aeneas Sylvius: Opera geographica et historica. Helmstadt, 1699.

[26] Tardy L.: A tatárországi rabszolgakereskedelem és a magyarok a XIII-XV. században. Akadémiai, Budapest, 1980, and citations therein

[27] C. C. Giurescu & al.: Chronological History of Romania. Editura Enciclopedica Romana, Bucharest, 1974 (at entries 1227)

[28] Képes Krónika. Szépirodalmi, Budapest, 1978. The Latin original: E. Szentpétery: Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, Budapestini, 1937., Vol. 1, p. 239

[29] J. de Thurocz: Cronica Hungarorym. Th. Feger, Augsburg, 1488

[30] A magyarok története. Transl. J. Blaskovics, Magvetô, Budapest, 1982

[31] Kristó Gy.: Az aranybullák évszázada. Gondolat, Budapest, 1976.

[32] N. Todorov, Ly. Dinev & Ly. Melnishki: Bulgaria: Historical and Geographical Outline. Sophia Press, 1968

[33] Engel P.: Beilleszkedés Európába a kezdetektôl 1440-ig. Háttér, Budapest, 1990.

[34] Történelmi világatlasz, Cartographia, Budapest, 1991

[35] Matthaei Paris Monachi Albanensis Angli Historia Maior, W. Watts, London, 1684

[36] Ligeti L. (transl.): A mongolok titkos története. Translated from Mongolian by. Gondolat, Budapest, 1962.

[37] B. Lukács: On Some Ancient Meteorite Falls. Ant. Meteor. XX, 130 (1995). Ant. Met.

[38] B. Lukács & L. Végsõ: The Chronology of the "Sumerian King List". Altorientalische Forschungen 2, 25 (1975)

[39] S. Hawking & G. F. R. Ellis: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973

[40] J. E. Morby: Dynasties of the World. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989

 

Aug. 7, 2001

 

 

My HomePage, with some other studies, if you are curious.