Annales Historici Prešovienses, 2013 (XIII/1-2)

2013 / No. 1

The Landtaking and Settlement of the Hungarians/Magyars and its Historical Role his son, Kuszán had filled the office of kündü, while Álmos and his son Árpád had been the gyula and later, after the death of Kuszán (904) Árpád became the great prince (megás arkhón) of the Hungarians.23 Other scholars supposed, that Álmos had been the sacral prince (kündü) till his murder in 895 - his death was mentioned by the fourteenth century chronicle compilation/Chronicon Pictum24 - and after Ál­mos’ death his son, Árpád became kündü, while Kuszán (Kuszái) was the gyula.25 According to Constantine Árpád was the first elected prince of the Hungarians. I assume, that before the elevation of Árpád, Levedi and Álmos had been out­standing tribal chiefs, maybe Levedi had filled the office of gyula. Árpád as megás arkhón/great prince and Kuszán were the leaders of the Hungarian and Kavar tribes at the time of the Landtaking.26 My recent hypothesis is, that Árpád led the seven Hungarian tribes as a great prince, and Kuszán could be the prince of the three Ka­var tribes, called kündü (or kündür khagan), who rode out with 20.000 horsemen, as a commander-in-chief.27 It is still a debated question, what can be considered the main cause of the Hun­garians' migration to a new homeland. Some researchers emphasized, that the Land­taking was due to the planned action of the Hungarian leaders, who were aware of the advantages of their new homeland, which they occupied without any attack from their neighbours. This theory is based upon the Hungarian chronicles and the Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus.28 Other scholars admitted, that the Hungarians were aware of the growing danger from the side of their eastern neighbours, and that they were defeated by the Pechenegs and the Bulgarians during the conscious occupation of the Carpathian basin.29 According to another opinion the Landtaking 23 For the theory cf. GYÖRFFY, Gy.: Tanulmányok a magyar állam eredetéről. A nemzet­ségtől a vármegyéig, a törzstől az országig. Kurszán és Kurszán vára. Budapest, 1959. 78, 142, 159.; GYÖRFFY, Gy: In: Magyarország története tíz kötetben. 1/1-2. ed. SZÉKELY, Gy. - BARTHA, A. Budapest, 1984. 595.; GYÖRFFY, Gy.: Honfoglalás, megtelepedés és kalandozások. In: Magyar őstörténeti tanulmányok. Ed. BARTHA, A. - CZEGLÉDY, K. - RÓNA-TAS, A. Budapest, 1977. 128, 131.; GYÖRFFY, Gy.: Krónikáink és magyar ős­történet. Régi kérdések - új válaszok. Budapest, 1993. 220 - 223.; for the interpretation of Arpáds title (megás arkhón) as „great prince” cf. MAKK, F.: Megás arkhón. In: MAKK, F.: A Turulmadártól a kettőskeresztig. Tanulmányok a magyarság régebbi történelméről. Szeged, 1998.67-80. 24 „pater Almus in patria Erdelw occisus est, non enim potuit in Pannoniam introire”, see SRH I. 287.; HKÍF 359. 25 KRISTÓ, Gy.: Hungarian History, 165 - 167.; KRISTÓ, Gy.: Honfoglaló fejedelmek, 16 - 23.; MAKK, F.: Magyar külpolitika (896). Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 2. Szeged, 199637.; MAKK, F.: A Turulmadártól a kettőskeresztig. A korai magyar-bizánci kapcsola­tok. In: MAKK, F.: A Turulmadártól, 215 - 217. 26 TÓTH, S. L.: Levcdiától a Kárpát-medencéig, 98 - 105. 27 TÓTH, S. L.: A kavarok (kabarok) katonai és politikai szerepe. Kézirat, 2013. 31 - 32. (In press: Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 2013/2.) 28 Most recently see SZABADOS, Gy.: Magyar államalapítások, 143 - 162. 29 E. g. GYÖRFFY, Gy: Magyarország története 1/1.591.; GYÖRFFY, Gy.: Honfoglalás, 123-135. 11

Next