![]() | 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 |
"Although the historical study of place-names is not practised to the same extent in all countries, it is a recognized branch of historiography. It encompasses the etymology of geographical names as well as cultural and chronological variations in the naming of places. To facilitate their study of Hungarian place-names, István Kniezsa and Géza Bárczi developed an analytical framework that blends etymology, typology, and chronology. The validity of this triple approach has been amply demonstrated, thanks not only to the expertise of the two scholars but also to the peculiarity of Hungarian toponymy, which is readily distinguishable from that of any other culture. Most of the early Hungarian toponyms are derived from the names of people, clans, and ethnic groups, or from occupations, and used in the nominative case singular (e.g. Árpád, Megyer, Cseh [Czech], Ács [carpenter]). This type of toponymy appears in the earliest documents, dating from around 1000 AD. The pattern holds well into the 13th century — until the 1220s in western Hungary, and the 1270s in the eastern parts, including Transylvania..."(László Makkai, TRANSYLVANIA IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARIAN KINGDOM (896–1526), IN: Köpeczi Béla (General Editor), HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-88033-479-7)"
Kniezsa's map is still cited in scientific papers. It is NOT outdated. Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Kniezsa's views are not criticized only by Slovak authors, but also by the Hungarian historian Gyula Kristó in his paper "THE PEOPLES OF HUNGARY IN THE DAYS OF SAINT STEPHEN". Gyula Kristó's paper provides a criticism of Istvan Kniezsa's paper published in 1938 on the question of ethnicity in Hungary in the 11th century. The author states that Kniezsa, despite his own intentions, depicted the peoples of the late Arpád era, i.e., 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, instead of the early Arpád era, i.e., 11th century.. (the quote is from Századok, Volume 134, Issues 1-3, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2000 - Hungary) 213.229.64.182 ( talk) 06:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The term "pagans", used in the Background section to describe the pre-Christian Hungarians, is vague. A more specific label would be helpful, because "pagan" has been used to describe an awfully broad collection of cultures and religions. Folklore1 ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
All comments, suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka ( talk) 02:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I am about three-quarters of the way through the article, copy-editing in response to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I see both British and American date styles and British and American spelling. Usually, I go back to the first version of the article after the stub to see what style was first used. However, I see that there may have been a split, so I don't know at what point I should be looking. It doesn't matter to me which style is used. Could someone please decide the style and let me know? Then I will edit for consistency. Corinne ( talk) 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear anon, please summarize the reasons of this edit here ( [10]), because there are two editors who do not understand your concern. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka ( talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Anon, would you summarize why do you think that all attempts by the Holy Roman Emperors to expand their authority over Hungary were unsuccessful if Henry III managed to put Peter on the throne in 1044 and Solomon in 1063? Borsoka ( talk) 08:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Can the HR.Emperors conquer it from Pozsony to Transylvania?. So their attempts remained unsuccessful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.55.251 ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, during the reginPeter Orseolo there were a civil war, there were Hungarian forces on both side, so it was not a clear Hungary vs Germany war, but civil war.
High medieval German Emperors proved to be weak to fight against a politically united Hungary as a whole country.
Or do you deny the following facts?
Just see the conflicts of Pure Hungary VS. Germany line-up.
The subject is the unsuccessful attempts of HR. Emperors to make Hungary as vassal state of their Empire. They proved to be weak for that.
IS there any reliable source which state that Peter used only the Emperor's forces? No, it was a civil war. The Emperor simply used the anarchic situation as his advantage. Second: The gathered army of the Emperor's army did not dare to cross the border to help King Peter, which is not strange, because medieval Holy Roman Emperors had not huge armies. We can cite all wars of medieval Holy Roman emperors (with the estimations of their armies from books of academic scholars ), and it is clearer than the sun, that the medieval HR. Emperors were unable to mobilize large armies, thus their influence was weak. So Emperor Henry III had to realize , that he lost within 1y and some months all of his influence in Hungary. No huge army ===> no power. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.122.55.251 (
talk) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
When Peter lost the power in 1046, the imperial army did not dare to cross the border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.55.251 ( talk) 07:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll take up this review, reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (
WP:GA?). I've had experience reviewing a number of historical articles, including about
Árpád. I will take 2-3 days to familiarise myself with this article and then provide a review. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Source check pending |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Samples checked - no violations found |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No issues |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Overall an extremely well-written and thoroughly researched article. I will do a second thorough read-through, check images, for plagiarism & copyright problems, and check sources before I finish. I do not anticipate any major problems. I've had a skim through the previous PR and FAN to see what other editors have thought. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Calvin999 many thanks to your edits to this article. It's very well-written and cited. I will see if I can access the sources on google books to verify your thorough research. I have one or two questions about the content of this article:
Other than that I have no qualms about this article and am just trying to find the sources. I'm sorry this review is taking so long, as I am going through a period of business in real life :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
LT910001, thank you for your comprehensive review. Please find my comments above. Borsoka ( talk) 12:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Cumans were not really assimilated, they got a medieval version of reserve area like Native American Indians in the USA, and they got some medieval privileges, which they could only in their reserve area, the so-called
Kunság. Cumans were decimated by Christian and Hungarian forces during the Ottoman wars. They were sytsematically replaced by Serbian Albanian and Romanian migrants during the Ottoman wars, this colonization was supported by the Ottomans. Moreover Cumans did not survive the Great Turkish war, they were exterminated in the 1680s by the Crimean Tatars ( the ally of Ottomans) and Habsburg and Hungarian forces. After the Ottoman wars, a mixed pan-balkan population and newly arrived Hungarian population started to claim the rights and privileges of the former "cumania" (Hungarian Kunság) reserve area (the rights of the extinct ancient Cuman population). Cumans had the right for free election of judges, free election of clergymen, they were free from taxes, they were also free from the power of feudal landlords and feudal taxation and they can avoid of manorialism and the serf/ villein status, they have right for land ownership. Thus the newly migrated population started to call themselves as cumans, to get the privileges of the extinct cuman people in Cumania/Kunság area. Later the descendants of the migrant population believed that they were the real descendants of ancient Cumans. Here is a good article about Cumans in Hungary, you can use the Google Transaltor.
http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.122.49.45 (
talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
KIENGIR, is there a significant scholarly POV, claiming that Croatia (and Dalmatia) accepted Ladislaus and Coloman's rule without force? In the reliable sources, cited in the article there is no doubt that both rulers only became the rulers of the two realms, because they invaded the territory and occupied it. Borsoka ( talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Words related to agriculture and religion have Eastern Slavic origin, according to all Hungarian linguists. They had not relationship with Western Slavic or Southern Slavic languages.-- Blemse ( talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Gábor Zaicz is just a docent. Please give me sources from university professors, because the Eastern Slavic theory is supported by the books of professors, who are/were members of MTA. Thank you!-- Blemse ( talk) 07:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The territory, mentioned as Ducatus in medieval sources, was an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary, although it was time to time given in appanage to members of the royal family between c. 1048 and c. 1108. I know that it is mentioned as Principality of Nitra in Slovak historiography, because it included large territories (one-third of the whole kingom) in present-day Slovakia (besides territories in present day Hungary and Romania). However, I do not understand, why it should be mentioned as a predecessor state of the Kingdom of Hungary. For instance, the French appanage principalities (Anjou, Burgundy, Orleans, Bourbon....) are not listed among the predecessors of the Kingdom of France, although they were integrated in it. Borsoka ( talk) 01:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Dimadick: the article is part of at least two series, "History of Hungary" and "History of Slovakia", because it covers a period of the history of both countries. However, this historical period is not a former country, so we should not use the "former country" infobox in this article. The paralell articles - for instance, England in the Middle Ages, Scotland in the Middle Ages, History of Sweden (800–1521) - do not use this infobox either. There is a separate article about the former state, the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka ( talk) 03:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Is the "country" infobox useful in this article about a period in the history of a former country, the Kingdom of Hungary? Borsoka ( talk) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kingdom of Hungary | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1000–1301 ( Árpád dynasty) | |||||||||||||
Coat of arms
(1262–1290) | |||||||||||||
![]() Kingdom of Hungary in personal union with
Croatia in 1190 | |||||||||||||
Status | In
personal union with
Croatia (see historical context section) | ||||||||||||
Capital |
Esztergom (1000–1256) Székesfehérvár (royal seat since 1000) | ||||||||||||
Common languages | Latin, Hungarian, Croatian | ||||||||||||
Religion | Roman Catholic | ||||||||||||
Demonym(s) | Hungarian | ||||||||||||
Government | Feudal monarchy | ||||||||||||
King | |||||||||||||
• 1000–1038 (first) | Stephen I | ||||||||||||
• 1290–1301 (last) | Andrew III | ||||||||||||
Palatine | |||||||||||||
• c.1009–1038 (first) | Samuel Aba | ||||||||||||
• 1298–1299 (last) | Roland Rátót | ||||||||||||
Legislature | Royal Diet | ||||||||||||
Historical era | Medieval | ||||||||||||
• Established | 1000 | ||||||||||||
• Disestablished | 1301 ( Árpád dynasty) | ||||||||||||
ISO 3166 code | HU | ||||||||||||
|
What I'm having difficulty following is why this page isn't titled in some way as "The First Kingdom of Hungary"-or anything that clarifies or contextualizes the fact that as a political entity the Hungarian Kingdom endured in one form or another until 1920. @ Borsoka: would you be open to the interpretation that this the article is about a distinct country-in a period of the history of a *nation? OgamD218 ( talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but idk if this page should have its title affected necessarily for the sake of a subsequent page. @ Borsoka: to be honest I feel like given the content (which you appear more familiar with than me) having a page titled something along the lines of "Árpád Hungary" would better lead the reader in conjunction with the title of the page for the following period as it would serve to represent this period in the Kingdom's history can be defined by 300 yrs under a single dynasty but that the next was one of as you said, turnover and inconsistency. OgamD218 ( talk) 02:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Dragovit: first of all thank you for fixing my latest edit ( [11]). Please remember that all statements in a WP article have to be verified with a reference to a reliable source. Could you refer to reliable sources verifying the statements in the infobox that Andrew III was the last king of Hungary, Roland Rátót was the last Hungarian palatine, Latin was a common language in Hungary, or Hungary was dissolved in 1301, etc.? All these statements clearly contradict all reliable sources available to me (including those cited in the article). Borsoka ( talk) 07:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is missing info on the Voivodeship of Maramureș. There's not much info out there, but apparently, Maramureș was only formally annexed into Hungary in the 14th century, so Maramureș wouldn't have been part of this stage of Hungarian history. Although by the 13th century, Maramureș was heavily influenced by Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not able to check the source provided for the figure, but it seems that the land area provided represents specifically the area of only the Kingdom of Hungary but NOT Croatia. (I managed to figure that out because I am doing a project and I compared the given value to that of what Google Maps is able to deduce using its integration tool and it WAS accurate but only if you exclude Croatia/Bosnia. If you want to include the Croatian/Bosnian land for the total area the correct value would be ~50% larger). Considering the picture provided on this Wiki article does not distinguish Hungary and Croatia, there should be a note clarifying that the land mass value does not include the Kingdom of Croatia (there are other articles that make similar discrepancies so this change could follow that format). I cannot make the change myself as I do not have a Wiki account and any edits I make will be immediately deleted as always. 174.56.154.13 ( talk) 19:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Borsoka, @ Norden1990 you are experienced in medieval Hungary. What do you think about this edit? [12]
According to my knowledge. in the medieval and early modern Kingdom of Hungary, Latin was the language of administration and judiciary, and the country's offices corresponded with subordinate offices and legislative authorities (cities, counties) in this language. In everyday life (both orally and in writing), the inhabitants of the country communicated with each other in the language used locally, so a large number of sources written in the languages of the different nationalities have survived. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (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 |
"Although the historical study of place-names is not practised to the same extent in all countries, it is a recognized branch of historiography. It encompasses the etymology of geographical names as well as cultural and chronological variations in the naming of places. To facilitate their study of Hungarian place-names, István Kniezsa and Géza Bárczi developed an analytical framework that blends etymology, typology, and chronology. The validity of this triple approach has been amply demonstrated, thanks not only to the expertise of the two scholars but also to the peculiarity of Hungarian toponymy, which is readily distinguishable from that of any other culture. Most of the early Hungarian toponyms are derived from the names of people, clans, and ethnic groups, or from occupations, and used in the nominative case singular (e.g. Árpád, Megyer, Cseh [Czech], Ács [carpenter]). This type of toponymy appears in the earliest documents, dating from around 1000 AD. The pattern holds well into the 13th century — until the 1220s in western Hungary, and the 1270s in the eastern parts, including Transylvania..."(László Makkai, TRANSYLVANIA IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARIAN KINGDOM (896–1526), IN: Köpeczi Béla (General Editor), HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-88033-479-7)"
Kniezsa's map is still cited in scientific papers. It is NOT outdated. Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Kniezsa's views are not criticized only by Slovak authors, but also by the Hungarian historian Gyula Kristó in his paper "THE PEOPLES OF HUNGARY IN THE DAYS OF SAINT STEPHEN". Gyula Kristó's paper provides a criticism of Istvan Kniezsa's paper published in 1938 on the question of ethnicity in Hungary in the 11th century. The author states that Kniezsa, despite his own intentions, depicted the peoples of the late Arpád era, i.e., 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, instead of the early Arpád era, i.e., 11th century.. (the quote is from Századok, Volume 134, Issues 1-3, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2000 - Hungary) 213.229.64.182 ( talk) 06:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The term "pagans", used in the Background section to describe the pre-Christian Hungarians, is vague. A more specific label would be helpful, because "pagan" has been used to describe an awfully broad collection of cultures and religions. Folklore1 ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
All comments, suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka ( talk) 02:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I am about three-quarters of the way through the article, copy-editing in response to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I see both British and American date styles and British and American spelling. Usually, I go back to the first version of the article after the stub to see what style was first used. However, I see that there may have been a split, so I don't know at what point I should be looking. It doesn't matter to me which style is used. Could someone please decide the style and let me know? Then I will edit for consistency. Corinne ( talk) 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear anon, please summarize the reasons of this edit here ( [10]), because there are two editors who do not understand your concern. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka ( talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Anon, would you summarize why do you think that all attempts by the Holy Roman Emperors to expand their authority over Hungary were unsuccessful if Henry III managed to put Peter on the throne in 1044 and Solomon in 1063? Borsoka ( talk) 08:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Can the HR.Emperors conquer it from Pozsony to Transylvania?. So their attempts remained unsuccessful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.55.251 ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, during the reginPeter Orseolo there were a civil war, there were Hungarian forces on both side, so it was not a clear Hungary vs Germany war, but civil war.
High medieval German Emperors proved to be weak to fight against a politically united Hungary as a whole country.
Or do you deny the following facts?
Just see the conflicts of Pure Hungary VS. Germany line-up.
The subject is the unsuccessful attempts of HR. Emperors to make Hungary as vassal state of their Empire. They proved to be weak for that.
IS there any reliable source which state that Peter used only the Emperor's forces? No, it was a civil war. The Emperor simply used the anarchic situation as his advantage. Second: The gathered army of the Emperor's army did not dare to cross the border to help King Peter, which is not strange, because medieval Holy Roman Emperors had not huge armies. We can cite all wars of medieval Holy Roman emperors (with the estimations of their armies from books of academic scholars ), and it is clearer than the sun, that the medieval HR. Emperors were unable to mobilize large armies, thus their influence was weak. So Emperor Henry III had to realize , that he lost within 1y and some months all of his influence in Hungary. No huge army ===> no power. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.122.55.251 (
talk) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
When Peter lost the power in 1046, the imperial army did not dare to cross the border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.55.251 ( talk) 07:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll take up this review, reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (
WP:GA?). I've had experience reviewing a number of historical articles, including about
Árpád. I will take 2-3 days to familiarise myself with this article and then provide a review. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Source check pending |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Samples checked - no violations found |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No issues |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Overall an extremely well-written and thoroughly researched article. I will do a second thorough read-through, check images, for plagiarism & copyright problems, and check sources before I finish. I do not anticipate any major problems. I've had a skim through the previous PR and FAN to see what other editors have thought. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Calvin999 many thanks to your edits to this article. It's very well-written and cited. I will see if I can access the sources on google books to verify your thorough research. I have one or two questions about the content of this article:
Other than that I have no qualms about this article and am just trying to find the sources. I'm sorry this review is taking so long, as I am going through a period of business in real life :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
LT910001, thank you for your comprehensive review. Please find my comments above. Borsoka ( talk) 12:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Cumans were not really assimilated, they got a medieval version of reserve area like Native American Indians in the USA, and they got some medieval privileges, which they could only in their reserve area, the so-called
Kunság. Cumans were decimated by Christian and Hungarian forces during the Ottoman wars. They were sytsematically replaced by Serbian Albanian and Romanian migrants during the Ottoman wars, this colonization was supported by the Ottomans. Moreover Cumans did not survive the Great Turkish war, they were exterminated in the 1680s by the Crimean Tatars ( the ally of Ottomans) and Habsburg and Hungarian forces. After the Ottoman wars, a mixed pan-balkan population and newly arrived Hungarian population started to claim the rights and privileges of the former "cumania" (Hungarian Kunság) reserve area (the rights of the extinct ancient Cuman population). Cumans had the right for free election of judges, free election of clergymen, they were free from taxes, they were also free from the power of feudal landlords and feudal taxation and they can avoid of manorialism and the serf/ villein status, they have right for land ownership. Thus the newly migrated population started to call themselves as cumans, to get the privileges of the extinct cuman people in Cumania/Kunság area. Later the descendants of the migrant population believed that they were the real descendants of ancient Cumans. Here is a good article about Cumans in Hungary, you can use the Google Transaltor.
http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.122.49.45 (
talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
KIENGIR, is there a significant scholarly POV, claiming that Croatia (and Dalmatia) accepted Ladislaus and Coloman's rule without force? In the reliable sources, cited in the article there is no doubt that both rulers only became the rulers of the two realms, because they invaded the territory and occupied it. Borsoka ( talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Words related to agriculture and religion have Eastern Slavic origin, according to all Hungarian linguists. They had not relationship with Western Slavic or Southern Slavic languages.-- Blemse ( talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Gábor Zaicz is just a docent. Please give me sources from university professors, because the Eastern Slavic theory is supported by the books of professors, who are/were members of MTA. Thank you!-- Blemse ( talk) 07:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The territory, mentioned as Ducatus in medieval sources, was an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary, although it was time to time given in appanage to members of the royal family between c. 1048 and c. 1108. I know that it is mentioned as Principality of Nitra in Slovak historiography, because it included large territories (one-third of the whole kingom) in present-day Slovakia (besides territories in present day Hungary and Romania). However, I do not understand, why it should be mentioned as a predecessor state of the Kingdom of Hungary. For instance, the French appanage principalities (Anjou, Burgundy, Orleans, Bourbon....) are not listed among the predecessors of the Kingdom of France, although they were integrated in it. Borsoka ( talk) 01:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Dimadick: the article is part of at least two series, "History of Hungary" and "History of Slovakia", because it covers a period of the history of both countries. However, this historical period is not a former country, so we should not use the "former country" infobox in this article. The paralell articles - for instance, England in the Middle Ages, Scotland in the Middle Ages, History of Sweden (800–1521) - do not use this infobox either. There is a separate article about the former state, the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka ( talk) 03:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Is the "country" infobox useful in this article about a period in the history of a former country, the Kingdom of Hungary? Borsoka ( talk) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kingdom of Hungary | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1000–1301 ( Árpád dynasty) | |||||||||||||
Coat of arms
(1262–1290) | |||||||||||||
![]() Kingdom of Hungary in personal union with
Croatia in 1190 | |||||||||||||
Status | In
personal union with
Croatia (see historical context section) | ||||||||||||
Capital |
Esztergom (1000–1256) Székesfehérvár (royal seat since 1000) | ||||||||||||
Common languages | Latin, Hungarian, Croatian | ||||||||||||
Religion | Roman Catholic | ||||||||||||
Demonym(s) | Hungarian | ||||||||||||
Government | Feudal monarchy | ||||||||||||
King | |||||||||||||
• 1000–1038 (first) | Stephen I | ||||||||||||
• 1290–1301 (last) | Andrew III | ||||||||||||
Palatine | |||||||||||||
• c.1009–1038 (first) | Samuel Aba | ||||||||||||
• 1298–1299 (last) | Roland Rátót | ||||||||||||
Legislature | Royal Diet | ||||||||||||
Historical era | Medieval | ||||||||||||
• Established | 1000 | ||||||||||||
• Disestablished | 1301 ( Árpád dynasty) | ||||||||||||
ISO 3166 code | HU | ||||||||||||
|
What I'm having difficulty following is why this page isn't titled in some way as "The First Kingdom of Hungary"-or anything that clarifies or contextualizes the fact that as a political entity the Hungarian Kingdom endured in one form or another until 1920. @ Borsoka: would you be open to the interpretation that this the article is about a distinct country-in a period of the history of a *nation? OgamD218 ( talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but idk if this page should have its title affected necessarily for the sake of a subsequent page. @ Borsoka: to be honest I feel like given the content (which you appear more familiar with than me) having a page titled something along the lines of "Árpád Hungary" would better lead the reader in conjunction with the title of the page for the following period as it would serve to represent this period in the Kingdom's history can be defined by 300 yrs under a single dynasty but that the next was one of as you said, turnover and inconsistency. OgamD218 ( talk) 02:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Dragovit: first of all thank you for fixing my latest edit ( [11]). Please remember that all statements in a WP article have to be verified with a reference to a reliable source. Could you refer to reliable sources verifying the statements in the infobox that Andrew III was the last king of Hungary, Roland Rátót was the last Hungarian palatine, Latin was a common language in Hungary, or Hungary was dissolved in 1301, etc.? All these statements clearly contradict all reliable sources available to me (including those cited in the article). Borsoka ( talk) 07:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is missing info on the Voivodeship of Maramureș. There's not much info out there, but apparently, Maramureș was only formally annexed into Hungary in the 14th century, so Maramureș wouldn't have been part of this stage of Hungarian history. Although by the 13th century, Maramureș was heavily influenced by Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not able to check the source provided for the figure, but it seems that the land area provided represents specifically the area of only the Kingdom of Hungary but NOT Croatia. (I managed to figure that out because I am doing a project and I compared the given value to that of what Google Maps is able to deduce using its integration tool and it WAS accurate but only if you exclude Croatia/Bosnia. If you want to include the Croatian/Bosnian land for the total area the correct value would be ~50% larger). Considering the picture provided on this Wiki article does not distinguish Hungary and Croatia, there should be a note clarifying that the land mass value does not include the Kingdom of Croatia (there are other articles that make similar discrepancies so this change could follow that format). I cannot make the change myself as I do not have a Wiki account and any edits I make will be immediately deleted as always. 174.56.154.13 ( talk) 19:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Borsoka, @ Norden1990 you are experienced in medieval Hungary. What do you think about this edit? [12]
According to my knowledge. in the medieval and early modern Kingdom of Hungary, Latin was the language of administration and judiciary, and the country's offices corresponded with subordinate offices and legislative authorities (cities, counties) in this language. In everyday life (both orally and in writing), the inhabitants of the country communicated with each other in the language used locally, so a large number of sources written in the languages of the different nationalities have survived. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)