>****GK: I see no real evidence to suggest that the
>Pechenegs continued their onslaught against the
>Hungarians by crossing the "Ugrian mountains". But
We don't refer to such an onslaught, but on events later
on, 60 to 130-140 years later. (About the 960s to 1040s.
Esp. around 1000-1010.)
>*****GK: I don't buy this for the period prior to
>1036.*****
If it can be proved that Transylvania was ruled by
Tuhutum's descendants (the Gyulas were among them)
then, the rulers couldn't have been Petchenegs. The
problem is this funny name, the title, the name of
the Tuhutum descendants (Geula), the name of a Petcheneg
tribe living in the area or a neighboring region. And on
top of that: the very name of the "dux blacorum" Gelou
who ruled the country that Tuhutum conquered might
also be some projection or overlapping of Gila-Yula-
"Jul(i)us" (i.e., a confusion). The modern rendition of
Gelou's name in Hungarian is Gyalu.
>****GK: Nothing in the Old Ukrainian chronicles
>verifies this for 982/1002/1022. For 1052 (=90) no
>problem.****
Do these chronicles also have hints as to the Petchenegs
relationship with Transylvania? (Besides: do they confirm
the rising influence of the Cumans way into Transylvania
between 1070s and 1110s? At least incursions.)
>>tribes that moved in after 896) were
>>Turkish-speaking people.
>
>****GK: I agree.****
So, this is why the rebel Gyula must have been a Turk too
(several chronicles, Greek and Hungarian, point out that
he and his sons also showed reluctance to stay Roman-
Catholic, they urged their supporters to return to the old
faith and habits).
George