Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T01:21:46.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Eastern Auxiliaries of the Magyars1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Extract

There is no recognized English term for the peoples with which this paper deals. The Hungarians themselves call them the “keleti segédnépek”, the Germans, the “östliche Hilfsvölker”. The adjective “eastern” excludes the German or Serb “auxiliaries” who sometimes figure in Hungarian history; but the Magyars did not apply the term just to any people who happened to have entered Hungary via its eastern frontier. They never ranked a Russian, nor, indeed, any Slav immigrant as an auxiliary, nor a Vlach, nor a Jew. They reserved the term for peoples of the same sort of mores and social structure, military organization, and at least apparently kindred ethnic origin as the Magyars themselves, what may be called, roughly, nomadic or quasi-nomadic steppe peoples. They drew a fairly clear distinction between such peoples and others, treating the former at least as near-equals and easily admitting them to full equality. After this had happened, the auxiliaries usually assimilated very easily with the Magyars, so that their later history is often difficult to trace. They played, however, a considerable part—larger than is often recognized—in the national history, and indeed formed a larger component than is usually recognized of the so-called Magyar people themselves; even of the invaders who crossed the Carpathians, under Magyar leadership, at the end of the 9th century a.d.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Németh, S., “Eine Wörterliste der Jassen, der ungarländischen Alanen”, Abh. dtsch. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Kl. Spr., Lit. u. Kunst, 1958, no. 4. I have Professor Sir Harold Bailey to thank for drawing my attention to this paper, which I had missed.Google Scholar