My suggestion for new units.

[Nike]

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
Your knowledge is very little my friend. Magyars have no relations with the Mongols. Magyars were a Finno-Ugrish tribe, thus their relatives are the finns for example. :)
The Huns and the Mongols had some relations possibly.
However you are right in one point. Magyars were famous horse archers, so the horse archer is 'ok' for them as a special unit.
But those are avaible everywhere I guess?
I have no idea what a steppe horsemen is.

PS.
Btw did you knew that the Croatians got Iranian origins?

Oh and nice to be back, hi all. :)

Yep, we have almost no relations with Mongols, too. And as the Magyars we were Finno-Ugrish tribe, a part of the Hunnish Khaganate during the times of Atilla. Actually we're a great mix - Slavic, Proto-Bulgarians etc. And we were very good horse archers (especially shooting while riding), too. Well, I guess we are very close with/to the Magyars. Except they're catholic now and we're ortodox.

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
Your knowledge is very little my friend. Magyars have no relations with the Mongols. Magyars were a Finno-Ugrish tribe, thus their relatives are the finns for example. :)
The Huns and the Mongols had some relations possibly.

Sorry I should have been more prescise. Huns had distinict relations with Mongols. Magyars were more of a mix between different tribes. Still the origin of Finno-Ugrish languages is asiatic and not indo-european which means that the original Finns and Magyars(Huns) were of Asiatic origin thus closely related to steppe nomads like Mongolians.

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
However you are right in one point. Magyars were famous horse archers, so the horse archer is 'ok' for them as a special unit.
But those are avaible everywhere I guess?
I have no idea what a steppe horsemen is.

Yes I agree. Horse Archers should be specialized unit for Hungary, perhaps(!!!) Croatia, but I don't think so.
I believe that the difference between Steppe Horsemen is that SH carry sword and bow and have light armor while Horse Archers don't have armor and carry only bows. We'll just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
PS.
Btw did you knew that the Croatians got Iranian origins?

Of course. The original Croats were Iranians or probably nomad Sarmatian tribes that travelled with the Huns in Europe arriving in the area of "Polish" Galicia there they probably assimilated and were assimilated Slavs(proto-Bohemians, Polaks, Ukraninas, etc.)
For example if you look at the map somewhere in the 700 A.D you will see that there is White(South Poland), Black(Slovakia-Moravia) and Red Croatia(Dalmatia and Slavonia). ;)
This however means little to me since I am mix and mish-mash of everything. :D :p

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
Oh and nice to be back, hi all. :)

Welcome back. ;)

[Gorgoroth]

Originally posted by Finellach
Sorry I should have been more prescise. Huns had distinict relations with Mongols. Magyars were more of a mix between different tribes. Still the origin of Finno-Ugrish languages is asiatic and not indo-european which means that the original Finns and Magyars(Huns) were of Asiatic origin thus closely related to steppe nomads like Mongolians.

Magyars were a mix between tribes? Actually Magyars were a tribe. The Finno-Ugric language isnt asiatic. The Proto Finno Ugric people lived in the western side ofthe Ural mountains 5000 years ago. There is evidence that before the arrival of Slavonic tribes to their present territory in Russia, a sprinkling of Finno-Ugrians inhabited the whole territory from the Urals to the Baltic Sea.
This is not an indo European language indeed, that is correct.
Finno Ugric cant be related to any 'asiatic' or 'indo european' tribes/nations/languages, it is unique.

PS.
Present day Croatians for example are more like Slavs in their genes, just like the present day Hungarians. There is no proto croatian, proto magyar, proto bulgarian etc. now, these ancient tribes have "merged" with the 2 biggest "racial" group: the slavic and germanic.

[Finellach]

Finns, Magyars, Avars, Bulgars...they all have origin from Asia.
The original Huns and Magyars who are probably the two branches of the same or similar people who were closely related to other Turkic tribes and we all know that real Turks are asians and that they have asiatic appearance. Byznatines actually called Magyars and Bulgars Turkic and Turks. In fact Hungarian languge still has many words similar to Turkish language. Finno-Zgric langauge is unique but the closest and most related languages are Turkish languages. Original Turks are very similar to Mongolians and so it's logical to conclude since they were related to them that the original Magyars and Bulgars were too. Most Turks today are ethnically Greeks or mix' between Greeks and asians, africans etc. Hungarians are mostly Slavic and Bulgars a mix between Slavs and Thracians(Dacians) etc.

And Croats are not Slavs, not even close. Croats only speak slavic language just like Hungarians speaking Finno-Ugric language, but are not ethnically of that branch. Most Hungarians(60%) are of Slavic origin. In Croatia this percantage is only 29% and only in Slavonia. Croats are mostly autochtnonous population that lived in Dinaridic area for centuries and was assimilated in various cultures from Greek and Romans to later Avars, Franks and finally Croats and Serbs. In short most Croats are (proto)Illyrians.

[Elewyn]

nope, Finellach. The only thing Magyars has common with Turks, Bulgars and Mongols is that they all came into "gate of Nomads" which is among Black and Caspian seas and Ural mts. and that they were nomads. That's all. Magyars came there from north, Turks from south east, Mongols from East. Sure they can have some similar words, they all came to same region once (and Turks and Hungarians met long time in Balkans!) and got some impulses from local population.some words and also some genes :) But they definitely are not the same. It's like saying that Huns are the same like Celts because they both crossed Moravia and Austria ;)

[Finellach]

I am not saying they are the same thing I am saying Magyars and Turks were related. Just like Bulgars as well and also Avars. Turks were not homogenous nation/tribe like today when Turk is designation for citizen of Turkey. Turks in medival and ancient times were a huge number of different but similar(in appearance and language) tribes. Something like Germanic tribes.

And for your info I will repeat it once more: Byznatine scribes and Emperor called Magyars and Bulgars Turks! What does that tell you? ;)

[Gorgoroth]

You are wrong again. :)
Here is the proper answer.

"The Hungarian people are thought to have originated in an ancient Finno-Ugric population that originally inhabited the forested area between the Volga River and the Ural Mountains. Sometime between the first and fifth centuries A.D., after the Ugric and Finnic peoples had split, Ugric tribes in the eastern portion of the territory moved farther south, intermingling with nomadic Bulgar-Turkish peoples. Some of these tribes settled in the Carpathian Basin in the ninth century A.D. and became the direct ancestors of today's inhabitants of Hungary. The proper name for the largest ethnic group in Hungary is Magyar. The word is a derivative of Megyeri, supposedly the name of one of the original ten Magyar tribes. Magyar refers specifically to both the language and the ethnic group. The words Hungary and Hungarian are derivatives of a Slavicized form of the Turkic words on ogur, meaning "ten arrows," which may have referred to the number of Magyar tribes.

Hungarian is the country's only official language. It is a member of the Finno-Ugric family of languages, unrelated to the Indo-European language family, which contains the major European languages. Within Europe, Hungarian is related to Finnish, Estonian, Komi, and several lesser-known languages spoken in parts of the Ural Mountain region in the former Soviet Union. It has a heavy admixture of Turkish, Slavic, German, Latin, and French words. Hungarian is written in Latin characters. The various dialects are intelligible to all Hungarians throughout the country."

[Elewyn]

@Finellach
good example, but those times (and before)we have many examples that they called some etnic somehow, bot they were absolutely wrong. I can't remember examples now... hmm: Syrians in times of Crusades called all christians Franks, does that mean French and Germans and English were the same? nope, they came from same place (in arabian Point of view).

Magyars and Mongols were related same like Illyrians and Slavs- they came into particular area in diferent times and left there some of their genotype ;) but came from different origin

PS, what about returning back on topic? :)

[Finellach]

Elewyn thats a good point and you stated very clearly yourself what I've been trying to explain...especially in your second statement. ;)
It seem you have a habbit of missing my point. :p

Gorgoroth I also have a text :D

"The word "Hun" comes from the word "kun" in Turkish ...It means people, or nation. Many now accept that the Bulgars are the descendants of the Huns. The ancestor of the Bulgars is Kobrat Han, who was the son of Irnek. Irnek was the son or grandson of Attila. So the Bulgars are directly descended from the Huns. Their writings were a different version of the Turkish-Runic writing used in Mongolia.
The Magyars (Hungarians) are also the descendants of the Huns (although modern Hungary itself also consists of a large number of Avar descendants mixed in - Ed). The dynasty of Arpad, which founded the present-day Hungary, is descended from the dynasty of Attila. The very name of the country comes from the name On-Ogur, which is a Turkish tribe. The Magyars consisted of six amalgamated Turkish tribes and one other Turkish tribe.
Magyars and Bulgars were accepted by the Byzantines as Turkic. for example, the Magyars were called Turks by the Byzantines during the ninth and twelfth centuries. Both of these tribes have since been assimilated into the native peoples in which they migrated and settled and have lost their own cultural features."

The only one wrong here is you...NHF. Believe I am reading esseys like this and it has been my hobby for a few years now. I know what I speaking of. ;)
Magyars were of Turkish origin thus of Asiatic appearance. They, like thier distant cousins Huns, came to central Europe and found remanats of their cousins. Then they conquered the land and assimilated Slavs that lived in this area thus today most Hungarians are actually "magyarizied" slavs.

[Gorgoroth]

Okay now lets see again. :angel:

The Magyars have 0% relationship with the Huns.
The Huns originated from Central Asia, MAYBE from Sumeria, no one knows. The Magyars originated from the West of the Urals.
[No one knows that where did they lived before the Urallic region. All the other informations are just hypothesis.]
Magyars never had Turkish origins at all, they met with turkish & bulgarian tribes on their way to the Carpathian basin, and settled there. [This is why the Hungarian got "some" turkish originated word.]
Arpad descended from the dynasty of Attila???? Where the heck are you getting these insane informations?! :D


"magyarizied" slavs: that is sorta right, after the genetic tests, we can say that. This is the only right point what you have posted.

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
Magyars never had Turkish origins at all, they met with turkish & bulgarian tribes on their way to the Carpathian basin, and settled there. [This is why the Hungarian got "some" turkish originated word.] :go: I agree with whole post. Especiall y this is what I tried to say :)

[Gorgoroth]

Woohoo Elewyn, you were quite active while I wasnt around on the boards! 1540 posts! :eek: :cheers:

[Frujin]

Very interesting discussion. :) Perhaps in the distant future we can consider a game set in the times of the Great Migration. :)

My humble opinion: Magyars were Finno-Ugric tribe, non-Turkic in origin, which had close contacts with Turkic tribes in the Asiatic steppes. There were nothing in common between Bulgars and Magyars. Bulgars are directly descending from the Huns. It is not clear yet for the historians if they had a Turkic origin or not. It is only proven they had white skin color and were relatively high above teh average for the period.

[Elewyn]

guys, seen it?

when discussing units, Frujin is quietly walking around and reading this thread, when something "interesting", huh, here is his post :D

Yea, goo d thing to be considered, Lord Frujin :)

@Gorgoroth Did I? :D

PS: can you tell us something about units also, our lord Frujin? not really necessary, but it would please us :angel:

[Frujin]

I saw all the questions and I'm reading few times a day the discussions about the new units. I know you need answers and more information, but I can't give those now :(

(as you can see from the previous post - I DO have desire to write :) :) )

[Gorgoroth]

Well said Frujin.
I have a question. I dont know too much about the Bulgarian origins, but are you sure that the Bulgars related to the Huns?
This sounds a bit weird.
Can you give me more informations?

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Frujin
I saw all the questions and I'm reading few times a day the discussions about the new units. I know you need answers and more information, but I can't give those now :(

(as you can see from the previous post - I DO have desire to write :) :) ) :go: I am really sorry :(

It's hard to imagine how hard it is for you :blush: especially when you are always being asked for it :(

But I hope it's good for you, becasue you can see how much we like this game :) :hello:

[timurlenk]

Originally posted by Elewyn
But I hope it's good for you, because you can see how much we like this game :) :hello:


especially this statement is very important!
we really like this game and are looking forward to play it. so all our suggestions, questions and wishes are just to improve the game - to make it best.

its not to criticize you for our fun - but i think you do know this yet...


frujin, may your desires to write come true in near future :cheers:

[Gorgoroth]

Indeed, be patient fellas.
The game will be awesome, I only wish for a better multiplayer.
Conquest in MP is what I would like to see in the first expansion! :)

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
Okay now lets see again. :angel:

The Magyars have 0% relationship with the Huns.
The Huns originated from Central Asia, MAYBE from Sumeria, no one knows. The Magyars originated from the West of the Urals.
[No one knows that where did they lived before the Urallic region. All the other informations are just hypothesis.]
Magyars never had Turkish origins at all, they met with turkish & bulgarian tribes on their way to the Carpathian basin, and settled there. [This is why the Hungarian got "some" turkish originated word.]
Arpad descended from the dynasty of Attila???? Where the heck are you getting these insane informations?! :D


First let's state clearly that your theory is just that - a theory.
Now there are couple of theories. First and the most famous one is the one you presented here the other one is stated by me. IMO both have some truth...as it history always showed that various theories may all be true. For example Croats.
Well anyway "your" theory says that Magayrs with Finns, Esthonians, Ostyak and Voguls were linked by linguistic and ethnical kinship. This places the Magyars on plains of Ural an area between Asia and Europe.
This theory insist that the cradle of the Magyars could only have been situated in the Ural region. It was from there that around 2000 B.C. the Finnish branch broke away to finally settle in the Baltic area.

Meanwhile, the proto-Magyars remained on the vast West Siberian steppes with other Ugrian peoples until around 500 B.C. But there is no satisfactory explanation, however, for how the Proto-Magyars, who had been forest dwelling hunters and gatherers along with the other Finno-Ugrians, suddenly became horse-breeders, livestock herding horsemen and fierce horse warriors. Thus IMO this theory hardly holds any ground. This "Finno-Ugrian" theory is based on linguistics alone, without support in "anthropology, archeology or written records" and we already esatblished that many nations today are speaking languages which are diverse and far different than their ethinical origins. I believe that the answer is in the present turkish words in modern Hungarian language rather than the group to which Hungarian language gravitates.

Then we also have the bet known Magyar folk tale that is just a tale, but it obbviously has some truth in it and more substantial proofs as well from various sources. It's the 'Legend of the White Stag'. It says how the two sons of Nimrod, Hunor and Magor were lured into new lands while chasing a white stag. Well to get to the point it says that the descendants of Hunor became the Huns and descendants of Magor became the Magyars. Thus once again we are getting back to the theory I already presented to you just later. ;)

Huns and Magyars were no doubt cousins. This not only says us the name of today Hungary, but also that even the best known Magyar leader was called Atilla the Hun. From where does it says Arapd dynsty are descendants from Atilla? Well I don't know, but I believe they alone probably claimed such a thing.