Talk:Banat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Serbia Portal Banat is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Hungary Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Comments: Add Comments Page

[edit] Banat

I agree that "Banat" by itself means the serbian/romanian/hungarian banat. But look at the article text and at the picture. Like this, it sounds like "Banat" by itself means the Romanian part. And BTW, always? Zocky 11:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The text attached to the map clearly said that is the Romanian (part of) Banat. Serbs called their part "Voivodina", but romanians called their part "Banat" -- MihaiC

This page seems a bit romanocentric to me as well. The map only indicates the Romanian part of the Banat, and the msg: below does not mention the "Historical Regions of the Habsburg Empire" or so, but just other Romanian regions. Fransvannes 23:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think article is fine. I uploaded here map of Serbian Banat as well as map of Banat during Austro-Hungarian rule (So, article is complete now). PANONIAN

[edit] Banat region

is there a region Banat ? i understand there was a Elayet of Temesvar, that encompased all the teritory of Banat. but when exactly was Banat known as Banat, having a defined administrative status as Banat region/province/elayet/bansag  ? -- Criztu 28 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Here is quote from the article: It received the title of Banat after the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718), and remained a separate province of Habsburg Monarchy under military administration until 1751, when Maria Theresa introduced a civil administration. The Banat province was abolished in 1778. The southern part of the Banat remained part of the Military Frontier (Banat Krajina) until it was abolished in 1871. So, Austrian province named Banat existed between 1718 and 1778. Today, Banat is geographical region. User:PANONIAN

[edit] History

This needs a section on the period during World War 2 when the Banat region in Danube Banovina was an autonomous region in German-occupied Serbia ruled by its German minority. Or at least a link to the Danube Bonovina page where this information is contained, though information about this period is generally scant on Wikipedia. Anybody knowledgeable about it?59.167.6.155 04:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A link to here would be good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banat%2C_1941-194459.167.6.155 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

have to be revised: - Ajtony was orthodox before the Great Scism??? - what Serbian uprisign are we talking?? not even the Serbs history Wiki Page speaks about such an uprising? - No words about the Serbian Conquest ... --fz22 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The eastern form of Christianity existed before the Great Scism. The Great Scism was only official split of two branches of Christianity, but de facto division existed before that. PANONIAN (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but using this modern form 'Orthodox' is bizarre. Plus is a lame excuse which follows the formula: Othodox->vlach or slav->had nothing to do with Arpad's Magyars->opponent of the feudal Hungarian state->the Kingdom conquered the region etc etc

Sorry, but even Hungarian historians used term 'Orthodox' to describe the religion of Ahtum (Peter Rokai, Zoltan Đere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasaš, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002). I do not see how else we can describe this. PANONIAN (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so ... They have used "gorog-keleti" instead ... the term "Byzantine-Rite" is more adequate here--fz22 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the book I quoted is in Serbian (but written by Hungarian historians), so they did not used word "gorog-keleti", but the exact quotation is: "Oblasni gospodar Ajtonj, koji je u Vidinu prešao u pravoslavlje, imao je, i posle pokrštavanja, sedam žena". The English translation: "The local ruler Ajtonj (Ahtum) became Orthodox Christian (pravoslavlje) in Vidin, but even after he was baptised, he had seven wives". Also, I think that it is important to keep word Orthodox, because most of the current inhabitants of Banat are Orthodox Christians, thus it is important that they know that somebody of their faith ruled over the region in that time. As a sort of compromise we can use both names, something like Orthodox (Byzantine-Rite). PANONIAN (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Serb uprising in Banat in 1594 was one of the 3 largest uprisings of Serbs in history (the other two are those in 1804 led by Karađorđe and in 1815 led by Miloš Obrenović). If some other Wiki pages do not speak about it, then it is because nobody wrote that there yet (History of Serbia article speak about it for example). And what Serbian conquest you talk about? PANONIAN (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

the well known immigration of Serbs into Szeremseg in the early 15th century, Bacska in the 17th century up toward Szentendre ... this process is quite well documented--fz22 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But that certainly cannot be described as "conquest". Besides this, what you mentioned were only some of many Serb migrations to the region, not to mentioned that some Serbs lived here even from the Slavic migration in the 6th and 7th century, and not to mention that until the 13th century Banat was mostly populated with Slavs, who, if not all of them were Serbs, have spoke the same language as Serbs today. So, the story about Serbian "conquest" is only a science fiction story developed by the nationalistic Hungarian historians in the 19th century. Of course, it is nice that there are many objective Hungarian historians who do not try to deny that most of the Pannonian plain had Slavic ethnic character in the time when Kingdom of Hungary was created. PANONIAN (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here Conquest = Honfoglalas for me ... --fz22 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want to say. PANONIAN (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think there is term in English for Hungarian "honfoglalas" conquest. This is not just a simple "conqering the land by force of arms"--fz22 08:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the problem is that nationalist people in all countries in our region think that their neighbours "conquered" parts of "their" lands. Same thing you will hear from Serbs, same from Albanians, same from Croats, same from Bulgarians, etc, etc... During the centuries, different regions and cities were inhabited by different peoples and nobody cannot claim that their neighbours "conquered" something from him. We all came to this region from somewhere. The ancient inhabitants of Balkans were Palazgians who spoke a language similar to basque. All Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples came later. So, we all in fact "conquered" the land of Palazgians and we all are "land thiefs". The question is: can somebody stole something from a thief when he already stole this from somebody else? PANONIAN (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, so this is why we have to elucidate those people. Most of Magyars do not deny that there were slavic people in the region during the Hungarian conquest. But it is also undeniable that between the 15th-18th century almost half a million Serbian refugges immingrated into this deserted land while the Magyars simple died out ... --fz22 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Serbs did settled in the region between 14th and 16th century, and so did the Magyars in the centuries before that. What is a big difference between Serb and Magyar settling? PANONIAN (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References please

Can we please have some references for the demographic data, it just says that "according to 1774 data", is that a census, which one (from which country). Thanks. AdrianTM 09:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In what other page you want to use this data? The reference where I found this data is this book: Miodrag Milin, Vekovima zajedno (iz istorije srpsko-rumunskih odnosa), Temišvar, 1995. Book is in Serbian, but it is published in Timisoara by the Serb minority of Romania. The numbers given there are statistical data for the year 1774, but are based on the 1771/1772 census. However, this census was partial, meaning it did not presented data for all settlements, thus the 1774 data are in fact corrected data from 1771/1772 census. PANONIAN (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was thinking to balance the data from Timisoara#History with the info that in 1774 there were less than 2400 Hungarians in all the Banat region. AdrianTM 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical region

a geographical region would be the Pannonian Plain, as it is a geographical unit, a plain. Banat is not a geographical unit, not a mountain, not a plain, not a river, it is thus a historical, or informal region. at best Banat could be a political region Political geography, but it is not a political region, it was a political region, today it is only a historic thing. Criztu 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pannonian Plain, Banat, Transylvania, Bukovina...everything is geographical here. Everything that exist today is geographical. Term "geographical" do not designate only mountain or plain, but also a territory that have its own geographical name (but that do not exist in political sense). On the contrary, term "historical" designate something that existed in the past, but that does not exist any more. If you live in Timisoara for example, you say that you live in Banat, so in which Banat you live? Do you live in a region for which name Banat is used today (in the geographical sence) or you live in the historical Banat of Temeswar that existed in the 18th century. Since this is 21st and not 18th century, I would say that you do not live in historical Banat, but in geographical one. PANONIAN (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, see this for definition of the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Region#Geographical_regions PANONIAN (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

pff, i read wikipedia "historical regions can be used to designate geographical areas", i cant object to that, altho i regard Banat as an informal and historical region Criztu 13:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current intro say that Banat is both, geographical and historical region, no matter that my personal opinion is that word "historical" is wrong here because we have separate article about Banat of Temeswar. So, you object to word "geographical", and I object to word "historical", thus we already have a compromise version of the article, dont we? :) PANONIAN (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic "-ate"

Turkic like the title itself (brought by the Sarmatians - cf. Sultan/Sultanate, Emir/Emirate, Caliph/Caliphate, and Khan/Khanate).

The "-ate" suffix in those cases is Latinate, those words being derived by the western world from the title of the ruler, see etymology at dictionary.com. bogdan 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I was under the impression that in the early modern times and especially (or at least) throughout the Late Middle Ages Banat had a mostly Slavic (Serbian) character - is this true and if it is, why isn't the article reflected in that way? Also - Hungarians and Serbs seem to be mostly conflicting over Banat's history - but Romanians seem to be the largest ethnic group there for a long time. Roday Romanian Banat is populated almost exclusivly by Romanians (there are Serbian minorities), while Serbian Banat contains a large Romanian minority. What's the issue? --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You had a wrong impression. Romanian and Serbs are both orthodox, until second half of 19th century Romanian Orthodox church in Banat was under Serbian jurisdiction (it was bishop Andrei Şaguna who realised the split between Romanian and Serbian orthodox churches). In Middle Ages religion not language was the most important cultural factor, Romanian language became a written language only in 16th century, and only in 1688 was published a complete Bible in Romanian. Untill 17th century and in some parts even in the first half of 18th century, in the entire Romanian teritory (not only in Banat) the language of church was Old Slavonic. This is why some confusions appeared. In early statistics, by the word "rascians" is included both Serbs and Romanians--MariusM 09:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that name "Rascians" was used for Romanians too? I never heard this before. I only know that name "Vlachs" was used for both, Romanians and Serbs. Anyway, during the Ottoman rule, eastern Banat was mainly populated by Romanians, western Banat mainly by Serbs and central Banat had mixed Serb-Romanian population. During the Habsburg rule, many Germans settled in central Banat and population became even more mixed. The city of Timisoara for example in different periods had Hungarian, Turkish, Serbian or German ethnic majority, and that reflect all complexity of the ethnic relations in the area. PANONIAN (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is how the situation is presented in "Timişoara (monografie)" by Ioan and Rodica Munteanu, Mirton Publishing Press, Timişoara 2001. No mention in that monography about a Serbian majority ever in Timişoara, the first statistic presented is from 1851, with 8775 Germans, 3807 Romanians, 2346 Hungarians and 1770 Serbians (total 20560) in Timişoara.--MariusM 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, history certainly does not start in 1851. According to my sources (Dr. Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjige 1-3, Novi Sad, 1990), Serbs were majority in Timisoara in 1720, and according to the sources added here by other Wikipedian (captain Graf Paolo Wallis - Neumann, Victor: Istoria evreilor din Banat. Buc. 1999), the population of the city after it was captured by the Ottomans (i. e. in the same time) numbered 600-700 inhabitants out of which 446 were Serbs, 144 Jewish, and 35 Armenians. PANONIAN (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And of course, explanation for this is very simple: during the Ottoman rule, the majority in the city were Turks, while Serbs were largest minority. After 1718, the Turks left from the city, but the Serbs remained and they were majority there in the 18th century until Germans started to settle in the city. PANONIAN (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Zero Romanians in 1720? Is it used in the original statistic the word "Serb" or "Rascian"? I wonder if there are statistics in that time which differentiate the Serbs from Romanians, as orthodox faith was considered more important than language. In 1700 part of Romanians in Transylvania were converted at Greek-catholic faith, those who remained orthodox (a majority in Banat) possible that prefered an orthodox identity than a national Romanian identity, in order not to be confused with the greek catholics.--MariusM 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Zero Romanians in 1720?" Well, not exactly. My source in fact claim this: "In 1720 majority in Timisoara were Serbs and besides them, Romanians and Spanish Jews also lived in the city." So, I assume that other source is in fact wrong and that it listed Armenians instead of Romanians (the names are similar, so it is possibly that somebody made a mistake - but I only guess here). You should see who added this data to Wikipedia and ask him does his source mention Armenians or Romanians. Regarding statistics from 1715 and 1720 censuses, I know for sure that these statistics did not recorded ethnic groups, but they recorded something else: personal and family names of the people, thus research of these names showed exactly who was Serb (or Slav), Romanian, Hungarian, German, etc. I do not have exact data for Banat from these censuses, but for example according to the 1715 census, in the entire Bačka there was only 40 houses whose heads did not had a Slavic names. PANONIAN (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Census by family name? Hm. My name is slavic, yet I'm Romanian. We have many Romanians whose name is Vlad, Popovici, Eminovici, a.s.o. Given that Romanian is 10-15% Slavic in vocabulary, this is normal. Hell, maybe 20% of the Romanian population could claim EU/Slovenian naturalization based on their names. Dpotop 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope we don't have the same problem with Serbs as we do with Hungarians, Bulgarians, a.s.o. Everyone seems to say that Romanians somehow immigrated on **their** "historic territory", and then deviously overthrew their superb kingdom/principality/ethnic majority, and this is the cause of all evil ever since (the last x years, with x>500). :) Dpotop 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you certainly cannot explain origin of surnames ending with -ic, -in, -ov and -ev with Slavic words in Romanian vocabulary. Words in vocabulary are one thing and surnames are something else. From the Slavic words in Romanian you would have surnames with Slavic base and Romanian sufix, but certainly not surnames with Slavic sufix. Anyway, since central Banat had in the past mixed Serb-Romanian population, and since they both were Orthodox, they mixed a lot one with another (much more than they mixed with Germans or Hungarians), so, the existence of such surnames among Romanians is not surprize. Regarding your claims about "problem with Serbs", "historic territory", etc, as far as I know there were never such problems between Serbs and Romanians and therefore I do not understand why User:PaxEquilibrium opened this question at all. I certainly do not intent to claim that "Romanians migrated to Serb historic territory", but if for example, the city of Timisoara had Serb majority in the early 18th century, I do not see why any Romanian would have problem to mention that. There were also some places in Serbian part of Banat that in the past had Romanian majority and now have Serbian, and I do not have problem if we mention this. I expanded now section about population in this article, quoting what my sources say, and if you have some other sources that claim something else, please post that in the article. PANONIAN (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you can see who added this data mentioning Armenians instead of Romanians in the city population: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timi%C5%9Foara&diff=55907085&oldid=55881411 Since my own source claim that population was composed of Serbs, Romanians and Jews, there is very good chance that term Romanians was replaced with term Armenians in this edit. PANONIAN (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a short note: the confusion with Armenians might come from "Armân" not from Romanian. It would be strange though for those sources to treat Serbs and Romanians together, but differentiate between Romanians and Aromanians, I'm also not sure if there were Aromanians in that area. -- AdrianTM 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, we have two sources about this and both sources mention 3 groups that lived in the city. In both sources, Serbs and Jews are mentioned, but in one source the third group are Romanians and in another Armenians. So, it is very likely that confuse is indeed between Romanians and Armenians, but I cannot tell you which of the two sources is wrong because I do not know. And I do not think that these sources treat Serbs and Romanians together, in fact, 1720 census did not mentioned any ethnic group at all, so personal and family names mentioned there are the only indication of ethnicity from the census. However, there might be some other sources that mention ethnicity, but I am not aware of them. PANONIAN (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very complicated to say if the Serbs were the majority or the Romanians in the banat during the Middle Ages. The fact is that many sources from the Middle Ages say that in the territory of Caras-Severin the population was "Vlach". Even the names of aristocratic families were Romanian names. The old sources only mention a Slavic population in the South West of the Banat and in the North of Lugos (Lugoj). And the North-West was mainly Hungarian-speaking (Temesköz), but is not any more. The Hungarians living there today are a minority.Öcsi 11:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You speak here about time before Ottoman conquest in the 16th century, right? In the first half of the 18th century, there were no Hungarians in Banat at all, according to my sources. PANONIAN (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Middle Ages were before the Ottoman conquest. Öcsi 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent demographics

It would be nice if somebody can post data about ethnic composition of Romanian Banat only from any census between 1919 and 2002. PANONIAN (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the 2002 census figures. Mentatus 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just added the demographic data for the Romanian Banat as recorded by censuses since 1880. I have also re-organise a bit the whole demographic section, as it was quite a mess. I suggest that we should probably follow the same format even for the Serbian Banat (with all the data presented in one single table). It is a lot easier to read it in this way. Alexrap 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now re-organised the demographic data for the Serbian Banat, as well. It is now in a single table. I haven't verified or changed any of the data, I just copy+pasted it from the way it was organised before (with different subsections for each year). Alexrap 11:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1910 census

I have found this about the 1910 census: In backa: 43,2%- was hungarian, 22,5%-a german, and just the 28,1%-a south slav. In Banat: the population's 19,9%-a was hungarian, 23,1%-a german and 39,9%-south slav.

[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pannonia (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Of course and I found in 1715 census in Bačka 97.6% South Slavs and only 1.9% Hungarians and in Banat in 1774 58.55% Romanians, 26.61% Serbs and Greeks and only 0.64% Hungarians and Bulgarians. What that can tell you? PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 17:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's funny to hear this from you... Of course your info from the 1715 census is correct. You know, this is the part in the hungarian history, when its population has rapidly increased: from 2 580 000 changed to 8 420 000 (There is a 5 420 000 diff), because a lots of people settled down in the country (slavs, romanians, germans etc.). Pannonia 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Hungarian population had largest increase during this time period because many Slavs and Germans were Magyarized during this time - in the 18th century Hungarian was almost dead language, but number of its speakers much increased until 1910. PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And according to Chronicals from the Middle Ages, in the 15th century more than 60% of the Banat's and about 80% of the Bacska's inabitants were Hungarian. What that can tell you? :) --Öcsi 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First, data from the Middle Ages is partially unreliable, but anyway, just go back to the 9th century before Hungarians came to Central Europe when these areas where almost entirelly inhabited by Slavs: http://curug.rastko.net/karte/img/5_varvari_vizantija.jpg PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the number of the etnics increased in the 18. century, because they settled down in Hungary. The etnic content differenc between the two centuries in the south part of Hungary was so significant, that the maps from the 18 use the word "Rácország" Rác= Serb, ország=country for that region.Pannonia 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those people did not settled in Hungary but in Habsburg Monarchy (and most of those lands were part of Habsburg Military provinces). Also, total number of them did increased but their percentual participation decreased because of magyarization and Hungarian colonization from central parts of the Pannonian Plain to the south. By the way, name Rácország/Rascia is in use for this area from the 15th century. PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but they settled down in Hungary. The caiser(s) of austria, like Maria Theresia was (were) "Holy Roman Empress,Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia and Slavonia, Duchess of Parma and Piacenza, Grand Duchess of Tuscany". Hungary existed, but it was part of the Habsburg Monarchy. And the vajdaság was the part of the Hungarian Kingdom. Pannonia 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they did not settled in Hungary - Habsburg Military provinces included entire Banat, most of Bačka and even northern bank of the river Mures and these provinces were under completelly separate administration, not to mention difference between Kingdom of Hungary (that existed before 1918) and Hungary (that existed after 1918) - those are very different terms. So, the Kingdom of Hungary did existed in the first half of the 18th century but it did not included Banat and most of Bačka (not to mention Slavonia, Syrmia or Transylvania...). And this is talk page in English, so please do not use Hungarian name "vajdaság" because readers that do not speak Hungarian would not know what that mean (same with other names). PANONIAN 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You said that the Middle age Chronicals are unreliable. Why should bee an older (9th century info) real? Your answer is a paradox. (This doesn't mean, that I dont think that slavs lived in this area before the hungarians)Pannonia 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

9th century data is based on archeological evidence, while 15th-16th century data is based on tax records that recorded only smaller part of population (and Serbs were well known during history that they avoided paying taxes, so if you do not find Serbs in tax records that does not mean that they did not lived in the area). PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You claim that we only know information about the etnics content (from the 15-16. century) from tax records???? You think that there are no archeological evidences from that age????Pannonia 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The archeological evidences from the 15th-16th century cannot establish clear difference between Slavic and "Hungarian" (read: "magyarized Slavic" settlements). On the contrary, there is clear evidence of continuity of life in these settlements before and after Hungarian conquest which means that exactly same population lived in them before and after Hungarian conquest and that population was certainly not Hungarian by origin. PANONIAN 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello PANONIAN! I think we should stop this discussion, becaus it's started to morf into a hate-discussion, and has no sence. I wish you the bests,Pannonia 08:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You started it, so it is your decision when it will stop. PANONIAN 09:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

There is one big mistake in these new tables: they are too confusing because they do not list ethnic groups in the order of they size. In another words, tables only list numbers and percents of various ethnic groups in various time periods, but if somebody want to know which ethnic group was largest, which was second largest, which was third largest, etc, he would have a problem to find that. I already wrotte new article for Demographic history of Serbian Banat, but I think that current table for population of the whole Banat is also not the best possible solution. PANONIAN 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, the concrete problem with current "The Whole Banat" table is that reader would gain the false information that in 1774 there were 100,000 Serbs and 2,400 Hungarians, when in fact there was 100,000 Serbs and Greeks and 2,400 Hungarians and Bulgarians (I am aware that you tried to solve this problem with a footnote, but solution is bad because nobody will ever read that footnote and therefore we would present false data to the readers). The second problem is that readers would have problem to see that in 1910 census Germans were second largest group because they are listed in the third place. Such table could work in the case if we have exact data for each ethnic group from each census and if sizes of such ethnic groups do not drastically change over time - but it is not such case. PANONIAN 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the tables are probably the best solution for presenting the data in a concise way. If one wants to know which ethnic group was the largest at a particular time, one can very easily find this information in the tables. I don't understand why you're saying that one would have some problems in finding this information. It's very fast and simple to do so.

The comment about 1774 is a bit forced, as the footnote cleary explains the situation.

The current form with long paragraphs listing the censuses data is just too complicated. It is a lot easier if all the information can be seen in one page, without the need to scroll down the page.

I'm not going to engage into a long debate about the tables, but I hope that you will also come to the conclusion that the tables really are a lot better. In any case, there is no good reason to eliminate them completely. Alexrap 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not intent to eliminate tables completelly - I believe that current version of the article where tables are partially used is not so bad solution (no matter that table about population of Romanian Banat is still not a best solution for it, but alternative to this would be that we writte completelly new article about demographics of Romanian Banat and I think that nobody of us have no will or free time to do that). Of course, regarding population of the whole Banat, there are still problems how to present diverse data (i.e. one census that list Serbs and Greeks and another one that list only Serbs). There is also a question which ethnic group should be listed second in that table (either Serbs who were second largest group in 1774 or Germans who were second largest in 1910). I am not 100% against of converting this text into tables, but in that case we should find some different solution for these tables, which would solve mentioned problems. PANONIAN 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four main problems with the article

I wish to report, and later perhaps I will fix the article, there are four serious errors or lacks on the page:

the first one is a minor one: the term has nothing to do with any romanian term, but it is possibly slavic.

the second one is the most serious one, the part handling with the ancient and early medieval age history is completely false. First of all the area wasn't inhabited by dacians, but by sarmatians, at least archeological findings proves that, and also written sources. At second, the history of the region after 276 till the bulgarian age is missing, however we know about this many things. after the romans withdraw from dacia, the eastern part of the carpathian basin became under the rule of the goths. When they were forced to move to the west by the huns, the whole basin including banat became under the rule of huns, and they settled gepids to the area. After Attila's death the gepids rebelled and the area became under their rule till the avar invasion at the 6th century, but the gepid population survived till the 9th century in some parts, for example in Banat, too. Also this area was one of the centres of the avars. After the avar kaganate collapsed around 800 a.d., the bulgarians took controll about the eastern parts of the carpathian basin including transsylvania and the banat area. this lasted till their defeat against the hungarians, around their "hometaking".

the third problem is that the early medieval history of the region is explained from the gesta hungarorum which is in fact a late 12th century work, and it's trustfullness is quite questioned. that work is just a fabricated history of the hungarian ruling dynasty and can be used as a source with very very strong source criticism. Also there are many more written sources which altough do not handle directly with history, but their data content is talking from settlement names, to charters. From the present day point of view the gesta is just a work which tries to prove the Árpád dynasty's great and noble deeds and glorious and long past, and it seems it just projected back the present day situation to the past. So the main problem is that the names and states it mentions does not exist in earlier chronicles and other written sources or at least not in this form.

the fourth problem is with ahtum and glad, and this comes from the third point. Ahtum was possibly Ajtony, who was a hungarian chieftain who was able to oppose Stephen the 1st's rule till the 1020's. It is quite interesting that all opposing chieftains were orthodoxs: Koppány, Gyula, Ajtony, who were defeated by the state founder. That's why also, the orthodox population could mean hungarian population, too.

I have also problems with the expression that serbs settled to banat area in the 6th century. Byzantine sources clarify this that serbs were settled south to the danube as foderetii and not to the banat area which was not under byzantine rule, but was under the rule of avars that time. of course slavs could lived in the area, too, but I would not call them serbs, because the serb tribe settled much more to the south.

later I'll bring some sources and references and I will fix these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joranne Sutt (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History Section a Joke

Honestly, this section needs to be improved, because it is like a black stain on the whole article. It just sounds unprofessional and bad (e.g. "Roman presence vanished..."). Not only is this wrong, since the Romans kept forts on both sides of the Danube, including at Severin, but the entire sentence sounds like it's out of a children's coloring book.