While I heartily congratulate and thank my colleague, Mr. Földváry
for his excellent and muchneeded reappraisal of the early
Hungarian (Magyar) campaigns in western Europe, I feel I could
provide some additional points. They will not affect the merit
of his work the slightest, because, I do think, that it is far
reaching in its own right. It was not intended here to look for
faults or omissions. These remarks would only render the original
article even more complete and they might even throw light on
some aspects which, quite unintentionally, may not have been featured
prominently enough.
It is very necessary especially for the western world
to understand that the early Hungarian campaigns were not merely
for plundering; on the contrary they were mainly for establishig
and securing the territory of the nation in the Carpathian Basin.
Since Professor Gyula Laszló's (Budapest) research into
the origins of the presentday Magyars, there is no doubt
any more, that they are as much a conglomerate ethnic mass as
the presentday English British people, both linguistically
and anthropologically. There are a few facts which are by now
quite beyond doubt, such as:
1) the repeated and definitive occupation of the Garpathian Basin
by the Magyars;
2) the far from devastating but quite real danger of the Petcheneg
pressure on the eastern Magyars durring the 9th cent.;
3) the remains of the Avar Kingdom (though not in the form of
an organized state any more) still must have been important in
terms of population present, if not politically in this area subsequent
to Charlemagne's campaign against the Avars; also the close genetic
relationship between the Avars and the Magyars must be considered;
4) the Magyars waging a superior type of warfare, included elements
of surprise, mobility and firepower, almost wholly carried
out by cavalry, and, last but not least,
5) the Magyars had a powerful, wellorganized strict leadership.
Only these factors render understandable the extraordinary success
the Magyars achieved in the first half of the 10th century, without
the vast numbers of the Tartars, or the immense empire of Attila
the Hun).
Weakness, relative or otherwise, was not the cause of the
-46-
failure of the Western (GermanoRomance) or Eastern (Byzantine)
defenses. In the West, the idea of the Holy Roman Empire, first
conceived by Charlamagne and developed by his descendants, was
in process of emergence in the 9th century In the East, the Roman
(Byzantine) Empire was in the hands of the Macedonian emperors,
soldier or statesman like in most cases. The Bulgarian
Kingdom was at its peak, even if its glory may be argued. The
Serbian and Croatia kingdoms were more solidly founded, accepted
by the pope as well as by the emperor. Since these emerging powers
possessed varying degrees of coherence in their political structure
both in time and space, it is easy for us to realize that the
situation was far from being a political or military vacuum, into
which the "nomadic Hungarians (Magyar) tribes intruded"
(not Mr. F`ldv<ry's remarks, but all too often stated today).
The term "nomad" or "nomadic" as applied to
the Magyars is not strictly true actually. Nomads are people who
indiscriminately wander after their grazing herds, whatever these
herds may be conposed of, without the intention of claiming the
territory they roam on. On the other hand, pastoralials are people
who use their land in a rotating way according to climate and
seasons to exploit it in the most economical way. White Australian
graziers would be most offended if somebody called them nomads
on the basis that they use their rural estates in such a way that
their animals do not occupy all their paddocks at the same time,
but rather rotate their use according to their best interest.
[There is plenty of evidence that the Hungarians were not just
herdsmen but also farmed, and they settled down much faster than
most typical herdmen did in history.ed] So it may be more
practical to call all the herdraising people of the steppes
pastoralists. Most of their wars were concerned with the acquisition
and maintenance of territory so that they would always have sufficient
land to graze their large herds in a pendulum (tiktak) fashion,
alternately utilizing summer and winter pastures. This method
was pointed out and explained in detail by Dr. G. Györffy.
When in 911 A.D. Lewis the Child died, being a good and efficient
ruler, left a strong empire to his successor Conrad I (911918).
Lewis was the last Carolingian ruler and Conrad the only Franconian
king. He was followed by Henry I (919936, known as "the
fowler", an able and apt leader, being the first of the Saxon
or Salian kings. His son Otto I (936973) was one of the
greatest and most remarkable of the early holy Roman Emperors.
Z.N. Brooke writes thus: (the Saxon forces) ....were no match
for the lightlymounted Magyars, who invariably outmanoeuvred
their terrified opponents by the swiftness of their movements
and skill with which they could, often in pretended flight, discharge
their arrows from horseback. Henry (I) met the problem. Instituted
a mounted force... so that the cavalry soon became the effective
military arm... Accordingly, when the Magyars came again in 933AD,
... (he) inflicted on them a defeat which only the speed of their
flight prevented from being decisive.."
Not only the immediate neighbours took notice of them, the Magyars'
reputation and the fear they instilled in people
travelled well up towards northern Europe, even if their views
as they are expressed today, cannot always be called explicit.
Scandinavian scholars mention that "These Magyars were a
horse riding people who came originally from the steppes of Asia.
From the later part of the 9th century onwards they ravaged the
eastern parts of Europe, attacked Byzantium, and as soon as they
had established themselves in Hungary, set off on a series of
rapid robber raids against the northwest of the continent.
By the year 908 they had gone as far as Bremen. Like the Vikings,
they owed their success mainly to mobility. The Magyars knew the
art of attacking and fighting on horseback in very great
numbers. As fighting cavalry they behaved, not as disorderly hordes,
but disciplined troope...It was not until 933 at Merseburg.. that
the German king (Henry I) seems to have been able to stop the
Magyar armies effectively. It would have been virtually impossible
for him to do so, had he not formed and trained cavalry of his
own..."
Z. N. Brooke writes again: " ..Henry I had created a position
of apparent security" and "Otto I was in his twenty
fourth year when his father died..."
These texts clearly reveal that in the first third of the 10th
century, the Magyars attacked a fairly well organized Western
Europe, slowly coming to use even light cavalry. When Henry the
Fowler was succeeded by his son Otto I, he was in his prime, not
disadvantageous for a ruler. True, he had troubles with his brother
Thankmar, with the Duke Wichman and with the French king, Louis
IV. With good organization, politics, he overcame these difficulties,
but (according to Z.N. Brooke) "meanwhile the Magyars had
seized this favorable opportunity (disagreement with the dukes
to make one of the most widespread and devastating of all their
raids. In 937 A.D. they broke into Germany en masse.. in 938 they
made another unsuccessful attempt against Saxony.
After that failure the Magyars did not organize a major raid into
Germany until 954 A.D. At this time a feud broke out again in
the royal (German) family between the dukes of Suabia, Lorraine
and Bavaria as well as the emperor Conrad and Luidolf welcomed
the invading Magyars into Germany against Otto's supporters. But
their cause was discredited by the plundering of the invading
Hungarian armies. The population rose against the dukes, so they
had to submit to Otto I. When. the Magyars repeated their attack
in 955, (Z.N. Brooke) " Conrad arrived with a strong body
of Franconians at Augsburg (on the Lech River plains). His prowess
played a large part in the great victory that was won on the banks
of the Lech...they (the Magyars) were forced to settle down (thereafter??)...,
the career of Hungary as a civilized state begins from this date..
Population, wealth, culture, religion, all began to expand (in
the West)...from this victory dates his (Otto I's) title 'the
Great'..." Obviously this author overlooks a few factors,
but it is true,
there were no raids to the West from the Battle of Augsburg on.
The fifty years of warfare which needed the 'Greatest" emperor
to finally check, makes it quite clear for anybody, what an impact
Otto's victory (and the Magyars' defeat) made on the West. It
might have looked superficially as "robber raids" to
the occidental eyes, but at the end, both sides had to come to
the conclusion: they have to live next to each other whether they
like it or not, which was the intention of the "raids"
in the first place.
So, as Mr. F`ldv<ry very rightly states, the Hungarians succeeded
establishing themselves in the Carpathian Basin and they taught
the West the usage of light cavalry, which later on came in very
handy against the Moors
Scandinavian scholars state that "in 934 A.D. Henry the Fowler
at Hedeby defeated the Vikings with cavalry troops.. It was probably
on this occasion that the new bridlebit of the Hungarian
type was first introduced to Denmark...rich horsemen's graves
of the type later found all over Denmark, already occur at this
stage. (The stirrups, modern saddle, leather boots were also introduced
by them. ed) The Magyars were experts in the use of the
bow and arrow from horseback, and arrows of types known in Hungary
begin to turn up in Scandinavian sites...(like) at the fortress
of Trelleborg ..and in horsemen's graves at Birka in Sweden...not
only Hungarian. bridlebits, but also Hungariantype
stirrups...and a horse or several horses...at the dead man's feet..."
(In Hungarian fashion).
As it was mentioned, the impact of the Hungarians on the west
(Western Europe) was not exclusively devastating: in many ways
it was fertile and constructive, adding to the European culture
as we know it today.
The fact that the Magyar forces did not stage any more raids against
the west, is a proof that a military and political stabilily established
itself there, and the actions (with their resulting population
depletion) were not promising in the Hungarian leaders' view.
As Mr. Földváry states, the defeat at Lech near Augsburg,
was not as "devastating that it would break the spine of
the Hungarian military strength". When we look to the southeast,
already in 958, they attacked the Byzantine Empire for a change
this time. (The Germans were afraid to carry the war to Hungarian
terrytories. ed)
Here the order laid out by Constantine the Great, and by other
able emperors like Julian, Marcian, Justinian, Heraclius, Constantine
V, was upheld against outside attacks and the inside corruption
of hordes of worthless rulers.
Outside attacks started with the Persians, Alans, Goths and culminated
with the Huns. S. Vryonis writes "Begining with the Huns
and lasting for a millennium...the continuous strife Altaic peoples
in the wasteland of Central Asia caused, resulted periodically
in the westward march of Bulgars, Avars, Patzinaks (Petchenegs,
Uzes, Cumans, Seljuks and Mongols".
With clever politics which sometimes even today is regarded
as weakling's tricks they were able to lead a line of diplomacy
upholding the kingdom for a thousand years. The Magyar engagements
came in the middle of this period, so it would be not very fortunate
to speak about the decline of the Byzantine power at this juncture.
Leo VI (the Wise) 886912, Constantine VII ( Porphyrogenitos)
913959, Nicephorus II Phocas 963969, John I Tzimisces
969976, Basil II 9761025 ruled the empire about in
this period. They all were very good leaders, good generals and
strengthened the political, military position of the Greeks. Actually,
Basil II defeated the Bulgars so effectively at Struma in 1014,
that we cannot speak of a Bulgarian Kingdom for two centuries
after that date. Phocas earned the title of Saracenkiller,
Basil the Bulgarslayer, for their victories over the Arabs
and Samuel respectively. So great was the Greek rebirth, that
S. Vryonis mentions... "On the death of Basil ( 1025) the
power and glory of Byzantium seemed to be securely established,
for not since Neraclian reconquest times had the empire experienced
a comparable expansion".
Without going into more details it seems quite clear: there could
not have been a political or military vacuum in this part of the
world in the 10th century. Phocas, Tzimisces, and Basil were the
best generals the Greeks ever had. Byzantine legions were feared
and respected, while her military strength secured stability in
sea and land. Her soldiers naturally came from the Turanid stock
Trakian, Illyrian, Macedonian and Armenian. At the end,
Byzantium's back was broken but not by Arab, Bulgarian, Magyar
or Cumanian "onslaught": it was successfully broken
by the crosswielding westerners, the "heroic"
Normans under Boniface of Montferrat and Baldwin, the Count of
Flanders.
S. Runciman writes..."the Sacking of Constantinople is unparalleled
in history...the Frenchmen and Flemings were filled with a lust
for destruction...snatching up everything that glittered and destroying
whatever they could not carry away, pausing only to murder, or
rape, or to break open the winecellars for their refreshment...The
Latin Emperor of Constantinople, conceived in sin, was a puny
child for whose welfare the West eagerly sacrificed the needs
of its children in the Holy Land..." But all these came 250
years later, in 1203, and in the meantime the "barbaric hordes"
of the Hungarians were the real menace, from which God should
protect his children.
Next to the Eastern Roman Empire in this area there existed another
power, namely the Sekeli "Bulgars" or BulgarTurks.
(later known as Sekely Hungarians?) They did play a part in the
history of this continent, beginning with Isperich in 640, and
culminating during the 9th and 10th centuries. Vladimir (888893),
Simeon (893927), Peter (927968), Boris II (968976),
and Samuel (9761014) were rulers at the time of the Carpathian
Conquest by the Magyars. Simeon was the greatest "Czar"
of the Bulgarians. The name came from the Latin Caesar, which
was a title given by the Byzantine emperor to their second in
command. It seems that Simeon concentrated his efforts on the
Greeks, letting the
Hungarians take his UpDanubian provinces. It might have
been a pacification move also, for Leo the Wise instigated attacks
on the Magyars by the Bulgarians and the Petcheregs in 893 A.D.
No doubt about the fact that the Magyars did carry out raids against
the Bulgarians, especially after 955. Peter and Boris II felt
the brunt of their attacks and finally the Bulgarian Empire was
destroyed by Basil II ( a contemporary of St. Stephen, King of
Hungary ), in 1014 A.D.; however, he did not take part in this.
He was neutral, rather siding with the Greeks. It can be seen
from documents that he secures a niece of Basil, as wife for his
son Imre (Emery). As J. Jirecek points out, the Bulgarian Empire
was annihilated by the concentrated attacks of the Cumanians Russians
and Greeks.
Between the Magyar and Bulgarian states a watchful tolerance existed
at this time. It is proven by the report about Tzimisce's sacking
of the Russianoccupied Preslavecz the Bulgariar capital
in 961 A.D. According to J. Jirecek "..Here they (the
Bulgarians hoarded together in big abundance Greek silk, gold,
wine, and fruit; Czech and Magyar horses, silver; Russian furs,
honey, wax and slaves..." They are goods mostly transported
and transferred by trade and not by pilfering. I. Vendikov writes
'the troubled history of Bulgaria, which was the largest country
in Eastern Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries, records moments
of great prosperity and others of great disasters, and ends with
her falling under Constantine domination for almost two centuries".
Again this does not seem to be a sign of political vacuum. Troubles
yes, but not military emptiness. Last but not least one has to
look at Italy and the Adriatic coast. (Which also suffered repeated
Hungarian military incursions.)
Terpimir (845864) took the title "dux Chroatorum iuvatus
munere divino". He defeated Boris I, King of Bulgaria in
855, and established a Franconian vassal state. Branimir (879892)
reached political independence and made ally with Pope John VIII.
He supported Peter, from the Goynik Dynasty, King of Serbia, during
892917. The Magyar takeover of Pannonia came under
the rule of Tomislav (910928).
It is very popular to speak about "Slavic imperialism",
but one Slavic scholar, F.R, Preveden, writes thus:"...There
is no such thing as a Slavic race, but merely Slavic peoples (ethnic
groups), which are, as regards their racial origins, of a multiple
composition..." Hence it seems questionable to speak about
"Hungarians wedged themselves into the ethnic centre of the
Slavic block..." He states rightly or wrongly ". .Tomislav
of Dalmatia had a powerful army... and defeated the Hungarians..
became the master of nearly all Croatianterritory.. "
It is true, the presentday Croatia did not come under political
domination of the Magyars before the time of St Ladislas I (St.
Laszlo I) and even then only as a federated entity, It is possible
that already St. Stephen I (the first [Catholic] king of Hungary
had some ideas
with Peter II of Orseolo, Doge of Venice, who attacked the sons
of Styepan Derzhislav (969995). One of them, also Stephan,
became his protege, married the Doge's daughter and was brotherinlaw
to the Hungarian king, Peter I.
Even if one agrees that no Magyar conquest was carried out against
the Croatian rulers during the time of the Preventive Wars (i.e.
the deterrent campaigns, the Croats were not able or willing to
oppose the Magyars either, because the socalled "raids"
(campaigns) against Italians, Byzantines and Bulgarians freely
went on for nearly 70 years.
There is one other, just emerging, power in this area at this
time: the Papacy.
Roman aristocracy ruled the middle of the Peninsula and their
policies gave direction to events in Italy. Theophilact, Alberic,
and Crestentius, all Roman serators, with the aid of king Hugh,
Otto I and Otto II, elected their kinsman to the papacy. Murder,
intrigue, trials and excommunications followed, as the Lombardian
rulers, the Carolingian Louis, and later Berengar, opposed "German"
influence.
The Magyars were invited on numerous occasions into the country
to block or open the flood in this stormy area. Alberic and Leo
VII (936939) were powerful enough to promote the Reform
of Cluny, St. Odo established his monastery on the Aventine, from
which came later the great reformer pope, Gregory VII. Crestentius'
protege, John XV (985996) encouraged the alliance between
Ethelred II, king of England, and Duke Richard of Normandy, against
the Vikings. He canonized St. Uric, bishop of Augsburg, the first
known example of a formal canonization.
In 996 A.D the sixteenyear old German Emperor, Otto III,
made his cousin Bruno the pope under the same name of Gregory
V. He was deposed by Crestentius with the help of Basil II. Otto's
revenge was terrible, but he restored the pope and curbed the
passions of Roman aristocracy. When Gregory was poisoned, the
emperor chose Gerbert, Archbishop of Ravenna, a Frenchman, as
pope. He was born in Aurilac, and helped to crown king Hugh Capet,
but later joined the imperial court in Ravenna. Unfortunately
for them, Otto III died in 1002. The Crescenti family came back
to power and "the magnificent dreams of the emperor and pope
uniting to reform Christendom seemed lost". this latter passage
from D. Woodruff (1964) makes somewhat dubious the claim that
Gerbert, who became known as Sylvester II, sent an authorization
to a certain kingdom (Hungary) against the German emperor, his
master.
In conclusion it may be stated that the Magyar campaigns in the
10th century were not "robber raids", but "preventative
wars", deterrent campaigns, as my colleague Mr. Földváry
so excellently pointed out. They were against militarily
if not always politically powerful empires and kingdoms.
Their success was due to a new type of werfare, in military and
political unity, and in a strong leadership with a foresight.
Hungarians were not "nomads" but pastoralists, as Prof.
G. László and or. G. Györffy proved it in their
works, not "disorderly hordes", as Z. N. Brooks, B.
Almgren and G. Földváry proved it; furthermore they
did not dislocate the Slavic block in Central Europe, as prof.
F.R. Preveden contended.
Mr. G. Z. Földváry's farreaching article and
the present author's efforts hopefully made it clear
that the Magyars were sufficiently strong and intelligent to esablish
their homeland, defend it even after the Preventive Wars for three
Centuries against all the might of the Holy Roman Empire. (and
Byzantium) In the light of more recent historical research one
can see that the often repeated, socalled "devastating
defeat" of the Magyars by the Petchenegs in 893, is a myth,
(proven by the Petchegens quick conversions to a Hungarian ally
ed) and the bare fact is actually Khagan Arpad's conquest,
the last of possibly three waves of Magyar entry into the Carpathian
Basin, according to Prof. G. László's working hypothesis.
REFERENCES
Almgren, B., et al., 1972. The Viking. Tre Tryckare.
Brooks, Z.N., 1938/69. A History of Europe, 9111198.
Györffy G., 1971. On the settlement procedures of the conquering
Magyars in the Carpathian Basin (in Hungarian). Archeol. Irtesit`,97,
191242. Budapest.
Jirecek J., 1899. The History of the Bulgarians (in Hung.)
László Gy., 1944. Everyday life of the conquering
Magyars (in Hung.)
1973 On the conquering Magyars (in Hung.).
Preveden F.R., 1955, A History of the Croatian People.
Runciman S., 1954. A History of the Crusades, 3.
Tryckare, Try see under Almgren
Vendikov I., 1965. Bulgaria' s Treasures from the Past.
Vryonis S., 1967 Byzantium and Europe.
Woodruff D., & E. John, 1964. The Popes.
Szerkesztöi megjegyzés: Folyóiratunk a magyar
és rokon népekre vonatkozó történelmi,
de föleg östörténelmi kutatások adatait,
részleteredményeit, valamint a feltárt ujabb
értesüléseket és vélemenyeket
közli. Minden közleményért a szerzöje
felelös. A tanulányok a szerzöjük egyéni
nézetét képviselik és ismertetik.
A tárggyal kapcsolatos észrevételeket, megjegyzéseket,
további értesüléseket kiegészitéseket,
stb. szivesen fogadjuk és kézségesen kiadjuk,
amennyiben azok összeállitása szakszerü,
ismeretközl` modon történt és közlésük
személyeskedés nélküli, tárgyilagos
formában készült.