The 'Other', less known Arguments in the 'Ugric-Turkish War' and its Consequences

In recent years, the traditional classification of the Hungarian language as a Finno-Ugric language has been challenged by internationally respected scholars (see, for example Marcantonio 2002). These studies call the Uralic/Finno-Ugric hypothesis a ‘myth’. In fact, these studies challenge also the outcome of the ‘Ugric-Turkic War’ when influential Hungarian scholars in the second half of the nineteenth century decided to separate Hungarian and Turkic and to classify them in different language families. However, if the classification of Central Asian languages was and is doubtful the question arises what sort of ‘other’, non-linguistic arguments decided on the outcome of the Ugric-Turkic War. This paper focuses on these other, less known arguments of the Ugric-Turkic War. These arguments draw on the history of sciences, nineteenth centuries ideological, geopolitical and political developments in Europe and the Hapsburg Empire, the cultural-historical definition of ‘Europeanness’ against the ‘Orient’ and the personal commitment and loyalties of the key-players in the Ugric-Turkish debate, i.e. Franz Schedel, Paul Hunsdorfer, Josef Budenz, Ármin Vámbéry and Gábor Bálint de Szentkatol-nai. The paper concludes that the outcome of the Ugric-Turkish War was decided almost exclusively on the basis of these non-linguistic circumstances, factors and arguments.