This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The listing of counties in Transylvania during Austria-Hungary was removed in this . I am referring to
During this historical period, when Transylvania was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Hungarian administration, "Transylvania proper" consisted of a 15-county ( Hungarian: megye) region, covering 54,400 km² in the southeast of the former Kingdom of Hungary. The former Hungarian counties were Alsó-Fehér, Beszterce-Naszód, Brassó, Csík, Fogaras, Háromszék, Hunyad, Kis-Küküllő, Kolozs, Maros-Torda, Nagy-Küküllő, Szeben, Szolnok-Doboka, Torda-Aranyos, and Udvarhely. Today, Transylvania proper includes only 9 of the aforementioned 16 Romanian counties: Alba, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Braşov, Cluj, Covasna, Harghita, Hunedoara, Mureş, and Sibiu. In addition to Transylvania proper, modern Transylvania includes part of the Banat, part of the Pannonian plain, and the former Partium.
Does anyone have objections to reincluding this information in the History article? Olessi 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Olessi, you have brought in an interesting point which sometimes is overlooked. Transilvania proper is not the whole yellow area on the map. The western part is the Banat and there is already an article for that. While the North-Western parts are the Crishana and Maramures territories. In the real sense, Transilvania is just the central area (I think there is a map which depicts it in yellow, while showing the other territories in dark-yellow/). I think that the whole article should focus on the history of Transilvania proper, rather then this mistaken idea of a Transilvania that also includes the aforementioned territories. Constantzeanu 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Why the refferences to Gepids, Avars, Kaukaland, Slavs, Magyars before the KoH were deleted? -- fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Autonomous" T. versus KoH is a POV. I think the original title: T. as part of the KoH is perfect.-- fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Only Romanian maps are present in the article. We should come to term about what maps should be included. I propose to add at least one map for each period-- fz22 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
For those interested, here are the maps right now. Olessi 09:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The article currently contains the text
The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) - and 1604 (fall of gen. Basta) was the most tragic period of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. "Misericordia dei quod non consumti sumus" (only God's merciful save us from annihilation) carachterised this period an anonymous saxon writer.
I previously had changed that to read:
The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) and 1604 (fall of Basta) was considered one of the most tragic periods in the history of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. Besides the internal struggles, the Ottomans, the Tartars, famine, and plague all menaced the region. An anonymous German writer described it in Latin as Misericordia Dei quod non consumti sumus ("it is only by the mercy of God that we have been saved from annihilation").
The relevant text was discussed here, but the older text was reintroduced into this History of Transylvania article. If there is a consensus to include the Latin quote, I prefer the paragraph be copyedited (my prior version being a possibility). Olessi 09:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, so "Gesta Hungarorum" is a good-enough source to maintain that Hunagrians first came to Transylvania, but not good enough when it comes to Gelou, Menumorut, and the wlachs in the area. Don't you think it's a bit POV? Dpotop 09:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have got to delete this inbecility ... the Romanian in the late middle age were not tax-payers neither ... They were forced to pay only "quinquagesima ovium" ... of course until the early 17th century when the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely? estates ... even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs.-- fz22 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles ... -- fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)-- fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... -- fz22 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"I have got to delete this inbecility..."
thank you, very civilized...
"the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely?"
same old song...
Besides, it has nothing to do with Unio Trium Nationem. We speak about a political act, a state contract which layed the bases of a segregation system.
"even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs"
My dear, with all sympathy and respect, sorry, but this is such a RIDICULOUS ENORMITY !! in Romanian "cneaz" comes from the Slavs (Russian - kneaz, Ukrain. - Knjaz) Simply hit a dictionary... as for "chinez" this means chinese in Romanian
"The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles "
and that's why they became "common" nobles, that is, they have lost their official nobility attributes,descending into a state of "rural nobiliy"
Actually, what we are debating here is, if Unio Trium Nationem had crucial consequences for the constitutional, political and social order of Transylvania. And it had, exactely in the sense of excluding the Orthodox. Not the Romanians, the Orthodox. It happened that Romanian were Orthodox. The ennemies of the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom were the heretics (Orthodox) not the Romanians. Thus the Unio Trium Nationem was a political act directed against serfs and Orthodox. It happend that the most of them were Romanians...
"prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)"
Yes, there are no "documents" to prove this, you're right. That's why I renounced this statement
could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? .......let's forget it, i don't want to bother you
"the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... "
entirely agreed (unsigned, undated)
>>could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? <<
--> pls ask the ghost of Causescu why he faked archeology / cut funds on reserches / filled sites with concrete in Transylvania. Of course, I cannot confirm, or proove, but it will come :)
Abdulka 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This example is dated from the Mid 16th century ... Belongs more to the next Paragpraph (Independent Principality)-- fz22 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sory for reacting late
If you want to show that the measures taken by Louis I in 1366 had more complex reasons than just annoying Romanians, please do.
Nobody wants to suggest that Angevins in general or Louis in special were obsessed to bother the Romanians.
Louis was a great king, he had European ambitions, Romanians were to insignificant for him; nevertheless, he took actions which negatively influenced the fate of the Romanians.
But please mention only historical contexts and facts which are relevant (with a direct or clearly traceable link) to the History of Transylvania, otherwise we risk to write the History of Europe, since everything is connected to something.
Since our topic is History of Transylvania, of which Romanians were an important constitutive part, since the beginnings, alongside the glourious medieval Hungarian History we should eventually touch on the fate of the medieval Transylvanian Romanians too. It is only in this context, that I pointed out to the year 1366.
Regards,
--
Vintila Barbu 11:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
congratulations for your today contribution !
primary documents-based info, if pertinent, are always welcomed
-- Vintila Barbu 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ... Can you help me to translate the latin citations to english? BTW: King Endre's resolution is a quite good argument for Hungarian POV that the Romanians were not so numerous at this time, don't you think?
I'm not against well documented contributions, I've just thought it is more suitable to have a citation free article (it is more readable) and the discussion page is used for confrontation/demonstration. Either way i don't mind.
-- fz22 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Insofar I can compensate this kind of "boycott-by-silence", I'm open to every information or interpretetion which would help to better understand a remote time, which is by no means related to what happens today in Transylvania or elswhere.
Regards
-- Vintila Barbu 10:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I see above that you are retreading some of the same discussions that took place on the issue of the GH in 2004 and 2005. In any case, the current formulation [The earliest document...the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers] contradicts the information in the entry on the Gesta Hungarorum. It is also biased towards a Romanian POV (no mention is made of the opinions of mainstream Hungarian, or indeed US and British, historians about the Magyar conquest of the region) and is based largely on information from a single Website. So it doesn't meet the requirements for verifiability.
OK, it seems I need to quote the article on Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."
The problem is that the site used as a source does not meet the above requirements. It is a personal Website created by two dancers (not historians!)
The following statement is biased (and no source is provided for it): ""Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest". Scott Moore 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
But before I remove the current text, I suggest working together to produce a revised version which reflects all mainstream opinions (ie those of reputable comtemporary historians). It may not be possible to reconcile these opinions, but they should be summarised and we should explain who holds these opinions. Clearly, verifiable sources (in English where possible) should also be provided. I wrote a summary some time ago based on several English-language sources (written by both British and Hungarian historians), which I believe represents the (most widely supported) mainstream view outside of Romania.
Its funny that Romanian Wikipedians always put words into my mouth. It seems that they must create a Hungarian nationalist to react against. Anyone who makes a criticism becomes a Hungarian nationalist in their view.
Exactly who is not considering alternatives? I haven't written anything in the article yet, I'm just making suggestions. Whoever wrote the text I quoted is not considering alternatives and certainly hasn't analysed any historiographies or scholars (unless they regard a couple of dance teachers as historical scholars). Where exactly do I claim a mainstream historiographic view? Scott Moore 10:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
To be more specific on the problems with the current formulation:
1) the extensive quotation from the GH is unwarranted. It is clearly included to support the views of certain Romanian historians that are based on the reliability of the GH. However, both Hungarian and Slovak mainstream historical opinion regards the GH as unreliable.
2) "the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes". Again representative of a certain Romanian point of view (and I say 'certain' because no one has yet been able to tell me whether this is mainstream historical thinking in Romania). The word Duke is anachronistic (taken from 'dux' in the GH).
3) "After conquering Transylvania, the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers". I would be interested to see the sources for this statement.
Scott Moore 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a section from the article for the reasons given below. I have left in, for now, the paragraph starting "After conquering Transylvania...". But this statement still needs to be attributed and sourced. Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
"The earliest document from around the time of the Hungarian conquest concerning the area of modern Transylvania is the "Gesta Hungarorum"." This isn't strictly true as De Administrando Imperium is earlier. In any case, if we only mention GH and not other primary sources, then we need to explain why.
"It covers the history of the Magyar peoples moving into the Carpathian basin. The work is attributed to Peter, a high priest in Buda, during the time of King Bela III in the late 12th century. However, this is some 300 years after the Maygar tribes entered the Carpathian basin, some 200 years after the first Hungarian expansion into Transylvania, and around when the Szekely and Saxon peoples were moved into the new Transylvanian lands. Some of the facts in the "Gesta Hungarorum" can be corroborated with other evidence, but some information is unique. The "Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest." This is already a Wikipedia article on the GH, hence I provided a link.
"Here follow some excerpts link title" In such a short article, a lengthy quotation from a single primary source is inappropriate. Besides, the entire document is included in Wikisource.
"Knowing that much of the Balkans was under Bulgarian rule but had fallen to Byzantium before the Magyar tribes entered, the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes." Weasel words (was likely to have been). Who holds this opinion? Why are opposing opinions not mentioned? Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Fz22 - what is this "prime Gesta Ungarorum from the 11th century" that you added to the article? It sounds like the Gesta Hungarorum to me. The same points I made above apply here. Just because a single primary source states this, doesn't make it an indisputable fact. You should include an attribution and source for the statements in this paragraph. Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
it is reconised as a more reliable source then the Gesta written by Belae Regis Notarius (which Bela? there were four)-- fz22 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are the sources I've used in the past, together with a few direct quotations I have to hand. I'll also check what Kontler and Engel write about the issues.
C.A. Macartney, "Hungary: A Short History", Edinburgh University Press, 1962
- In 892 the Emperor Arnulf enlisted a contingent of them to help him against his rebellious vassal, Sviatopluk. The weakness of the land was revealed to them. In 894 they were back, raiding Pannonia on their own account, and in the autumn of 895 or the spring of 896 the entire nation, with their auxiliaries, crossed the mountains for good. A little fighting left them in possession of the Alföld (where the Szekels submitted themselves voluntarily) and put an end to any resistance from Transylvania. The Germans and Moravians patched up their differences in view of the common danger, but by A.D. 900 Frankish rule in Pannonia had vanished. The final destruction of Moravian rule in the north-west came in 906. In 907 a Bavarian army was annihilated at Ennsburg and the Magyars' rule extended up to the Avars' old frontier where the Enns runs into the Danube.
- Árpád's own horde settled in the Dunántúl, between Székesfehérvár, on the site of which, or near it, he made his headquarters, and Buda. Of the six other Magyar hordes, three settled respectively north-west, west and south-west of the leading tribe, one on the middle Tisza and one on the upper. The seventh, the tribe of Gyula, after first settling in the west, moved to the approaches of Transylvania. The plain of the lower Tisza and its tributaries was allotted to the Kavars, while the 'Kuns' took the northern fringes of the Great Plain.
Miklós Molnár, "A Concise History of Hungary", Cambridge University Press, 2001
- …and in 894, just before leaving for their new homeland, had fought alongside the Byzantine Emperor, Leo the Philosopher, against the Bulgar Tsar Simeon.
- Around 895, Hungarians….suffered a lightning attack by the Pechenegs…The Hungarian tribes, fleeing the Pechenegs, crossed the Carpathians through two or three passes. The conquest began under the leadership of two chieftains, Arpad and Kursan, leading the seven Magyar tribes and the Kabar tribes of Turkish origin who joined the Hungarians. By 900, the occupation of the basin was completed and in 902 the Hungarians turned their attention to the Moravian principality.
- The title of gyula did not, however, disappear: the Transylvanian lords carried it and exercised quite extensive local control, becoming increasingly independent of the princely and then royal authority.
- ...with the obscure period between the disappearance of Arpad around 907 and the rise of Fajsz , then Taksony around 955. During this long period, the gyulas ruled over Transylvania.
Norman Davies, "Europe A History", Oxford University Press, 1998
Rob Joustra, Dr. Payton, "The Magyars: Pre-History to Conquest", October 1, 2004
The Magyars, thoroughly outflanked, were forced to retreat with haste westward, crossing the passes over the Carpathians and entering the Pannonian plain in 896 (24)
Russian Primary Chronicle details migrations of the Magyars into this region already in 890 (26)
(24) Obelensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453. London: Phoenix Press., 2000.
(26) Endre Haraszi. The Ethnic History of Transylvania (Toronto: Sovereign Press., 1971),
László Kontler, "Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary" Atlantisz Publishing House, Budapest, 1999
Pál Engel, "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526", I.B. Tauris, 2001 Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this page and don't have the background, but someone needs to write an introduction to replace the self-referential "this article is about the history of transylvania" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.105.126 ( talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.
}}
This really could use a thorough copy edit. Also it could use much clearer citation of sources.
One paragraph is poorly enough written that I hesitate to edit it, because I may not understand it.
The Dacians had a very powerful custom which encouraged them not to be afraid of death. This is why it was said that they left for war merrier than for any other journey. In his retirement in the mountains, Decebalus was followed by the Roman cavalry lead by Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Dacian religion of Zalmoxis admitted suicide as a last resort by those who were in pain and misery. The Dacians who listened Decebalus' last speech spread and commit suicide. Only the unkneeled king greater than his god would not seek to forget about his death, but would try to retread from the Romans, hoping that he could still find in the mountains and in the unwalked woods the means to prepare the recommencement of the battle and to seek revenge. But the Roman cavalry followed him without rest. They almost caught him, and at that point the great Decebal meets his destiny by ending his life. The great scene of his death may be found on Trajan's Column in Rome.
I could go on through the second half of the paragraph, it doesn't get any better. Would someone please clean this up? - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"the majority of the population was almost certainly Romanian" was recently edited to "a significant part of the population was certainly Romanian." The new statement is true, but misleading. "A significant portion" could mean 8%. There may be some question as to whether Romanians were the majority (I'm not sure), but I am pretty confident that there is no question at all that they were the single most numerous ethnic group. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The listing of counties in Transylvania during Austria-Hungary was removed in this . I am referring to
During this historical period, when Transylvania was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Hungarian administration, "Transylvania proper" consisted of a 15-county ( Hungarian: megye) region, covering 54,400 km² in the southeast of the former Kingdom of Hungary. The former Hungarian counties were Alsó-Fehér, Beszterce-Naszód, Brassó, Csík, Fogaras, Háromszék, Hunyad, Kis-Küküllő, Kolozs, Maros-Torda, Nagy-Küküllő, Szeben, Szolnok-Doboka, Torda-Aranyos, and Udvarhely. Today, Transylvania proper includes only 9 of the aforementioned 16 Romanian counties: Alba, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Braşov, Cluj, Covasna, Harghita, Hunedoara, Mureş, and Sibiu. In addition to Transylvania proper, modern Transylvania includes part of the Banat, part of the Pannonian plain, and the former Partium.
Does anyone have objections to reincluding this information in the History article? Olessi 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Olessi, you have brought in an interesting point which sometimes is overlooked. Transilvania proper is not the whole yellow area on the map. The western part is the Banat and there is already an article for that. While the North-Western parts are the Crishana and Maramures territories. In the real sense, Transilvania is just the central area (I think there is a map which depicts it in yellow, while showing the other territories in dark-yellow/). I think that the whole article should focus on the history of Transilvania proper, rather then this mistaken idea of a Transilvania that also includes the aforementioned territories. Constantzeanu 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Why the refferences to Gepids, Avars, Kaukaland, Slavs, Magyars before the KoH were deleted? -- fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Autonomous" T. versus KoH is a POV. I think the original title: T. as part of the KoH is perfect.-- fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Only Romanian maps are present in the article. We should come to term about what maps should be included. I propose to add at least one map for each period-- fz22 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
For those interested, here are the maps right now. Olessi 09:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The article currently contains the text
The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) - and 1604 (fall of gen. Basta) was the most tragic period of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. "Misericordia dei quod non consumti sumus" (only God's merciful save us from annihilation) carachterised this period an anonymous saxon writer.
I previously had changed that to read:
The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) and 1604 (fall of Basta) was considered one of the most tragic periods in the history of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. Besides the internal struggles, the Ottomans, the Tartars, famine, and plague all menaced the region. An anonymous German writer described it in Latin as Misericordia Dei quod non consumti sumus ("it is only by the mercy of God that we have been saved from annihilation").
The relevant text was discussed here, but the older text was reintroduced into this History of Transylvania article. If there is a consensus to include the Latin quote, I prefer the paragraph be copyedited (my prior version being a possibility). Olessi 09:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, so "Gesta Hungarorum" is a good-enough source to maintain that Hunagrians first came to Transylvania, but not good enough when it comes to Gelou, Menumorut, and the wlachs in the area. Don't you think it's a bit POV? Dpotop 09:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have got to delete this inbecility ... the Romanian in the late middle age were not tax-payers neither ... They were forced to pay only "quinquagesima ovium" ... of course until the early 17th century when the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely? estates ... even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs.-- fz22 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles ... -- fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)-- fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... -- fz22 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"I have got to delete this inbecility..."
thank you, very civilized...
"the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely?"
same old song...
Besides, it has nothing to do with Unio Trium Nationem. We speak about a political act, a state contract which layed the bases of a segregation system.
"even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs"
My dear, with all sympathy and respect, sorry, but this is such a RIDICULOUS ENORMITY !! in Romanian "cneaz" comes from the Slavs (Russian - kneaz, Ukrain. - Knjaz) Simply hit a dictionary... as for "chinez" this means chinese in Romanian
"The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles "
and that's why they became "common" nobles, that is, they have lost their official nobility attributes,descending into a state of "rural nobiliy"
Actually, what we are debating here is, if Unio Trium Nationem had crucial consequences for the constitutional, political and social order of Transylvania. And it had, exactely in the sense of excluding the Orthodox. Not the Romanians, the Orthodox. It happened that Romanian were Orthodox. The ennemies of the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom were the heretics (Orthodox) not the Romanians. Thus the Unio Trium Nationem was a political act directed against serfs and Orthodox. It happend that the most of them were Romanians...
"prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)"
Yes, there are no "documents" to prove this, you're right. That's why I renounced this statement
could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? .......let's forget it, i don't want to bother you
"the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... "
entirely agreed (unsigned, undated)
>>could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? <<
--> pls ask the ghost of Causescu why he faked archeology / cut funds on reserches / filled sites with concrete in Transylvania. Of course, I cannot confirm, or proove, but it will come :)
Abdulka 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This example is dated from the Mid 16th century ... Belongs more to the next Paragpraph (Independent Principality)-- fz22 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sory for reacting late
If you want to show that the measures taken by Louis I in 1366 had more complex reasons than just annoying Romanians, please do.
Nobody wants to suggest that Angevins in general or Louis in special were obsessed to bother the Romanians.
Louis was a great king, he had European ambitions, Romanians were to insignificant for him; nevertheless, he took actions which negatively influenced the fate of the Romanians.
But please mention only historical contexts and facts which are relevant (with a direct or clearly traceable link) to the History of Transylvania, otherwise we risk to write the History of Europe, since everything is connected to something.
Since our topic is History of Transylvania, of which Romanians were an important constitutive part, since the beginnings, alongside the glourious medieval Hungarian History we should eventually touch on the fate of the medieval Transylvanian Romanians too. It is only in this context, that I pointed out to the year 1366.
Regards,
--
Vintila Barbu 11:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
congratulations for your today contribution !
primary documents-based info, if pertinent, are always welcomed
-- Vintila Barbu 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ... Can you help me to translate the latin citations to english? BTW: King Endre's resolution is a quite good argument for Hungarian POV that the Romanians were not so numerous at this time, don't you think?
I'm not against well documented contributions, I've just thought it is more suitable to have a citation free article (it is more readable) and the discussion page is used for confrontation/demonstration. Either way i don't mind.
-- fz22 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Insofar I can compensate this kind of "boycott-by-silence", I'm open to every information or interpretetion which would help to better understand a remote time, which is by no means related to what happens today in Transylvania or elswhere.
Regards
-- Vintila Barbu 10:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I see above that you are retreading some of the same discussions that took place on the issue of the GH in 2004 and 2005. In any case, the current formulation [The earliest document...the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers] contradicts the information in the entry on the Gesta Hungarorum. It is also biased towards a Romanian POV (no mention is made of the opinions of mainstream Hungarian, or indeed US and British, historians about the Magyar conquest of the region) and is based largely on information from a single Website. So it doesn't meet the requirements for verifiability.
OK, it seems I need to quote the article on Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."
The problem is that the site used as a source does not meet the above requirements. It is a personal Website created by two dancers (not historians!)
The following statement is biased (and no source is provided for it): ""Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest". Scott Moore 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
But before I remove the current text, I suggest working together to produce a revised version which reflects all mainstream opinions (ie those of reputable comtemporary historians). It may not be possible to reconcile these opinions, but they should be summarised and we should explain who holds these opinions. Clearly, verifiable sources (in English where possible) should also be provided. I wrote a summary some time ago based on several English-language sources (written by both British and Hungarian historians), which I believe represents the (most widely supported) mainstream view outside of Romania.
Its funny that Romanian Wikipedians always put words into my mouth. It seems that they must create a Hungarian nationalist to react against. Anyone who makes a criticism becomes a Hungarian nationalist in their view.
Exactly who is not considering alternatives? I haven't written anything in the article yet, I'm just making suggestions. Whoever wrote the text I quoted is not considering alternatives and certainly hasn't analysed any historiographies or scholars (unless they regard a couple of dance teachers as historical scholars). Where exactly do I claim a mainstream historiographic view? Scott Moore 10:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
To be more specific on the problems with the current formulation:
1) the extensive quotation from the GH is unwarranted. It is clearly included to support the views of certain Romanian historians that are based on the reliability of the GH. However, both Hungarian and Slovak mainstream historical opinion regards the GH as unreliable.
2) "the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes". Again representative of a certain Romanian point of view (and I say 'certain' because no one has yet been able to tell me whether this is mainstream historical thinking in Romania). The word Duke is anachronistic (taken from 'dux' in the GH).
3) "After conquering Transylvania, the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers". I would be interested to see the sources for this statement.
Scott Moore 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a section from the article for the reasons given below. I have left in, for now, the paragraph starting "After conquering Transylvania...". But this statement still needs to be attributed and sourced. Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
"The earliest document from around the time of the Hungarian conquest concerning the area of modern Transylvania is the "Gesta Hungarorum"." This isn't strictly true as De Administrando Imperium is earlier. In any case, if we only mention GH and not other primary sources, then we need to explain why.
"It covers the history of the Magyar peoples moving into the Carpathian basin. The work is attributed to Peter, a high priest in Buda, during the time of King Bela III in the late 12th century. However, this is some 300 years after the Maygar tribes entered the Carpathian basin, some 200 years after the first Hungarian expansion into Transylvania, and around when the Szekely and Saxon peoples were moved into the new Transylvanian lands. Some of the facts in the "Gesta Hungarorum" can be corroborated with other evidence, but some information is unique. The "Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest." This is already a Wikipedia article on the GH, hence I provided a link.
"Here follow some excerpts link title" In such a short article, a lengthy quotation from a single primary source is inappropriate. Besides, the entire document is included in Wikisource.
"Knowing that much of the Balkans was under Bulgarian rule but had fallen to Byzantium before the Magyar tribes entered, the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes." Weasel words (was likely to have been). Who holds this opinion? Why are opposing opinions not mentioned? Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Fz22 - what is this "prime Gesta Ungarorum from the 11th century" that you added to the article? It sounds like the Gesta Hungarorum to me. The same points I made above apply here. Just because a single primary source states this, doesn't make it an indisputable fact. You should include an attribution and source for the statements in this paragraph. Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
it is reconised as a more reliable source then the Gesta written by Belae Regis Notarius (which Bela? there were four)-- fz22 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are the sources I've used in the past, together with a few direct quotations I have to hand. I'll also check what Kontler and Engel write about the issues.
C.A. Macartney, "Hungary: A Short History", Edinburgh University Press, 1962
- In 892 the Emperor Arnulf enlisted a contingent of them to help him against his rebellious vassal, Sviatopluk. The weakness of the land was revealed to them. In 894 they were back, raiding Pannonia on their own account, and in the autumn of 895 or the spring of 896 the entire nation, with their auxiliaries, crossed the mountains for good. A little fighting left them in possession of the Alföld (where the Szekels submitted themselves voluntarily) and put an end to any resistance from Transylvania. The Germans and Moravians patched up their differences in view of the common danger, but by A.D. 900 Frankish rule in Pannonia had vanished. The final destruction of Moravian rule in the north-west came in 906. In 907 a Bavarian army was annihilated at Ennsburg and the Magyars' rule extended up to the Avars' old frontier where the Enns runs into the Danube.
- Árpád's own horde settled in the Dunántúl, between Székesfehérvár, on the site of which, or near it, he made his headquarters, and Buda. Of the six other Magyar hordes, three settled respectively north-west, west and south-west of the leading tribe, one on the middle Tisza and one on the upper. The seventh, the tribe of Gyula, after first settling in the west, moved to the approaches of Transylvania. The plain of the lower Tisza and its tributaries was allotted to the Kavars, while the 'Kuns' took the northern fringes of the Great Plain.
Miklós Molnár, "A Concise History of Hungary", Cambridge University Press, 2001
- …and in 894, just before leaving for their new homeland, had fought alongside the Byzantine Emperor, Leo the Philosopher, against the Bulgar Tsar Simeon.
- Around 895, Hungarians….suffered a lightning attack by the Pechenegs…The Hungarian tribes, fleeing the Pechenegs, crossed the Carpathians through two or three passes. The conquest began under the leadership of two chieftains, Arpad and Kursan, leading the seven Magyar tribes and the Kabar tribes of Turkish origin who joined the Hungarians. By 900, the occupation of the basin was completed and in 902 the Hungarians turned their attention to the Moravian principality.
- The title of gyula did not, however, disappear: the Transylvanian lords carried it and exercised quite extensive local control, becoming increasingly independent of the princely and then royal authority.
- ...with the obscure period between the disappearance of Arpad around 907 and the rise of Fajsz , then Taksony around 955. During this long period, the gyulas ruled over Transylvania.
Norman Davies, "Europe A History", Oxford University Press, 1998
Rob Joustra, Dr. Payton, "The Magyars: Pre-History to Conquest", October 1, 2004
The Magyars, thoroughly outflanked, were forced to retreat with haste westward, crossing the passes over the Carpathians and entering the Pannonian plain in 896 (24)
Russian Primary Chronicle details migrations of the Magyars into this region already in 890 (26)
(24) Obelensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453. London: Phoenix Press., 2000.
(26) Endre Haraszi. The Ethnic History of Transylvania (Toronto: Sovereign Press., 1971),
László Kontler, "Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary" Atlantisz Publishing House, Budapest, 1999
Pál Engel, "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526", I.B. Tauris, 2001 Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this page and don't have the background, but someone needs to write an introduction to replace the self-referential "this article is about the history of transylvania" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.105.126 ( talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.
}}
This really could use a thorough copy edit. Also it could use much clearer citation of sources.
One paragraph is poorly enough written that I hesitate to edit it, because I may not understand it.
The Dacians had a very powerful custom which encouraged them not to be afraid of death. This is why it was said that they left for war merrier than for any other journey. In his retirement in the mountains, Decebalus was followed by the Roman cavalry lead by Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Dacian religion of Zalmoxis admitted suicide as a last resort by those who were in pain and misery. The Dacians who listened Decebalus' last speech spread and commit suicide. Only the unkneeled king greater than his god would not seek to forget about his death, but would try to retread from the Romans, hoping that he could still find in the mountains and in the unwalked woods the means to prepare the recommencement of the battle and to seek revenge. But the Roman cavalry followed him without rest. They almost caught him, and at that point the great Decebal meets his destiny by ending his life. The great scene of his death may be found on Trajan's Column in Rome.
I could go on through the second half of the paragraph, it doesn't get any better. Would someone please clean this up? - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"the majority of the population was almost certainly Romanian" was recently edited to "a significant part of the population was certainly Romanian." The new statement is true, but misleading. "A significant portion" could mean 8%. There may be some question as to whether Romanians were the majority (I'm not sure), but I am pretty confident that there is no question at all that they were the single most numerous ethnic group. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)