![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"As was before, spliting the Hungarian and Romanian sourced viewpoints, restore historian POV naming who say that, morover that was unnecessarily duplicated by the recent edit."
Given that this is a page of Top-Importnace for Romania and of High-Importance for Hungary, it makes sense to have the Romanian POV first as more people interested in the article are going to be from Romania. Not to mention, when talking about a people it makes sense to start with their own accounting first and only after that with the accounts of the foreigners. What is the reasoning for the Hungarian POV being fist? TheThorLat ( talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
the article has a lot of etc, because there`s a lot more to be sayd... you`re welcomed to add more... Greier 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"afferent juridical rituals": how on earth can a juridical rituals be "afferent"? Makes no sense to me at all. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"social organisation of the population" looks like a joke. What do "Caloianul" and "Calusari" have in common with "social organisation of the population"? 67.84.143.238 ( talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read what the template says: "Statements consisting only of original research may be removed." Please also read WP:OR. It is not me who had to prove that the deleted text contains original research, but those who write the article are required to add proper citations. Please do not refrain doing so before reverting the text. Borsoka ( talk) 16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 19:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Lex Antiqua Valachorum → Vlach law – We should use its English form [2] Fakirbakir ( talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Fakirbakir ( talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (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) 11:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Borsoka. Can I ask for a longer description of why are you removing the Hungarian-language text from the introduction? Vlach is a Hungarian word, and ch is a sound in Hungarian even if outside the alphabet. Vlach jog is the designation of the law in Hungarian, and it is completely relevant. See Vlach jog in Wikipédia. Gyalu22 ( talk) 11:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
a 13–16. sz.-ban létrehozott, → kenézek telepítő tevékenysége révén benépesített, kezdetben legtöbbször román- és ruténlakta település. A legelső vlachjogú faluk Erdélyben jöttek létre. Számuk egyre szaporodott, és elterjedtek a Felföldön, Morvao.-ban sőt Galíciában is. Mivel a vlach szó a 15–16. sz.-ban már elsősorban nem népet, hanem foglalkozást, életformát jelentett, a vlachjogú falu sem volt törvényszerűen román vagy rutén népesség lakóhelye. Ekkor már szlovákok, lengyelek, horvátok és magyarok is telepedtek az idegenek beköltözésének kedvező, szabadabb vlach jog szerint. A vlachjogú faluk jogállásának legfontosabb sajátosságai a következők voltak: 1. A letelepített lakosság bírája a telepítő kenéz, ill. örököse volt, a kenéz fölött pedig a királyi tisztek törvényszéke ítélkezett. – 2. A népre kivetett bírságok és büntetések összegének egy harmada a kenézé lett, két harmadát pedig a falvak a maguk szükségére fordíthatták. – 3. A falvak terményük tizedével megválthatták országos közmunka kötelezettségüket. – 4. A lakosság királyi ötvenedet adott állataiból. – A vlachjogú falukban pásztorok, nagyrészt juhtartók laktak. A vlach jog a hegyi pásztoréletforma jogrendszere. Ott telepítettek e jog szerint, ahol a természeti viszonyok a földművelésnek nem kedveztek. A 15–16. sz.-ban már a vlachjogú falukban élőket hívták vlachoknak, függetlenül nemzetiségi hovatartozásuktól.
Hello Aristeus01!
Could you tell me what is not neutral point of you for you? Could you explain why did you overwrite to deface the meaning of sentences what was declared in a Hungarian academic source? (I always provide links, you can translate by google, and check it yourself if you do not beleive it) The Vlach law was part of the legal system in Hungary, and settlements which was established according to that law were part of Hungary until 1920 in the 20th century, which means Hungarian historiography has many documents and knowledge regarding the history of their (or former) settlements. Could you explain what is your problem with the "arose" "established" words? Do you think all today's settlements in Hungarian Kingdom were existed from the time of the dinosaurs? In the world everywhere many new settlements were established when the population increased during the centuries. And also many new Hungarian settlements were established during centuries whitout Vlach law far from Transylvania. Or do you think you need to keep silent the establishment time only for the Vlach settlements? I suppose many new settlements were established in Wallachia also during centuries, even Bucharest if from the 15th century. Historiography has knowledge certain settlements where established. In the sourced Hungarian academic source regarding medieval settlements in the Hungarian Kingdom the "arose" "established" words were in the context, you cannot supervise Hungarian academic source because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But if you have a different opinion in other reliable academic source, please put it that those settlements are "not established and not arose in that time". However I do not think that Romanian source would know different establishment time of certain settlements in Transylvania.
Could you tell me why did you remove a complete chapter from Hungarian academic source regarding the taxation regarding the Vlach law? Could you tell me what is not neutral point of you for you? Could you tell me why did you remove some words what was declared in the academic source? The removed sentence is clearly say that "in the Hungarian sources", and it is fact all Hungarian sources describe the Vlachs in this way regardless that you like it or not WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Or do you have problem with the "immigrants" "settled" words? Why? It is quite normal that people are immigrated and immigrating all the time, like Avars, Onogurs, Hungarian conquerors, German settlers... immigrated to Carpahtian Basin, or many Hungarians emigrated to Moldavia (Csangos), or many Englishmen, Spains, Frenchs, Germans immigrated to American continent, or in the 20th century many Hungarians, Poles, Italians, etc immigrated to USA, or these decades many Romanians, Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, etc immigrated to UK, Spain, Italy, (many also emigrated back), nobody have problem with that to talking about immigrant groups. Even in the Vlach article we can see a map about the moving of shepherds. I see you do not like when the Hungarian source say the Vlachs "migrated" or "settled" and you want to censor the Hungarian academic source. Or do you think only the Vlachs never migrated anywhere? Then why do we have sources about Vlach migration and Vlach law in Poland, in Moravia (Czech lands), in Croatia? The migration is really a natural form of the transhumance lifestyle, that is why the Vlach law was established, you basically try to remove the reason of the establishment of the Vlach law. Why? Anyway the Hungarian academic sources declares what you want to remove, and you cannot overwrite its content.
OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aristeus01!
I see you engaged to put a photoshopped map in the topic. [5] [6] your caption: "the Romanian-speaking areas under Vlach law in 13th century (1200-1300) in Kingdom of Hungary" "the map shows large territories inhabited by Vlachs"
Some days ago you put a map about "Romanian settlements between 801-1400" [7] Where west Hungary and north Hungary is full with allegedly Romanian settlements. Sorry but I do not see any consistency when you put random maps in the articles. In your previous map you showed large area inhabited by Romanians in full Hungary, in north and in west between between 800-1400, now you put a map where large lands inhabited by Romanians only in the eastern regions between 1200-1300. How possible this contradiction between your maps? Why do you miss the allegedly large Romanians in west and north Hungary in this case what you claimed just some days ago? Morover you said that I am pseudo-scientist if I do not agree with that map, are you pseudo-scientist too today because you miss that large Romanians from other regions? Do you have any explanation for this big contradiciton between your maps?
The academic Romanian, Polish, Hungarians sources say Vlach law emerged everywhere and also in Hungary first from 14th century (1300-1400), the maps shows Hungary 1250-1300, which is an earlier timeline. And according to the sources in the article Vlach law was used in many other places not only in the marked areas, and sources say Vlach law was used also for example in Saxon areas, morover even the Romanian academic source claims that settlements with Vlach law does not mean that everybody was only Romanian there. Also that map should create by academic scholars who know exactly which settlements which regions were used the Vlach law, and using Vlach law in certain regions does not meant that regions were "full Romanian populated and only Romanian speaking" as you claimed.
The map was made in 2019 by a Romanian user who is blocked now, because he violated many times Wiki rules:
(Own work) = clearly not an academic work File:Kis-vlachföldek.png
Moroever he admits, the base of the map was this map: which made in 2008 and it is already on the article: File:Hungary 13th cent.png (you can see Romanian population showed there also) and the source of that map was an academic map: [8]
You claimed this is the academic source of your map: Mihályi János : ''Magyar diplomák a XIII és XIV századbol''. I bet you did not check it. As I said the map is fake and the provided sources also fake. That work did not exist, only this: "Mihályi János: Máramarosi diplomák a XIV. és XV. századból." Which made in 1900, and collection of documents from 1300-1400 in Maramaros not in all Hungary, and of course no map there: [9]
It is very tricky the user provide many random source to pretend his map is based on real sources. This is also a marked source: Czamańska, Ilona. The Vlachs – several research problems [10] Again, no map there, even not much talk about Hungarian regions. This is also marked: Balcanica Posnaniensia - Acta et studia n° 22, february 2015, again no map there [11] (Romanian academic source) Even I see they are writing about the Vlach law whitout any Daco-Roman content, seems it is embarassing for modern Romanian academics. I see modern Romanian scholars are different than the Pop Aurel line with the Romanian nationalcommunist ideologies.
Which means the Romanian user just photoshopped big Romanian areas by own fantasy (a Daco-Roman fan art) to supervise and overwrite a Hungarian academic map.
I quote again your favorite British historian, Martyn Rady: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." Your claim contradict him: "the Romanian-speaking areas under Vlach law in 13th century (1200-1300) in Kingdom of Hungary" "the map shows large territories inhabited by Vlachs". Martyn's claim is fact, the Hungarian academics say the same (Or do you have any sources before 13th century regarding Vlachs in Hungary?) so this the reason why Hungarians do not care with the Daco-Roman theory which make fantasy (a fiction by political purpose to prove Romanians were first in Transylvania to justify the dictate of Trianon), a sourceless fantasy about the "always majority Romanians" in Hungary. So Hungarian historiography will not imagine "always majority Romanians" in medieval Hungary before 1200 if they have zero historical things about this, at least could you understand this Hungarian reason? I can say the Daco-Roman theory is not a theory but a real religion, because you do not have sources/evidences just strong belief, like flat earth theory also have followers with strong belief.
This is also strange, that you did not like this map which is a modern academic work by Hungarian scholars regarding the history of their own country: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdom_of_Hungary_-_Ethnic_Map_-_1495.jpg
I know you admitted that all Hungarian academic works are not reliable for you and you would like see this kind of maps regarding Hungarian history which made by Romanians: [12] where full Hungary is actually "Romanian" :) that is why I do not understand now why you satisfied to show Romanians only in eastern areas. [13]
This map is presented in a very big book (3kg weight), this is my pesonal photo, I took the picture in one of the biggest book shop in Hungary, which we can find in every shopping mall. It is an academic modern view, a reliable source, even published in English. I think Hungarian academics will not ask pardon from you because they dared to publish work regarding of the history of their own country, even if you do not like it.
http://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/kiadv/mna3_en.html
https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html
OrionNimrod ( talk) 10:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi @ Gyalu22
You stated in your edit that the Vlach Law was no longer active by the 18th century. I came across this source mentioning it in 1735. Do you have any sources at hand that can provide some clarity? Aristeus01 ( talk) 08:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ OrionNimrod
There are reliable sources that say not only Romanians paid a tax on animals, for example:
So somewhere in that paragraph something is wrong. Either Romanian shepherds were not the only one paying taxes on animals, or the tax is not on "animals" but on sheep specifically, or the other sources but the one in the article are wrong.
I lean towards the second option. First, the phrasing "kept many animals in the forests and mountains" is vague, by all sources they kept sheep, not horses and chickens and wholly mammoths. Then the second and the third sentences make sense. The 4th sentence however is again in need of review as "subsistence farming" is not the same with specialised sheep herding, and "agricultural output" refers to any sort of output from agriculture not just crop yield.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Aristeus01 ( talk) 08:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
and to providing fodder and livestock, including delivery of the quinquagesima (the ‘fiftieth sheep’)
The dual village-names also reveal that the Romanian settlements were segregated from those of the other nationalities. This segregation is explained by enduring cultural and religious differences; the Hungarians and Saxons belonged to the Roman Church, while the Romanians were Greek Orthodox (sources from the late 14th century mention 'Vlach chapels' in the Romanian half of twin villages). Although the Romanians assimilated an agrarian way of life, shepherding remained their principal occupation. In 1461, when the crown's agents came to collect the 'sheep fiftieth' tax in villages of the Mezőség, two landowners reported that 'they had delivered sheep the previous year, but this year they had no Romanians'.[21] Evidently the Romanian shepherds had tried to practice transhumance between the Mezőség and the central Transylvanian mountains; however, those thickly-forested mountains {1-491.} had no natural alpine pastures, and thus summer pastures had to be created by forest-clearance. The sheep grazed on the new saplings but avoided the thorny undergrowth, which soon spread to cover the pastures. The shepherds in this area, which came to be known as the 'Móc region' (mócvidék), grew weary of the annual chore of clearing the thorn bushes from their summer pastures, and gave up transhumance. They thus settled near the Hungarian and Saxon villages where they had previously wintered, founding the 'Oláh' part of the twin villages. Their enduring attachment to shepherding is illustrated by the fact that, in the Middle Ages, all Romanians in Hungary had to pay the 'sheep fiftieth' tax.
In the 14th century, there were no Romanians in Transylvania who had full noble status. In the Romanian districts of Hunyad county and of the counties of Severin Province that still belonged to Hungary, judicial affairs were handled until the end of the 1400s by castellans, who were appointed by Transylvania's voivode or by the governor (bán) of Severin, and assisted by jurymen selected from among the cnezes. The cnezes performed personal military service and paid land-rent and sheep-tax for the villages under their administration.
The original occupation of the Romanians in the Balkans, just like north of the Danube, was nomadic herding, and more closely, sheep herding. This occupation was so characteristic of the entire nation that the Greeks already in the XI. century, the folk name "Vlach" was used in the sense of "shepherd", as the Greek empress Anna Komnena clearly states in her historical work: "and those who only lived a nomadic lifestyle were called Vlachs in popular language".6 This is the general Eastern European approach can also be found in our country, we will highlight only one of the countless data: In Pest County, in 1483, "Gyenge Johannes wolahus seu pastor" is mentioned.7 The Romanians in Hungary preserved their ancestral occupation for a long time, partly until recent times.
The Romanians (vlasi) often mentioned in the charters of the medieval Serbian kings and in general throughout the Balkans are always shepherds, namely nomadic shepherds who do not form permanent settlements. It is typical that the XII-XIII. 19th century Serbian kings, whenever they donate peoples to monasteries, use this expression: "sela i vlasi", i.e. they give villages and villages, and while the villages are named, the villages are listed by name, one by one, obviously because they did not permanently live in a place, but wandered with their flocks in the surrounding mountains.
Even more convincingly than the above, the intimacy of the relations between the Romanian pastoral culture in the Balkans and Hungary is proved by the "national" tax of the Romanians, the uhötvened. This tax to be paid according to the "Olach law" (zakon vlachom) is also detailed in four documents of the Serbian kings, which essentially consists of giving 2 sheep and 2 lambs for 100 sheep, or one lamb and one barren sheep for 50 sheep39. Just as the king expressly states in the donation letter of the Banja monastery that the Romanians, unlike other taxpayers, do not pay the big tithe (i.e. the fiftieth)40, he states just as clearly in our country, e.g. the statute book of the Várad Chapter from 1374 states that the Romanians "differunt omnino ab Hungaris in dandis collectis"41. The fiftieth, which we called "quinquagesima" and in the Balkans "travnina" (i.e. grass money)42, is stated in complete agreement with the certificates from Serbia and Croatia, not only in our certificate from 1446 (de quinquaginta vero ovibus unam ovem cum uno agnello solvere deberent)43, but dated at the Torda Parliament in 1548. VIII. etc. which for the first time regulated the taking of the 50th nationally. According to this, for every 50 sheep, 1 lamb and one year-old sheep, and for 100, 2 lambs and one year-old sheep must be paid44. In Hungary, early on (first data from 1331)45 it became a custom to redeem the fiftieth in money, and even on some (church) estates, instead of a fiftieth, a tenth of the sheep was taken.46 However, this does not change the fact that the Serbian travnina and the Hungarian quinquagesima are one and the same. tax gender and their original form are exactly the same. In Hungarian territory, it already appears as a universal tax of the Romanians in 1256, although it appears for the first time as "quinquagesima" only in 1293OrionNimrod ( talk) 23:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"As was before, spliting the Hungarian and Romanian sourced viewpoints, restore historian POV naming who say that, morover that was unnecessarily duplicated by the recent edit."
Given that this is a page of Top-Importnace for Romania and of High-Importance for Hungary, it makes sense to have the Romanian POV first as more people interested in the article are going to be from Romania. Not to mention, when talking about a people it makes sense to start with their own accounting first and only after that with the accounts of the foreigners. What is the reasoning for the Hungarian POV being fist? TheThorLat ( talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
the article has a lot of etc, because there`s a lot more to be sayd... you`re welcomed to add more... Greier 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"afferent juridical rituals": how on earth can a juridical rituals be "afferent"? Makes no sense to me at all. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"social organisation of the population" looks like a joke. What do "Caloianul" and "Calusari" have in common with "social organisation of the population"? 67.84.143.238 ( talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read what the template says: "Statements consisting only of original research may be removed." Please also read WP:OR. It is not me who had to prove that the deleted text contains original research, but those who write the article are required to add proper citations. Please do not refrain doing so before reverting the text. Borsoka ( talk) 16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 19:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Lex Antiqua Valachorum → Vlach law – We should use its English form [2] Fakirbakir ( talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Fakirbakir ( talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (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) 11:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Borsoka. Can I ask for a longer description of why are you removing the Hungarian-language text from the introduction? Vlach is a Hungarian word, and ch is a sound in Hungarian even if outside the alphabet. Vlach jog is the designation of the law in Hungarian, and it is completely relevant. See Vlach jog in Wikipédia. Gyalu22 ( talk) 11:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
a 13–16. sz.-ban létrehozott, → kenézek telepítő tevékenysége révén benépesített, kezdetben legtöbbször román- és ruténlakta település. A legelső vlachjogú faluk Erdélyben jöttek létre. Számuk egyre szaporodott, és elterjedtek a Felföldön, Morvao.-ban sőt Galíciában is. Mivel a vlach szó a 15–16. sz.-ban már elsősorban nem népet, hanem foglalkozást, életformát jelentett, a vlachjogú falu sem volt törvényszerűen román vagy rutén népesség lakóhelye. Ekkor már szlovákok, lengyelek, horvátok és magyarok is telepedtek az idegenek beköltözésének kedvező, szabadabb vlach jog szerint. A vlachjogú faluk jogállásának legfontosabb sajátosságai a következők voltak: 1. A letelepített lakosság bírája a telepítő kenéz, ill. örököse volt, a kenéz fölött pedig a királyi tisztek törvényszéke ítélkezett. – 2. A népre kivetett bírságok és büntetések összegének egy harmada a kenézé lett, két harmadát pedig a falvak a maguk szükségére fordíthatták. – 3. A falvak terményük tizedével megválthatták országos közmunka kötelezettségüket. – 4. A lakosság királyi ötvenedet adott állataiból. – A vlachjogú falukban pásztorok, nagyrészt juhtartók laktak. A vlach jog a hegyi pásztoréletforma jogrendszere. Ott telepítettek e jog szerint, ahol a természeti viszonyok a földművelésnek nem kedveztek. A 15–16. sz.-ban már a vlachjogú falukban élőket hívták vlachoknak, függetlenül nemzetiségi hovatartozásuktól.
Hello Aristeus01!
Could you tell me what is not neutral point of you for you? Could you explain why did you overwrite to deface the meaning of sentences what was declared in a Hungarian academic source? (I always provide links, you can translate by google, and check it yourself if you do not beleive it) The Vlach law was part of the legal system in Hungary, and settlements which was established according to that law were part of Hungary until 1920 in the 20th century, which means Hungarian historiography has many documents and knowledge regarding the history of their (or former) settlements. Could you explain what is your problem with the "arose" "established" words? Do you think all today's settlements in Hungarian Kingdom were existed from the time of the dinosaurs? In the world everywhere many new settlements were established when the population increased during the centuries. And also many new Hungarian settlements were established during centuries whitout Vlach law far from Transylvania. Or do you think you need to keep silent the establishment time only for the Vlach settlements? I suppose many new settlements were established in Wallachia also during centuries, even Bucharest if from the 15th century. Historiography has knowledge certain settlements where established. In the sourced Hungarian academic source regarding medieval settlements in the Hungarian Kingdom the "arose" "established" words were in the context, you cannot supervise Hungarian academic source because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But if you have a different opinion in other reliable academic source, please put it that those settlements are "not established and not arose in that time". However I do not think that Romanian source would know different establishment time of certain settlements in Transylvania.
Could you tell me why did you remove a complete chapter from Hungarian academic source regarding the taxation regarding the Vlach law? Could you tell me what is not neutral point of you for you? Could you tell me why did you remove some words what was declared in the academic source? The removed sentence is clearly say that "in the Hungarian sources", and it is fact all Hungarian sources describe the Vlachs in this way regardless that you like it or not WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Or do you have problem with the "immigrants" "settled" words? Why? It is quite normal that people are immigrated and immigrating all the time, like Avars, Onogurs, Hungarian conquerors, German settlers... immigrated to Carpahtian Basin, or many Hungarians emigrated to Moldavia (Csangos), or many Englishmen, Spains, Frenchs, Germans immigrated to American continent, or in the 20th century many Hungarians, Poles, Italians, etc immigrated to USA, or these decades many Romanians, Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, etc immigrated to UK, Spain, Italy, (many also emigrated back), nobody have problem with that to talking about immigrant groups. Even in the Vlach article we can see a map about the moving of shepherds. I see you do not like when the Hungarian source say the Vlachs "migrated" or "settled" and you want to censor the Hungarian academic source. Or do you think only the Vlachs never migrated anywhere? Then why do we have sources about Vlach migration and Vlach law in Poland, in Moravia (Czech lands), in Croatia? The migration is really a natural form of the transhumance lifestyle, that is why the Vlach law was established, you basically try to remove the reason of the establishment of the Vlach law. Why? Anyway the Hungarian academic sources declares what you want to remove, and you cannot overwrite its content.
OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aristeus01!
I see you engaged to put a photoshopped map in the topic. [5] [6] your caption: "the Romanian-speaking areas under Vlach law in 13th century (1200-1300) in Kingdom of Hungary" "the map shows large territories inhabited by Vlachs"
Some days ago you put a map about "Romanian settlements between 801-1400" [7] Where west Hungary and north Hungary is full with allegedly Romanian settlements. Sorry but I do not see any consistency when you put random maps in the articles. In your previous map you showed large area inhabited by Romanians in full Hungary, in north and in west between between 800-1400, now you put a map where large lands inhabited by Romanians only in the eastern regions between 1200-1300. How possible this contradiction between your maps? Why do you miss the allegedly large Romanians in west and north Hungary in this case what you claimed just some days ago? Morover you said that I am pseudo-scientist if I do not agree with that map, are you pseudo-scientist too today because you miss that large Romanians from other regions? Do you have any explanation for this big contradiciton between your maps?
The academic Romanian, Polish, Hungarians sources say Vlach law emerged everywhere and also in Hungary first from 14th century (1300-1400), the maps shows Hungary 1250-1300, which is an earlier timeline. And according to the sources in the article Vlach law was used in many other places not only in the marked areas, and sources say Vlach law was used also for example in Saxon areas, morover even the Romanian academic source claims that settlements with Vlach law does not mean that everybody was only Romanian there. Also that map should create by academic scholars who know exactly which settlements which regions were used the Vlach law, and using Vlach law in certain regions does not meant that regions were "full Romanian populated and only Romanian speaking" as you claimed.
The map was made in 2019 by a Romanian user who is blocked now, because he violated many times Wiki rules:
(Own work) = clearly not an academic work File:Kis-vlachföldek.png
Moroever he admits, the base of the map was this map: which made in 2008 and it is already on the article: File:Hungary 13th cent.png (you can see Romanian population showed there also) and the source of that map was an academic map: [8]
You claimed this is the academic source of your map: Mihályi János : ''Magyar diplomák a XIII és XIV századbol''. I bet you did not check it. As I said the map is fake and the provided sources also fake. That work did not exist, only this: "Mihályi János: Máramarosi diplomák a XIV. és XV. századból." Which made in 1900, and collection of documents from 1300-1400 in Maramaros not in all Hungary, and of course no map there: [9]
It is very tricky the user provide many random source to pretend his map is based on real sources. This is also a marked source: Czamańska, Ilona. The Vlachs – several research problems [10] Again, no map there, even not much talk about Hungarian regions. This is also marked: Balcanica Posnaniensia - Acta et studia n° 22, february 2015, again no map there [11] (Romanian academic source) Even I see they are writing about the Vlach law whitout any Daco-Roman content, seems it is embarassing for modern Romanian academics. I see modern Romanian scholars are different than the Pop Aurel line with the Romanian nationalcommunist ideologies.
Which means the Romanian user just photoshopped big Romanian areas by own fantasy (a Daco-Roman fan art) to supervise and overwrite a Hungarian academic map.
I quote again your favorite British historian, Martyn Rady: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." Your claim contradict him: "the Romanian-speaking areas under Vlach law in 13th century (1200-1300) in Kingdom of Hungary" "the map shows large territories inhabited by Vlachs". Martyn's claim is fact, the Hungarian academics say the same (Or do you have any sources before 13th century regarding Vlachs in Hungary?) so this the reason why Hungarians do not care with the Daco-Roman theory which make fantasy (a fiction by political purpose to prove Romanians were first in Transylvania to justify the dictate of Trianon), a sourceless fantasy about the "always majority Romanians" in Hungary. So Hungarian historiography will not imagine "always majority Romanians" in medieval Hungary before 1200 if they have zero historical things about this, at least could you understand this Hungarian reason? I can say the Daco-Roman theory is not a theory but a real religion, because you do not have sources/evidences just strong belief, like flat earth theory also have followers with strong belief.
This is also strange, that you did not like this map which is a modern academic work by Hungarian scholars regarding the history of their own country: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdom_of_Hungary_-_Ethnic_Map_-_1495.jpg
I know you admitted that all Hungarian academic works are not reliable for you and you would like see this kind of maps regarding Hungarian history which made by Romanians: [12] where full Hungary is actually "Romanian" :) that is why I do not understand now why you satisfied to show Romanians only in eastern areas. [13]
This map is presented in a very big book (3kg weight), this is my pesonal photo, I took the picture in one of the biggest book shop in Hungary, which we can find in every shopping mall. It is an academic modern view, a reliable source, even published in English. I think Hungarian academics will not ask pardon from you because they dared to publish work regarding of the history of their own country, even if you do not like it.
http://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/kiadv/mna3_en.html
https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html
OrionNimrod ( talk) 10:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi @ Gyalu22
You stated in your edit that the Vlach Law was no longer active by the 18th century. I came across this source mentioning it in 1735. Do you have any sources at hand that can provide some clarity? Aristeus01 ( talk) 08:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ OrionNimrod
There are reliable sources that say not only Romanians paid a tax on animals, for example:
So somewhere in that paragraph something is wrong. Either Romanian shepherds were not the only one paying taxes on animals, or the tax is not on "animals" but on sheep specifically, or the other sources but the one in the article are wrong.
I lean towards the second option. First, the phrasing "kept many animals in the forests and mountains" is vague, by all sources they kept sheep, not horses and chickens and wholly mammoths. Then the second and the third sentences make sense. The 4th sentence however is again in need of review as "subsistence farming" is not the same with specialised sheep herding, and "agricultural output" refers to any sort of output from agriculture not just crop yield.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Aristeus01 ( talk) 08:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
and to providing fodder and livestock, including delivery of the quinquagesima (the ‘fiftieth sheep’)
The dual village-names also reveal that the Romanian settlements were segregated from those of the other nationalities. This segregation is explained by enduring cultural and religious differences; the Hungarians and Saxons belonged to the Roman Church, while the Romanians were Greek Orthodox (sources from the late 14th century mention 'Vlach chapels' in the Romanian half of twin villages). Although the Romanians assimilated an agrarian way of life, shepherding remained their principal occupation. In 1461, when the crown's agents came to collect the 'sheep fiftieth' tax in villages of the Mezőség, two landowners reported that 'they had delivered sheep the previous year, but this year they had no Romanians'.[21] Evidently the Romanian shepherds had tried to practice transhumance between the Mezőség and the central Transylvanian mountains; however, those thickly-forested mountains {1-491.} had no natural alpine pastures, and thus summer pastures had to be created by forest-clearance. The sheep grazed on the new saplings but avoided the thorny undergrowth, which soon spread to cover the pastures. The shepherds in this area, which came to be known as the 'Móc region' (mócvidék), grew weary of the annual chore of clearing the thorn bushes from their summer pastures, and gave up transhumance. They thus settled near the Hungarian and Saxon villages where they had previously wintered, founding the 'Oláh' part of the twin villages. Their enduring attachment to shepherding is illustrated by the fact that, in the Middle Ages, all Romanians in Hungary had to pay the 'sheep fiftieth' tax.
In the 14th century, there were no Romanians in Transylvania who had full noble status. In the Romanian districts of Hunyad county and of the counties of Severin Province that still belonged to Hungary, judicial affairs were handled until the end of the 1400s by castellans, who were appointed by Transylvania's voivode or by the governor (bán) of Severin, and assisted by jurymen selected from among the cnezes. The cnezes performed personal military service and paid land-rent and sheep-tax for the villages under their administration.
The original occupation of the Romanians in the Balkans, just like north of the Danube, was nomadic herding, and more closely, sheep herding. This occupation was so characteristic of the entire nation that the Greeks already in the XI. century, the folk name "Vlach" was used in the sense of "shepherd", as the Greek empress Anna Komnena clearly states in her historical work: "and those who only lived a nomadic lifestyle were called Vlachs in popular language".6 This is the general Eastern European approach can also be found in our country, we will highlight only one of the countless data: In Pest County, in 1483, "Gyenge Johannes wolahus seu pastor" is mentioned.7 The Romanians in Hungary preserved their ancestral occupation for a long time, partly until recent times.
The Romanians (vlasi) often mentioned in the charters of the medieval Serbian kings and in general throughout the Balkans are always shepherds, namely nomadic shepherds who do not form permanent settlements. It is typical that the XII-XIII. 19th century Serbian kings, whenever they donate peoples to monasteries, use this expression: "sela i vlasi", i.e. they give villages and villages, and while the villages are named, the villages are listed by name, one by one, obviously because they did not permanently live in a place, but wandered with their flocks in the surrounding mountains.
Even more convincingly than the above, the intimacy of the relations between the Romanian pastoral culture in the Balkans and Hungary is proved by the "national" tax of the Romanians, the uhötvened. This tax to be paid according to the "Olach law" (zakon vlachom) is also detailed in four documents of the Serbian kings, which essentially consists of giving 2 sheep and 2 lambs for 100 sheep, or one lamb and one barren sheep for 50 sheep39. Just as the king expressly states in the donation letter of the Banja monastery that the Romanians, unlike other taxpayers, do not pay the big tithe (i.e. the fiftieth)40, he states just as clearly in our country, e.g. the statute book of the Várad Chapter from 1374 states that the Romanians "differunt omnino ab Hungaris in dandis collectis"41. The fiftieth, which we called "quinquagesima" and in the Balkans "travnina" (i.e. grass money)42, is stated in complete agreement with the certificates from Serbia and Croatia, not only in our certificate from 1446 (de quinquaginta vero ovibus unam ovem cum uno agnello solvere deberent)43, but dated at the Torda Parliament in 1548. VIII. etc. which for the first time regulated the taking of the 50th nationally. According to this, for every 50 sheep, 1 lamb and one year-old sheep, and for 100, 2 lambs and one year-old sheep must be paid44. In Hungary, early on (first data from 1331)45 it became a custom to redeem the fiftieth in money, and even on some (church) estates, instead of a fiftieth, a tenth of the sheep was taken.46 However, this does not change the fact that the Serbian travnina and the Hungarian quinquagesima are one and the same. tax gender and their original form are exactly the same. In Hungarian territory, it already appears as a universal tax of the Romanians in 1256, although it appears for the first time as "quinquagesima" only in 1293OrionNimrod ( talk) 23:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)