Magyar

>Jesus, it's just a thesis.

You're telling me your thesis was just reiterating a tired argument that scholars have made? Shit/10.

Write about the Mongols instead fucktard, much more interesting and more material

Are magyars some kinda pokemans?

It's not about what you write about it's how you write it.

As an actual Magyar I could tell you everything about this topic, but I guess you need more reliable sources.
Some books that ought to help you:
>Gyula Kristó: Hungarian History in the Ninth Century
>Engel Pál: The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary
>Charles R. Bowlus: Franks, Moravians and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube
>Florin Curta: Southeaster Europe in the Middle Ages
If you have any questions I can most likely answer them.

...

Tell us how far you have gotten on your thesis, OP

You are writing an essay, not a thesis.

Just sayin.

Gesta Hungarorum

I'm a magyar. Ask me if you want.

Stupid question, but does a thesis need to be a "new" argument or can it be just one's own opinion no matter how simple?

> Sources: user fron Veeky Forums

Not him, but someone well versed in a topic could actually help interpreting sources.

Hungarian historyfag here.

This seems like an awfully large topic for a thesis. What is the timeframe you want to work with?

This: There was a large debate 30-40 years ago among Hungarian historians on the nature of the foundation of the Hungarian state, wether if it was a nomadic state, a semi-nomadic one, how did it developed after the conquest of the Carpathian basin etc. The consensus was something like this:
>before the conquest, on the Russian-Ukranian steppes: classic nomadic state, similar to the Bulgars, Cumans, Pechenegs etc. An allience of 7 core tribes + a few "foreign" ones ruled by two heads of state, one religious and one worldly. They were completely nomads, Magyar men were all warriors who had slaves, not considered Magyars. Magyars did no farming themselves, just fighting, trading and collecting tribute from their slaves.
>after the conquest: a breakdown of the nomadic state. The Carpathian basin was useless for horse nomadism, a lot of people changed their lifestyle, the power of the two rulers mostly dissapeared, the large nomadic state became a collection of a few small, semi-nomadic tribal states.
>they also became very poor because they couldn't herd as much animals, when they find Magyar graves from that time, they always have less stuff in it then the ones from before. Some tribes, mostly from Western Hungary got together and organized the plundering (actually, mostly mercenary work) of some Christian kingdoms to gain back some wealth.

cont.
>After the defeats at Augsburg and Merseburg: Geza, leader of the tribe in Western Hungary makes peace with the Christians, goes to meet Otto I, converts to Christianity, marries his son to a Bavarian princess, hires missionaries.
>He is seen as the prince of the Magyars, but actually, mostly only ruled his own tribal principality in Western Hungary, not the whole country.
>His son Steven I is crowned king, unifies the tribal principalities and creates the second unified Magyar state.
>There is little evidence that most Magyars were still pagans at that point, we know Steven defeated 3 tribal rulers by force of arms, all three of them were converted by Byzantine missionaries, so it seems Steven was the only relevant ruler who was pro-Pope.
>There is evidence that a lot of German nobles took part in these struggles, so probably some German nobles were awarded with lands and/or wives for helping Steven beat his rivals.
>Steven consolidates his rule, enforces Christianity and feudalism, builds churches, writes his book of law etc.