>The "Ugrian Mountains" protected the Hungarian complex from
>their worst steppe enemies at that time.
Those mountains are the Eastern Carpathians that separate Transylvania
from Moldavia. They were by no means impenetrable. Quite the contrary,
most waves coming from the East crossed the mountains via traditional
passes. What's significant, the Hungarian state was able to consolidate
its frontier in the Eastern Carpathians only towards the end of the 12th
>century, after the entire population of the so-called Szeklers was moved
from central Hungary to the eastermost province (where they today
form the most compact Hungarian minority that just these days strongly
militate to get territorial and administrative autonomy). In the time span
when Hungary loosely controled Transylvania (its eastern parts barely
or not at all yet), the Hungarian state was war from consolidating the
frontier with the palisade systems and clusters of localities with
military
colonists. This kind of frontier gradually moved eastwards in a quite long
time period, from the 1st half of the 10th until the second half of the
13th century. The Hungarian kings made various "experiments" in
this respect. Not only did they use Petchenegs and other immigrants
within their defense system (fearing invasions from East and South),
but they systematically colonized the South, South-East and the North-
East of Transylvania towards the end of the 12th and the beginning of
the 13th centuries with numerous people from the "Reich" (Franconian
Germans and French-speaking Vallons, who soon adopted the German
language of the former group); simultaneously another numerous
German group of immigrants was settled in what's now Slovakia and
Western Ukraine (Beregovo, Ung, Ugotcha, Mukac^evo), as well as
in other areas. But these two were the oldest German important groups
that had continuity, i.e. weren't assimilated (especially that one in
Transylvania, called "Transylvanian Saxons". The so-called "Banate
Suebians" showed up centuries later, after between 1683 and after
1700, when a European coalition managed a "reconquista", throwing
back the Ottoman forces.). Moreover, during a period of 25 years in
the 1st half of the 13th century, the de facto rulers of South-East
Transylvania was the Teutonic Order, that had had the duty to
consolidate the East Carpathian frontier esp. against the Cumans
who lived outside of the Carpathian arch. Yet the Teutonic Order got
ambitious and the Hungarian king feared the Germans would have
taken away a chunk of the territory, so the T.O. knights had to leave.
A couple of years later on, after the Mongolian invasion, the King
(the son of King Andrew who had his trouble with the Teutonic knights)
tried a similar episode concerning the southern border, namely with
the Hospitalier knights of the St John's order. That was also a quite
brief episode in history. A real improvement was achieved only a
century later, during the reign of the d'Anjou kings (Charles Robert
and Louis). But there are documents and other features showing
that Petcheneg, and then Cumans (and other lesser known Turkic
warriors) were intensely integrated in the defense system (which
shows that Hungarians's own forces were by far not enough for their
territory. The second oldest chronicle, by Simon of Keza, illustrates
that the immigration of knights was very important from Western
Europe as well: many warriors from France, Italy, and esp. Germany.
Those who built the fortresses and other structures were people
chiefly from the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (both Germany
and Italy).).
And this is on the otherside the gist of the Hungarian-Romanian
historiography disputes: Hungary did not control de facto Transylvania
prior to the 13th century, the documents concerning this easternmost
province are extremely scarce. When they get more numerous, namely
in the 13th-14th centuries, the Romanian population "pops up". This
explains to a great extent the interpretations on the Hungarian side:
"there were no Romanians over there up to the Mongolian invasion"
(in spite of certain traces!), and it also prompts the Romanian side to
point out that the king's court knew almost nothing of the area that
wasn't under the real and thorough control by the kings forces.
>If the Pechenegs had reached Transylvania as one of their eight
>provinces, there would have been no security for the Hungarians.
The Petchenegs converted from former enemies (who prompted the
Hungarians to leave Ukraine) to an integrated military population,
that soon ended up completely assimilated. The Petchenek toponymy,
hydronymy and oronymy is well represented along the borders and
adjacent areas. For sure are those that mean "Petchenek" (in such forms
as Besenyö, Beshinova, Pecineaga, Peceneaga etc.). The other ones
are difficult establish as genuine Petcheneg ones because many can
be initiated by Cumans (both groups, and other, minor, ones spoke
the same language, having the same lexical preferences).
>So I'll stick with my earlier conclusion: the
>Pechenegs reached as far west as "Seret, Prut, and the
>lower Danube". But not across the mountains, not
>then.****
But 30-50-70-90 years after Constantin's writing his De administrando yes.
The big trouble with the rulers in Alba Iulia, the Hungarian king (no less
then the outstanding Vajk a.k.a. called Saint Stephen) had to have after
1000 (half a century after Porphyrogenitus's Petcheneg description).
The trouble is that the oldest Hungarian chronicles present the Alba Iulia
based bosses of Transylvania as being the close relatives of the king's
family. (Stephen was the first king. His father, Ge:za was only a
"duke".) In this position, of a close king's kinship, it is a bit
difficult to put the Petchenek ruler of Transylvania. Perhaps it is
far-fetched. But anyway, at least in the first 1-2 centuries, the
ruling house along with the nobility (i.e. the ruling clans of the
tribes that moved in after 896) were Turkish-speaking people. They
assimilated within a time frame of approx. two centuries
linguistically, so that after a time span of diglossy Hungarians spoke
only the Magyar language, so that "Turkey" (how it was called by
Constantine) became Hungary (which in fact also means "a country of a
Turkic nation"), whereas in the Hungarian language the country's name
has been up to now "the Magyar country". In Hungarian, one doesn't use
the exonym, that means Onogur.
> ****GK: That's why I believed (and still believe) that
> if the Pechenegs controlled Transylvania as part of
> their fearsome confederation,
Perhaps their confederation worked after a while in a very...
"autocephalous"
way -- acting together only in rare occasions, invasions of scale
etc., and otherwise each "province" or "ulus" dealing with its own
business, the neigh-
boring one not poking its nose in it. (Later on, Cumans too parted: as
their
"sponsor", king Ladislas (whose mother was a Cuman herself) died in
1290, many Cumans went back to what's now Ukraine and joined the
Tartar kaganate, i.e., their... kinship. But many of them stayed put,
mostly
in a region called Cumania (Kunság in Hungarian), that is in the plains
along the river Tissa (neighboring to the north, in the same region,
"Alania"
(Jászság). There, very numerous place names start with Kun- and Jász-,
and over there is the biggest concentration of horse breeding and that
Podolian kind of big cattle ("macroceros", long-horned), and of "cowboys"
called "csi:koS" with their dogs races komondor, pulli and kuvasz (assumed
by experts to have left there by Petcheneks and Cumans. Komondor as
a reflex of Cuman makes sense).
> ****GK: It's been a while since I read her stuff. I
> don't have my notes handy. But I'll keep this in
> mind.****
I mean these pages:
http://www.s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/26Kipchaks/Pletneva/KipchaksPletneva1En.htm
(Methinks, in spite of flaws and shortcomings, such materials are highly
interesting. Many historians in Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia etc. dealing
superficially with these time periods lack thorough knowledge on the
intricacies of those ephemerous kaganates. Of course, there is a
linguistic
obstacle: Turkish, Persian, Armenian aren't everyday's languages in
certain academe environments. :-)) (Even in Romania, despite its Turkish,
Tatar and Armenian minorities.)
George