![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
79.117.217.39 ( talk) 10:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, Crosei wasn't medieval printer, therefore he couldn't live in medieval Brasso. Romanians printed books only in the second half of 16th century. (In vallachia and Moldavia the book printing was estabilished much later.) John Hunyadi was semi romanian (from his paternal side) but he was not commoner but a nobleman. (Hunyadi's father was court knight of king/emperor Sigismund.) Romanian commoners were not allowed to go to medieval cities in Kingdom of Hungary
Noblemen weren't guild masters / industrialist, because it downgraded their status in the society. The simple conclusion that juor 3 books are not enough to prove his romanian origin (with a typical Hungarian surname).-- Bornder ( talk) 12:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Dacians didn't exist in medieval time, but the medieval territories were often called by their ancient roman names, like "pannonians" (for medieval Hungarians) and Dacia from the eastern part Tisza river + Transilvania. In this term Dacian refer to the ancient territory of the dacia province.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.235.109 ( talk) 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
in Latin. Böri ( talk) 13:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
URban or Orban familyname was delivered from the latin word for city, it means citizen of a city. "Urban" word was used by medieval Hungarians like the "város" word for great cities and citisens (Urbanus). However, Vlachs (romanians) use the "oraş" word for city, which was copied from the Hungarian "Város" word (means fortfied settlement)
The medieval Dacian term doesn't refer to Orbán's vallachian (Romanian)origin. BEcause the Dacian origin theory of Vlachs (Romanians) was not developed yet. "Dacian" was a simple ancient roman toponym of the territory, which included Transylvania too. Like Hungarian kings often used "King of Pannonia" title, which is an ancient Roman toponym-based title. Forexample, some Prince of Transylvania (prince Báthory, and prince George Rákóczi) held the title "Prince of Dacia"). According to this medieval term all people until the line of Tisza river of present-day Hungary were called as "Dacian" too.
But remember the ancient latin "Bohemia" toponym of Czech territory, it is based ony the ancient celtic territory in roman times, which is created long before the slavic migration. It doesn't men that czechs are celtic, doe to the celtic migration to westwards.
Yes, everybody was "dacian" (because it didn't mean not more than a simple toponym) until the Tisza river, regardless their ethnicity. All Czechs were called as "Bohemian" which was the ancient Roman name for local Celtic people, regardless that the population identity language changed to Slavic and German in medieval Kingdom of Bohemia. And Hungarian kings were often referred as kings of Pannonia, which was an ancient roman province. An other good example is the latin name of Switzerland Helvetia, whic referred to some gaul tribes (Helvetii) before the germanic conquest. It was used in medieval texts, german Switzerlander were called as Helvets. Some older English books also depicted Dracula as Hungarian, instead of his real Vlach origin, due to the fact that the dracula stories talked about Transylvania which was Kingdom of Hungary until 1918.
The confusion of toponyms from ancient roman age - which were also used unaltered until the modern age, (especially in latin and greek medieval texts) - and the real ethnicity is a seriuos semantical error.
Hungarians are not Pannons and Czechs are not Celts. Nobody had any knowledge that Vlachs romanians were descendant of dacians, because the daco-romanian origin theory was not invented yet. Thus the Hungarians often became automatically pannons, the czechs became automatically celtic, the German Swish population automatically became Helvetii (Helvetia), and Vlachs became automatically dachus in medieval texts...
Székelys are Hungarians. All romanian censuses confirmet that in the region. They always spoke Hungrian lnguage, and originally only a part of them lived in transylvania (eastern székelys) however medieval Székelys from 10-11th century lived in Pozsony county (Bratislava) Szombathely (close to Austrian borders) Zala county (close to austrian border), And Fehér county. Therefore it is an other error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.188.254 ( talk) 09:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Magyarized? Romnized? Germanized? Russificized Polonized? etc... There were no such an efforts and ideology in Europe before the era of natonalism and national awakening. For nationalization of other ethnic groups needed state organized compulsory school systems, newspapers theatres etc..... There weren't infrastructure to do that. It is an other anachronism from you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
31.46.188.254 (
talk)
09:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
And again: Székely lived in Western Hungary and present-day Western Slovakia in the 10-11th century, and around Esztergom and Székesfehérvár. Szekelys weren't only Transylvanians. The Eastern (or transylvanian) Székelys moved to their present-day territory from Bihar county in the end of 11th century.
Distinct nation? You confused the term of "political nation" with "ethnic nation". Medieval Hungarian parliaments also contained three estates which were also known as "nations" 1. Church, 2. the Magnates (barons and above) the third was the lower nobility(gentry) with the emissary of the royal cities.
How could a gun used in 1453 have been cast in 1464? 49.230.48.136 ( talk) 04:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
79.117.217.39 ( talk) 10:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, Crosei wasn't medieval printer, therefore he couldn't live in medieval Brasso. Romanians printed books only in the second half of 16th century. (In vallachia and Moldavia the book printing was estabilished much later.) John Hunyadi was semi romanian (from his paternal side) but he was not commoner but a nobleman. (Hunyadi's father was court knight of king/emperor Sigismund.) Romanian commoners were not allowed to go to medieval cities in Kingdom of Hungary
Noblemen weren't guild masters / industrialist, because it downgraded their status in the society. The simple conclusion that juor 3 books are not enough to prove his romanian origin (with a typical Hungarian surname).-- Bornder ( talk) 12:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Dacians didn't exist in medieval time, but the medieval territories were often called by their ancient roman names, like "pannonians" (for medieval Hungarians) and Dacia from the eastern part Tisza river + Transilvania. In this term Dacian refer to the ancient territory of the dacia province.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.235.109 ( talk) 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
in Latin. Böri ( talk) 13:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
URban or Orban familyname was delivered from the latin word for city, it means citizen of a city. "Urban" word was used by medieval Hungarians like the "város" word for great cities and citisens (Urbanus). However, Vlachs (romanians) use the "oraş" word for city, which was copied from the Hungarian "Város" word (means fortfied settlement)
The medieval Dacian term doesn't refer to Orbán's vallachian (Romanian)origin. BEcause the Dacian origin theory of Vlachs (Romanians) was not developed yet. "Dacian" was a simple ancient roman toponym of the territory, which included Transylvania too. Like Hungarian kings often used "King of Pannonia" title, which is an ancient Roman toponym-based title. Forexample, some Prince of Transylvania (prince Báthory, and prince George Rákóczi) held the title "Prince of Dacia"). According to this medieval term all people until the line of Tisza river of present-day Hungary were called as "Dacian" too.
But remember the ancient latin "Bohemia" toponym of Czech territory, it is based ony the ancient celtic territory in roman times, which is created long before the slavic migration. It doesn't men that czechs are celtic, doe to the celtic migration to westwards.
Yes, everybody was "dacian" (because it didn't mean not more than a simple toponym) until the Tisza river, regardless their ethnicity. All Czechs were called as "Bohemian" which was the ancient Roman name for local Celtic people, regardless that the population identity language changed to Slavic and German in medieval Kingdom of Bohemia. And Hungarian kings were often referred as kings of Pannonia, which was an ancient roman province. An other good example is the latin name of Switzerland Helvetia, whic referred to some gaul tribes (Helvetii) before the germanic conquest. It was used in medieval texts, german Switzerlander were called as Helvets. Some older English books also depicted Dracula as Hungarian, instead of his real Vlach origin, due to the fact that the dracula stories talked about Transylvania which was Kingdom of Hungary until 1918.
The confusion of toponyms from ancient roman age - which were also used unaltered until the modern age, (especially in latin and greek medieval texts) - and the real ethnicity is a seriuos semantical error.
Hungarians are not Pannons and Czechs are not Celts. Nobody had any knowledge that Vlachs romanians were descendant of dacians, because the daco-romanian origin theory was not invented yet. Thus the Hungarians often became automatically pannons, the czechs became automatically celtic, the German Swish population automatically became Helvetii (Helvetia), and Vlachs became automatically dachus in medieval texts...
Székelys are Hungarians. All romanian censuses confirmet that in the region. They always spoke Hungrian lnguage, and originally only a part of them lived in transylvania (eastern székelys) however medieval Székelys from 10-11th century lived in Pozsony county (Bratislava) Szombathely (close to Austrian borders) Zala county (close to austrian border), And Fehér county. Therefore it is an other error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.188.254 ( talk) 09:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Magyarized? Romnized? Germanized? Russificized Polonized? etc... There were no such an efforts and ideology in Europe before the era of natonalism and national awakening. For nationalization of other ethnic groups needed state organized compulsory school systems, newspapers theatres etc..... There weren't infrastructure to do that. It is an other anachronism from you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
31.46.188.254 (
talk)
09:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
And again: Székely lived in Western Hungary and present-day Western Slovakia in the 10-11th century, and around Esztergom and Székesfehérvár. Szekelys weren't only Transylvanians. The Eastern (or transylvanian) Székelys moved to their present-day territory from Bihar county in the end of 11th century.
Distinct nation? You confused the term of "political nation" with "ethnic nation". Medieval Hungarian parliaments also contained three estates which were also known as "nations" 1. Church, 2. the Magnates (barons and above) the third was the lower nobility(gentry) with the emissary of the royal cities.
How could a gun used in 1453 have been cast in 1464? 49.230.48.136 ( talk) 04:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)