Talk:History of Transylvania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Historical counties

The listing of counties in Transylvania during Austria-Hungary was removed in this edit. I am referring to

During this historical period, when Transylvania was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Hungarian administration, "Transylvania proper" consisted of a 15-county (Hungarian: megye) region, covering 54,400 km² in the southeast of the former Kingdom of Hungary. The former Hungarian counties were Alsó-Fehér, Beszterce-Naszód, Brassó, Csík, Fogaras, Háromszék, Hunyad, Kis-Küküllő, Kolozs, Maros-Torda, Nagy-Küküllő, Szeben, Szolnok-Doboka, Torda-Aranyos, and Udvarhely. Today, Transylvania proper includes only 9 of the aforementioned 16 Romanian counties: Alba, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Braşov, Cluj, Covasna, Harghita, Hunedoara, Mureş, and Sibiu. In addition to Transylvania proper, modern Transylvania includes part of the Banat, part of the Pannonian plain, and the former Partium.

Does anyone have objections to reincluding this information in the History article? Olessi 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Olessi, you have brought in an interesting point which sometimes is overlooked. Transilvania proper is not the whole yellow area on the map. The western part is the Banat and there is already an article for that. While the North-Western parts are the Crishana and Maramures territories. In the real sense, Transilvania is just the central area (I think there is a map which depicts it in yellow, while showing the other territories in dark-yellow/). I think that the whole article should focus on the history of Transilvania proper, rather then this mistaken idea of a Transilvania that also includes the aforementioned territories. Constantzeanu 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael the Brave

Michael the Brave has ruled Transylvania for approx. 1 year. Compare that with the hundreds of years of Hungarian rule! His role in the Transylvanian history is exaggerated. The role of other rulers like Stephen Báthory is almost ignored because of their ethnicity. Only pictures of ethnic Romanian personalities are presented. Moreover, the picture representing Michael the Brave is a fake one. Please provide only authentic pictures. Also, on the maps are shown the actual borders of Romania, a country which did not exist in the 13th or 16th century. Those maps are home-made. Please provide historical maps from the relevant period. --Zmiklos 21:44, 15 June 2007

[edit] Early middle age

Why the refferences to Gepids, Avars, Kaukaland, Slavs, Magyars before the KoH were deleted? --fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cumans in the Carpathian Basin, in the 9th century ??? funny :)--fz22 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"After conquering Transylvania, the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers" - Nuts! See the next paragraph about the Voievod ... the word vajda is derived from the slavic word Vajvoda ... but there was no any Slavic system maintained by the Magyars ...--fz22 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late middle age

"Autonomous" T. versus KoH is a POV. I think the original title: T. as part of the KoH is perfect.--fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAPS

Only Romanian maps are present in the article. We should come to term about what maps should be included. I propose to add at least one map for each period--fz22 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the maps are written in English, not Romanian.Constantzeanu 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
the language of the maps is irrelevant ... I object having map associated only with Romanain history. --fz22 08:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
it is natural to have the Romanian maps only. Transylvania was and is a romanian territory. That's why are the romanian maps so evident and your hungarian irredentism is disgusting.
Stop it, Bonny, or you will be blocked.

For those interested, here are the maps right now. Olessi 09:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misericordia... text

The article currently contains the text

The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) - and 1604 (fall of gen. Basta) was the most tragic period of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. "Misericordia dei quod non consumti sumus" (only God's merciful save us from annihilation) carachterised this period an anonymous saxon writer.

I previously had changed that to read:

The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) and 1604 (fall of Basta) was considered one of the most tragic periods in the history of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. Besides the internal struggles, the Ottomans, the Tartars, famine, and plague all menaced the region. An anonymous German writer described it in Latin as Misericordia Dei quod non consumti sumus ("it is only by the mercy of God that we have been saved from annihilation").

The relevant text was discussed here, but the older text was reintroduced into this History of Transylvania article. If there is a consensus to include the Latin quote, I prefer the paragraph be copyedited (my prior version being a possibility). Olessi 09:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok you're right. But after the vandalism everything was mixed up, and I was unable to find the last accepted version ...--fz22 09:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gesta Hungarorum

Cool, so "Gesta Hungarorum" is a good-enough source to maintain that Hunagrians first came to Transylvania, but not good enough when it comes to Gelou, Menumorut, and the wlachs in the area. Don't you think it's a bit POV? Dpotop 09:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you dont have to confuse the Gesta Hungarorum written by magister P. around 1230 and the prime Gesta Ungarorum which is a more authentic source from the early 11th century.
GH is nothing but a fairytale based on region's ethnic structure of the 13th century. It knows nothing about the Magyars real enemies: Ratislav, King Arnuf, Svatolpuk, Tsar Simeon, etc. but talks about some fictious Princes: Gelou, Turzol, Zobur, Glad, Salan, and Menmarot. These peoples are simply unknown for any other europian cronicle from the 10th century. Contains a lot of idiocy like, the Magyars were not able to subdue "Prince" Menmarot whilst they were unstoppable for 50 year wherever they have gone in Europe--fz22 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I presumed there was a "Greater Hungary" guy behind it... Dpotop 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

I have got to delete this inbecility ... the Romanian in the late middle age were not tax-payers neither ... They were forced to pay only "quinquagesima ovium" ... of course until the early 17th century when the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely? estates ... even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs.--fz22 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles ... --fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)--fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... --fz22 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


"I have got to delete this inbecility..."

thank you, very civilized...

I didn't want to offend you ... I've used as a synonim for prostie, marhasag


"the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely?"

same old song...

Besides, it has nothing to do with Unio Trium Nationem. We speak about a political act, a state contract which layed the bases of a segregation system.

Sure, segregation between the political nation (Hungarians, Szekelys, Saxons, Romanians nobles) and the serfs.


"even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs"

My dear, with all sympathy and respect, sorry, but this is such a RIDICULOUS ENORMITY !! in Romanian "cneaz" comes from the Slavs (Russian - kneaz, Ukrain. - Knjaz) Simply hit a dictionary... as for "chinez" this means chinese in Romanian

Sure, but the oldest form -chinez- was borrowed from the Hungarian language. Chinezul, the famous football team from Timisoare have had nothing to do with the Chineses ...


"The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles "

and that's why they became "common" nobles, that is, they have lost their official nobility attributes,descending into a state of "rural nobiliy"

Actually, what we are debating here is, if Unio Trium Nationem had crucial consequences for the constitutional, political and social order of Transylvania. And it had, exactely in the sense of excluding the Orthodox. Not the Romanians, the Orthodox. It happened that Romanian were Orthodox. The ennemies of the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom were the heretics (Orthodox) not the Romanians. Thus the Unio Trium Nationem was a political act directed against serfs and Orthodox. It happend that the most of them were Romanians...

So the problem is more complex ... First we have to make a difference between the period (1000-circa1300) and between 1300-1541. In the first period the Romanian were free sheperds and warriors finghting against the Tartars, Litvanians, and even Prince Bogdan with a semiindependent status. They were ruled by their own leaders, Chinez(Kniaz) ... they really had a chance to form their own Szekely-Saxon like self governing system. But they failed
This failure was a direct consequence of highest political interests (of the King of Hungary). The same thing happened with the Cumans too. They were not usefull in western campaign as light cavalry horsemen so the King had no interest in preserving their rights as a comunity (some leaders became nobles they was awarded with estates ... and gradually the free Cumans became serfs). This could also happend to Szekelys too, the "nationality" is irrelevant in this period as you well know ... BUT their military power was usefull enough to be preserved by the King. (the eastern enemies of the Kingdom had used the same light-cavalry tactics)--fz22 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Orthodoxism became an enemy in the later period, when the Prince of Wallachia tried to extend influence over Transylvania using the Orthodox religion. This is why in South Transylvania only Catholics were allowed to join the nobles (contrary to Maramures) --fz22 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)



"prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)"

Yes, there are no "documents" to prove this, you're right. That's why I renounced this statement

could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? .......let's forget it, i don't want to bother you


"the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... "

entirely agreed (unsigned, undated)

Apartheid is the exact word to describe the condition of Romanians. The so-called Edict of Tolerance of 1568 excluded the Orthodox. Nice freedom of religion. When some Romanians, one hunddred years later accepted to become Greek Catholics, their hopes to receive equal status were dashed, the Tranylvanian Diet rejecting all their demands, even though they were promised that thei situation will be improved. Therefore the exclusion, legally sanctioned, continued until the 19 th century. Razvan2001
this is ridiculous. You cannot use a 20th century term backward. Similarly
  • we can't call terrorist those Romanianas who blew up that trek near vilage Ip,
  • we also can't use the term 'foreign worker' for the Romanians who were invited in Hungary after the Mongol invasion ;) --fz22 08:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Fz22 on this. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


>>could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? << --> pls ask the ghost of Causescu why he faked archeology / cut funds on reserches / filled sites with concrete in Transylvania. Of course, I cannot confirm, or proove, but it will come :) Abdulka 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarus vs Valachus

This example is dated from the Mid 16th century ... Belongs more to the next Paragpraph (Independent Principality)--fz22 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


For the sake of simplicity, i'm suggesting to avoid - if possible - repetitions of themes. I think that the theme of the discriminating caracter of the three-nations political system should be treated only once - at least regarding causes and structure - namely at its beginnings between 1366 and 1437. That is the reason why i took the liberty to give examples from another epoch: they are supposed to illustrate the essence of a regime which began in the 14-15th and continuated up to the 19th. Though Romanians (but not exclusively them) continued to remain mainly miserable and oppressed all these centuries long, it would be boring for the readers to repeat it in each section.
Excepting the chapter of the Tolerance Edicts (1542 -1572), presented in a quite glorifying manner, while they were for the majority of the population exactely the opposite, i would't have further commentaries...
As for your suggestion, i followed it, specificating the epoch.
Regards,
--Vintila Barbu 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] around 1366

i propose to reformulate lines reffering years around 1366. Two main thing was ommited the Black Death from the year 1359AD and the fact that the Seals of the Kingdom have been lost in a campaign in Bosnia (1363) ... so every donation had to be reafirmed/validated with the new Seal--fz22 11:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Plus the stucked anti-Ottoman negotiation between the Emperor and King Lois --fz22 11:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)



Sory for reacting late


If you want to show that the measures taken by Louis I in 1366 had more complex reasons than just annoying Romanians, please do.

Nobody wants to suggest that Angevins in general or Louis in special were obsessed to bother the Romanians.

Louis was a great king, he had European ambitions, Romanians were to insignificant for him; nevertheless, he took actions which negatively influenced the fate of the Romanians.

But please mention only historical contexts and facts which are relevant (with a direct or clearly traceable link) to the History of Transylvania, otherwise we risk to write the History of Europe, since everything is connected to something.

Since our topic is History of Transylvania, of which Romanians were an important constitutive part, since the beginnings, alongside the glourious medieval Hungarian History we should eventually touch on the fate of the medieval Transylvanian Romanians too. It is only in this context, that I pointed out to the year 1366.

Regards,


--Vintila Barbu 11:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


congratulations for your today contribution ! primary documents-based info, if pertinent, are always welcomed

--Vintila Barbu 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ... Can you help me to translate the latin citations to english? BTW: King Endre's resolution is a quite good argument for Hungarian POV that the Romanians were not so numerous at this time, don't you think?

I'm not against well documented contributions, I've just thought it is more suitable to have a citation free article (it is more readable) and the discussion page is used for confrontation/demonstration. Either way i don't mind.

--fz22 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


and here are your translations (I'm not a Latinist)


universos olachos in possessionibus nobilium vel quoromlibet aliorum residenes ad predium nostrum regale Scekes vocatum ordinasemus revocari reduci et etiam compelli
all Romanians who live on the possessions of noblemen or of whoever else are peremptory ordered to be driven and returned on our royal estate of Székes
ut vos cum vestris mercimoniis et quibuslibet rebus inter (Buzau) et Prahov a loco videlice ubi fluvius Ilontha (Ialomita) vocatus in Danubium usque locum ub fluvius Zereth (Siret) nominatus similiter in ipsum Danubium cadunt transire possitis libere et secure
…in order that you and your merchandise and whatever goods you please can transit free and secure between Buzau and Prahova and from the place commonly called the river Ialomita up to the Danube and likewise up to the place where the river called Zereth flows into that same Danube


I cannot see by any means that an order of forced resettlement of Romanians could contain whatever indication about the number of those relocated peasants, probably bondsmen. If any speculation about the size of that population could be done, than it would lead rather into the opposite direction as those suggested by you: if the King himself - of course appointed by his barons - takes such a measure, than it should have been an considerable population at stake.
I don't think however, that this is so important. Anyway there is no reliable evidence on the ethnic and demographic structure of Transylvania of that time.
Actually, my only suit in this matter is, that the medieval history of Romanians in Transylvania is adequately mentioned.
Of course, I do not wish a self-inflating or self-glorifying historigraphy of Transylvanian Romanians - anyway their achievements were very modest. On the other hand, the Hungarian historical strategy of not mentioning Romanians at all or only in a cursory/deprecatory manner has nothing to do with respectable science and only aims at delegitimating Romanians.

Insofar I can compensate this kind of "boycott-by-silence", I'm open to every information or interpretetion which would help to better understand a remote time, which is by no means related to what happens today in Transylvania or elswhere.

Regards

--Vintila Barbu 10:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gesta Hungarorum, part 2

I see above that you are retreading some of the same discussions that took place on the issue of the GH in 2004 and 2005. In any case, the current formulation [The earliest document...the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers] contradicts the information in the entry on the Gesta Hungarorum. It is also biased towards a Romanian POV (no mention is made of the opinions of mainstream Hungarian, or indeed US and British, historians about the Magyar conquest of the region) and is based largely on information from a single Website. So it doesn't meet the requirements for verifiability.

I don't see where the concept of Verifiability requires a minimum number of sites and Verifiability is a different concept from NPOV, so please don't bring red herrings! The site in question is not a Romanian site so your bias accusation is supported by ... ? The information is just a brief from the chronicle and not a judgment of value whether the things said are true or not. If you would have at least bothered to read that site you could have remarked the following paragraph: The "Gesta Hungarorum" contains correct facts, inaccurate facts, and information on Transylvania that cannot be confirmed from other sources. Some of the work is directly from earlier sources, and covers the history of the Magyar peoples moving into the Carpathian basin. The following are some commonly referenced parts with commentary regarding Transylvania. You may choose to believe them or not!. At the most you could ask for better, scholarly translations of the chronicle ;) Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems I need to quote the article on Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

The problem is that the site used as a source does not meet the above requirements. It is a personal Website created by two dancers (not historians!)

That site contains only a translation in English from GH. I find your reaction a bit idiosyncratic. There's no analysis, no interpretation to claim for an academic source, and them being dancers does not label them as unreliable in reproducing a text (it's unfortunate they do not source their translations). If it were the case that excerpts in Latin (GH is on Wikisource) were presented in parallel with an ad-hoc English translation probably none would have commented (there are plenty of cases where translations are given in Wikipedia's pages with no reference to translators). Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The site contains more than a translation of parts of the GH. The site itself states, "These pages summarise the history of the Balkans and the peoples who have lived there with the purpose of putting the Romanians and their folklore in context". It is also written on the Website, "These pages summarise our personal view". There is a bibliography, so it seems that the Website authors (Liz Mellish and Nick Green) have themselves written the history based on several secondary sources. Probably they have spent some time on writing this history and they may be knowledgeable about this topic, however I am sure that they have not followed Wikipedia's rules as they were not writing for Wikipedia. Unfortunately someone has quoted them directly in the Wikipedia article on the Gesta Hungarorum. Scott Moore 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
My formula was unfortunate. The site contains more, the page which was linked here doesn't. Daizus 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The following statement is biased (and no source is provided for it): ""Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest". Scott Moore 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


But before I remove the current text, I suggest working together to produce a revised version which reflects all mainstream opinions (ie those of reputable comtemporary historians). It may not be possible to reconcile these opinions, but they should be summarised and we should explain who holds these opinions. Clearly, verifiable sources (in English where possible) should also be provided. I wrote a summary some time ago based on several English-language sources (written by both British and Hungarian historians), which I believe represents the (most widely supported) mainstream view outside of Romania.

Funny is that Hungarian historians are among reputable sources while Romanian alternatives are not even considered. I am very curious about one thing - on what criteria do you claim a mainstream historiographic view? What historiographies have you analysed, which scholars? Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Its funny that Romanian Wikipedians always put words into my mouth. It seems that they must create a Hungarian nationalist to react against. Anyone who makes a criticism becomes a Hungarian nationalist in their view.

I haven't called you nor Hungarian, nor nationalist, so you're putting yourself words in your mouth (rather fingers). Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly who is not considering alternatives? I haven't written anything in the article yet, I'm just making suggestions. Whoever wrote the text I quoted is not considering alternatives and certainly hasn't analysed any historiographies or scholars (unless they regard a couple of dance teachers as historical scholars). Where exactly do I claim a mainstream historiographic view? Scott Moore 10:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have written here. I don't see what alternatives are to be considered for an English translation, because I must repeat, this was the only material taken from that site.
However, from a more general perspective you have asserted "which I believe represents the (most widely supported) mainstream view outside of Romania.". I don't care about the mainstream view in journalism therefore I assumed the epithet that bothered you as obvious. If you cannot justify why a view you believe is mainstream is mainstream, I don't see how you can request a NPOV while enforcing your beliefs.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the variety of sources and your contributions both to article and to this talk page. Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific on the problems with the current formulation:

1) the extensive quotation from the GH is unwarranted. It is clearly included to support the views of certain Romanian historians that are based on the reliability of the GH. However, both Hungarian and Slovak mainstream historical opinion regards the GH as unreliable.

I agree the length of the text is unjustified for an article about a two millenia Transylvanian history, and rather would fit in a narrowed timespan. But unreliable as what? As a crystal-clear image of Eastern Europe? Or as giving some hints about some specific realities? GH covers several issues. Isn't GH showing at least an intellectual tradition (if not even some unavailable written sources) that Romanic and Slavic populations were inhabiting those territories before Magyars? Moreover, few scholars dismiss GH in an absolute sense. What do you have to say about those Hungarian historians who are aware of some perils but still try to repaint a historical reality out of it? (G. Györffy, for instance).
And what about your bias? I see you find convenient to ignore that Serbian historiography often supports Romanian (and viceversa) in some medieval historical questions (in GH issues as well) but you like to mention that Hungarian historiography is suppoprted by Slovak. Along your contribution you tried to paint Romanian historiography as being isolated and in disagreement with some reputable scholarship, why? Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
What contribution? I haven't written anything in the article yet! Where exactly did I write that Romanian historiography should not be included in the article? My point is that the article should not ignore non-Romanian historiography. We should include all historiography (including but not limited to Romania, Hungarian, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish and Arabic) as long as it is sourced according to Wikipedia's rules on verifiability. Obviously we cannot include the opinions of every single historian, so we need to write a summary of the mainstream views (ie we should not include extreme or isolated opinions). Scott Moore 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You have written here and that's a a contribution to this discussion. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying, yet you aggresively address me such questions. I haven't claimed you wrote such things.
I agree with your point as you detailed it here, and I welcome your interest in these pages. But I appreciate more the information summarized from Macartney than rants about mainstream or how a translation is biased.
I didn't say the translation is biased. My objection is that the inclusion of a lengthy quote from a particular primary source supports a particular point of view at the expense of other points of view. Scott Moore 15:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I already questioned you about the mainstream views and you avoided the issue. Who's to say what are the mainstream views? Not a historian? Not someone from an academic background? Are you one? Other than that, let's refrain from the word "mainstream" and just widen the perspective upon the events with different views. In time we could suceed to filter them out and present only a relevant summary. It's hard for any of us to judge if an opinion is isolated or extreme, if we don't have a proper perspective over several historiographies and trends. Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think a historian from an academic background is the person best qualified to say what is a mainstream view regarding a historical topic on which they are an expert. I am not a historian myself, so I rely on the opinion of historians to judge e.g. the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum. Similarly, I would rely on a historian to summarise the mainstream view on a topic. In this case, I would rely on the opinion of Pal Engel. His book "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526", was written precisely to be a summary for English-speaking readers about this period of Hungarian history (he did not current any original research for the book, but rather presents a summary of existing research). He is very careful to point out when opinion is divided or when evidence is lacking. For example, regarding the Magyar occupation of the Carpathian basin he contends that the primary source material is contradictory and thus it is not possible to be sure exactly what happened. There are several potential interpretations of the source material - all of them historically valid. Scott Moore 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
In the bottom of this page I added some arguments considering a relative reliability of GH not from myself, but compiled from some historians. You would rely on the opinion of Pal Engel (isn't he Hungarian? :p), I would rely on the opinions of St. Breazeanu and Al. Madgearu, and secondarily of G. Moravcsik, Imre Boba, G. Györffi, etc.. I hope their nationalities and their methods are varied enough. Daizus 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

2) "the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes". Again representative of a certain Romanian point of view (and I say 'certain' because no one has yet been able to tell me whether this is mainstream historical thinking in Romania). The word Duke is anachronistic (taken from 'dux' in the GH).

I agree about the anachronic use of "dux". However Transylvania and Banate were in the Bulgaro-Byzantine (there are various hypotheses) political and cultural space before Magyars descended in Panonnia is that not a Romanian specific POV. On contrary, Romanian nationalism tries to minimize Bulgarian and in general Slavic influences in Transylvania to transform this territory in the historical craddle of the Romanian nation. Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

3) "After conquering Transylvania, the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers". I would be interested to see the sources for this statement.


Scott Moore 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer your point 3, for it is the simplest, and using only Hungarian sources. At least until the battle of Mohacs (I didn't check later) the title of the Transylvanian prince is "voivode" (vajda, in Hungarian). The father of Matthias Corvinus, for instance, was voivode of Transylvania. Given that the voivodal title appears only in Transylvania, it must be specific to it. Even extremist Hungarians do not state otherwise, see [1].
The knez (hu: kenéz) title is different in Vlach (Romanian) land than in Slav land. They represented in Transylvania the small Vlach nobility, as you can see in [2].
It's funny that westerners buy so easily the Great Hungarian propaganda. :) Dpotop 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Nay, I looked onto your page, it must be the Tokay wine and Hungarian sexy women. Dpotop 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
To conclude, it's not just Gesta Hungarorum, which the Hungarians throw away as soon as they don't agree with. Dpotop 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, before you criticise the Romanian approach to history, take a look at the Hungary#Historical and Talk:Hungary#Historical demographics, to see how history is "made" in Hungary. According to the same techniques, what would you get for the Romanian/Slav inhabitants of the region? Dpotop 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see any source supporting the statement: "the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers". Its funny that the Romanian Wikipedians who contribute to the articles on Transylvania need to portray anyone with a different point of view from theirs as a Hungarian nationalist (or as a Westerner corrupted by Hungarian wine and women. Obviously any Brit who has bought a bottle of Tokaj from their local Sainsbury's has now succumbed to the Hungarian nationalist plot to infect Tokaj wine with opinion-changing superdrugs. As you know so much about the effects of food consumption on points of view, maybe you could answer this question of mine: I eat parmesan cheese and parma ham. Does that make me an Italian fascist as well? Or do the mind-changing effects of food only work if you consume them in the country of origin?) Scott Moore 10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The argument for "voivode" is the clearest. The title is not Hungarian, nor western. It's a slavic title that originally denoted the principal commander of the army. Now, why would the Hungarians import a title to use in an important region of the kingdom, when they already had enough titles? And why did they only use this title in Transylvania? And why was Transylvania autonomous?
What we should know about voievod/vajda is that in the early ages right after the Hungarian conquest, the word "vojevoda" was used by Purple born for Magyar chieftains. In Hungarian early documents (1111) the term "Princeps Ultrasylvanus" was used for the ruler of the South Transylvanina region (south of Mures). The word voivod first appeared in historical documents in 1193. Prior to that, the term "ispán" was used for the chief official of the County of Alba ...So it takes 300 years to borrow the word from the old bulgarian language --fz22 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
But why borrow the word from old bulgarian? And why in Transylvania? Have you ever heard of the Occam's Razor? Dpotop 13:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So, in your view, the Hungarians came to a void Transylvania, then went to fight the Bulgarians south of Danube, found that the title "Voivode" is chic, and decided to give it to the feudal lord of Transylvania, but of course not to other lords. Dpotop 13:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Nay, the Hungarians came to a rarely populated Transylvania. The sothern part, south to Mures was under Bulgarian influence which was winded up later. You don't deny that the word voievod is of Slavic origin ... was borrowed from the Slavic people by the Romanians too. So they have its own word for chieftains, but as it happened in many other cases the new form drove out the old form (eg. kovacs/vasverő/blacksmith the latter disapeared, birka/juh/sheep the old form -juh -was however preserved). --fz22 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And again, I come again to my double standard argument. You accept as undisputed facts some wild extrapolations like in Hungary#Historical, but then refuse to accept common sense facts such as the one that the word "Vajda/Voivode" comes from pre-existent people. Aren't you just a bit bothered by this? Dpotop 13:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, for the Tokai stuff. If you find it offensive, sorry. I saw that you live now in Hungary, and probably have time to do it. Dpotop 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Dpotop & Fz22 - The discussion about the use of the term voivod in Transylvania is all very interesting, but ultimately these types of discussion do not usually manage to achieve a consensus (I base my opinion here on past experience of many such discussions on Wikipedia talk pages). Clearly there is no consensus about who/what existed in Transylvania when the Magyars invaded, so it is problematic to present anything as a fact. What we can include are the opinions of historians as long as we make it clear who holds these opinions and who doesn't. I would accept the statement "the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers" if it were preceded by an attribution (e.g. according to historians X & Y...) and the sources referenced. That would then allow other Wikipedians to add opposing opinions, and then any reader can see what opinions exist among historians and refer to the sources. Scott Moore 14:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a section from the article for the reasons given below. I have left in, for now, the paragraph starting "After conquering Transylvania...". But this statement still needs to be attributed and sourced. Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"The earliest document from around the time of the Hungarian conquest concerning the area of modern Transylvania is the "Gesta Hungarorum"." This isn't strictly true as De Administrando Imperium is earlier. In any case, if we only mention GH and not other primary sources, then we need to explain why.

Correct, but you miss few things.
DAI says almost nothing about Transylvania (well, it says between Hungary/Tourkia and Patzinakia there's a four days trip).
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_early_Hungarian_history , GH is given as earliest source on Hungarian history, so for an user having no idea about DAI, but being an informed Wikipedian (and keeping Wikipedia's coherence by asserting the same thing in other pages) it's the expectable thing to say. Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"It covers the history of the Magyar peoples moving into the Carpathian basin. The work is attributed to Peter, a high priest in Buda, during the time of King Bela III in the late 12th century. However, this is some 300 years after the Maygar tribes entered the Carpathian basin, some 200 years after the first Hungarian expansion into Transylvania, and around when the Szekely and Saxon peoples were moved into the new Transylvanian lands. Some of the facts in the "Gesta Hungarorum" can be corroborated with other evidence, but some information is unique. The "Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest." This is already a Wikipedia article on the GH, hence I provided a link.

"Here follow some excerpts link title" In such a short article, a lengthy quotation from a single primary source is inappropriate. Besides, the entire document is included in Wikisource.

"Knowing that much of the Balkans was under Bulgarian rule but had fallen to Byzantium before the Magyar tribes entered, the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes." Weasel words (was likely to have been). Who holds this opinion? Why are opposing opinions not mentioned? Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fz22 - what is this "prime Gesta Ungarorum from the 11th century" that you added to the article? It sounds like the Gesta Hungarorum to me. The same points I made above apply here. Just because a single primary source states this, doesn't make it an indisputable fact. You should include an attribution and source for the statements in this paragraph. Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

is another Gesta dated from the King Ladislaus era used by Anonymous ...

it is reconised as a more reliable source then the Gesta written by Belae Regis Notarius (which Bela? there were four)--fz22 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the so-called 'primeval gesta'? According to Pál Engel this was the earliest piece of work on Hungarian history, which was written at some time in the late 11th century. However the existence of this gesta has only been deduced from philological analysis. Also according to Engel "later tradition also held that Álmos 'was killed in Transylvania for he was not allowed to enter Pannonia'. This somewhat obscure reference in the Illuminated Chronicle to the death of Álmos is often thought to have preserved the memory of a ritual murder of a kende". This seems to be identical to your quotation, but you are clearly not referring to the Illuminated Chronicle. Scott Moore 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sources I've used in the past, together with a few direct quotations I have to hand. I'll also check what Kontler and Engel write about the issues.

C.A. Macartney, "Hungary: A Short History", Edinburgh University Press, 1962

- In 892 the Emperor Arnulf enlisted a contingent of them to help him against his rebellious vassal, Sviatopluk. The weakness of the land was revealed to them. In 894 they were back, raiding Pannonia on their own account, and in the autumn of 895 or the spring of 896 the entire nation, with their auxiliaries, crossed the mountains for good. A little fighting left them in possession of the Alföld (where the Szekels submitted themselves voluntarily) and put an end to any resistance from Transylvania. The Germans and Moravians patched up their differences in view of the common danger, but by A.D. 900 Frankish rule in Pannonia had vanished. The final destruction of Moravian rule in the north-west came in 906. In 907 a Bavarian army was annihilated at Ennsburg and the Magyars' rule extended up to the Avars' old frontier where the Enns runs into the Danube.

- Árpád's own horde settled in the Dunántúl, between Székesfehérvár, on the site of which, or near it, he made his headquarters, and Buda. Of the six other Magyar hordes, three settled respectively north-west, west and south-west of the leading tribe, one on the middle Tisza and one on the upper. The seventh, the tribe of Gyula, after first settling in the west, moved to the approaches of Transylvania. The plain of the lower Tisza and its tributaries was allotted to the Kavars, while the 'Kuns' took the northern fringes of the Great Plain.

Miklós Molnár, "A Concise History of Hungary", Cambridge University Press, 2001

- …and in 894, just before leaving for their new homeland, had fought alongside the Byzantine Emperor, Leo the Philosopher, against the Bulgar Tsar Simeon.

- Around 895, Hungarians….suffered a lightning attack by the Pechenegs…The Hungarian tribes, fleeing the Pechenegs, crossed the Carpathians through two or three passes. The conquest began under the leadership of two chieftains, Arpad and Kursan, leading the seven Magyar tribes and the Kabar tribes of Turkish origin who joined the Hungarians. By 900, the occupation of the basin was completed and in 902 the Hungarians turned their attention to the Moravian principality.

- The title of gyula did not, however, disappear: the Transylvanian lords carried it and exercised quite extensive local control, becoming increasingly independent of the princely and then royal authority.

- ...with the obscure period between the disappearance of Arpad around 907 and the rise of Fajsz , then Taksony around 955. During this long period, the gyulas ruled over Transylvania.

Norman Davies, "Europe A History", Oxford University Press, 1998

Rob Joustra, Dr. Payton, "The Magyars: Pre-History to Conquest", October 1, 2004

The Magyars, thoroughly outflanked, were forced to retreat with haste westward, crossing the passes over the Carpathians and entering the Pannonian plain in 896 (24)

Russian Primary Chronicle details migrations of the Magyars into this region already in 890 (26)

(24) Obelensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453. London: Phoenix Press., 2000.

(26) Endre Haraszi. The Ethnic History of Transylvania (Toronto: Sovereign Press., 1971),

László Kontler, "Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary" Atlantisz Publishing House, Budapest, 1999

Pál Engel, "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526", I.B. Tauris, 2001 Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Arguments which consider GH relatively reliable


In one study Al. Madgearu discusses the political beginnings of Banate during Xth century. I'll sketch some parts of his argument.
In one chronicle from Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, the emperor Charlemagne conquered a territory named Dacia, across Danube from Pannonia (utramque Pannoniam et adpositam in altera Danubiae ripa Datiam). Al. Madgearu rejects the opinions of A. Decei and A. Bejan identifying this territory with Dacia Ripensis because he argues that for the Western authors of those times (Alfred the Great, the geographer from Ravenna) Dacia was the north-danubian territory. Also in the ex-Dacia Ripensis the Bulgarian presence was already certain by that time.
In 824 in Annales Regni Francorum we find messengers from a population called Abodrites/Praedenecenti who inhabited a Danubian Dacia neighbouring Bulgarians (Caeterum legatos Abodritorum, qui vulgo Praedenecenti vocantur et contermini Bulgaris Daciam Danubio adiacentem incolunt) and they requested help against Bulgarians. Kurt Horedt claims these Abodrites/Praedenecenti inhabited the western Banate, between Tisza and Danube. But the Abodrites are known to be inhabiting a territory near Elba-Oder so an homonymous ethnonym had to be postulated. However, Imre Boba thinks there are two different populations, Abodrites and those who are called Praedenecenti. What should be noted is that Bulgaria stretched its domination over these territories around 824.
This domination can be also noticed in Gesta Hungarorum (chap. 11, 30, 38-43) where we find Salan, a Bulgarian ruler. G. Moravcsik admitted the authencity of the informations about Salan and Glad considering the alliance of Bulgarians with the Greeks being possible in the last years of Emperor Leo VI (before 912) when between Byzantines and Bulgaria was a period of relative peace.
Also, a contemporary testimony, the chronicle of Regino of Prum shows the raids of Magyars over border Bulgarian possessions. The Magyars entered middle Danube basin in the last years of 9th century and devastated Carantanorum, Maharhensium ac Vulgarum fines. Fines may mean the borderlands and it can be assumed that the most affected area was the area in question. Regino writes in 908 and dates the event in 889, and such he confirms the first Magyar raids took place before 896. It's possible that this raid is the same with the one recorded in Annales Fuldenses in 894 where there's a mention of an Avaric attack in Pannonia.
While Bulgaria was powerful (after the campaigns of Krum and Omurtag until the death of Simeon - 927) it's probable it had some control over its entire territory. However after Simeon's death, the peripheral territories probably started slowly to release themselves from the Bulgarian hegemony. Theodor Daphnophates noted that when the people surrounding Bulgaria - Croatians, Turks (=Magyars) and other people learned about Simeon's death decided to start an expedition against Bulgarians. In this context, Madgearu argues, the little state of Glad, perhaps with Pecheneg support (GH mentions Cumans), succeeded to get independence from Bulgarians. We can see the Anonymous author of GH mentiones the Pechenegs in other sections of his chronicle. In chapter 25 he names them picenati (a denomination different from the contemporary Hungarian bisseni). The critics of GH claim an anachronism relating picenati with the pincenates/piccinaci from 1st crusade. However the chronicle of Regino (mentioned above) says that Magyars were chased away from Scythia by pecinaci. Another possible criticism may state that Pechenegs entered Wallachia only in the 2nd part of Xth century, but we know that even Pechenegs have their attack bases in Atelkuz, they covered with their raids the parts of Lower Danube. They should have helped the Byzantine army in 917 against Bulgaria (the alliance was not finalized, but it's important to note that their action radius reached so far). G. Györffi assumes the Cumans coming in the help of Glad were another Turkic tribe, the Kavars, a hypothesis which cannot be excluded.
The article continues but it doesn't cover any more correspondences between GH and other sources. Should be noted however that there are no relevant archeological finds for Xth century to confirm the main fortresses of Glad, rather than some less important defensive fortreses from the Xth century (Arad-Vladimirescu, Cladova, Bulci, Pescari).
Other articles of Al. Madgearu cover the evidences for Menumorut or Gelou. However I won't insist so much on these types of arguments because I want to present a different types of approach, as well. But before that I'll give one short link to an abstract: http://www.geocities.com/amadgearu/notary.htm.


St. Brezeanu issues the chancelary traditions about the beginnings of Hungarians by comparing three sources. Gesta Hungarorum, the gesta of Simon de Kéza and the chronicle of the French Anonymous from 1308. I will just extract the relevant passages about the populations encountered by Magyars when they settled in Pannonia and Transylvania.
The Anonymous author of GH describes Panonnia inhabited as such: quam terram habitarent Sclavi, Bulgarii et Blachii ac pastores Romanorum and later adding that after Attila's death, the Romans occupied Panonnia and settled their shepherds there. About Transylvania he mentions Blasi et Sclavi under Gelou. And again in Banate, Glad receives help: adiutorio Cumanorum et Bulgarorum atque Blacorum.
Simon de Kéza does not confirm Anonymous' ethnic realities at the arrival of Magyars but he mentions Blacki/Vlachi in two different other episodes and preserving some similarities. After the devastations of the Huns, a lot of people ran away but Blacki remained there: Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia and later, after the Hunnic king's death they are still there: Panonnia exstitit X annis sine rege, Sclavis, tantum modo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Vlahis advenis remanentibus in eadam, qui vivente Ethela populari servicio sibi serviebant. But the same population is also mentioned contemporary with Simon de Kéza, the Székely (Zakuli) being neighbours to Blacki and sharing the same life in mountains.
The French Anonymous, a dominican monk, is giving us a description of the Europe around 1308. He talks about Pannonia's old inhabitants panonii, shepherds of the Romans being led by 10 powerful kings in the entire Messia and Pannonia which were later defeated by the Magyars coming out of Scythia. Later he gives a different identification: in Macedonia, Achaia and Thessaly there's a very numerous population, named blazi, which were once shepherds of the Romans and lived in Hungary. But because they were chased away by Hungarians they settled in other places. The French chronicle confirms the previous two Hungarian ones. Also let's note that in GH Arpad's warriors Sclavorum et Panonniorum gentes et regna vastaverunt et eorum regiones occupaverunt.
In all three chronicles we find the laitmotifs of shephers/coloni of the Romans, of Blacki/Blazi/Vlachi, Sclavi or Panonni being chased away at Magyars arrival. Brezeanu's analysis is a bit wider and deeper it's just that I've spent a while to compile these two arguments and I'm a bit out of mood in writing more now. ;) Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Daizus, please look at [Talk:Gesta_Hungarorum]. This issue has been debated a number of times in Wikipedia already. Juro knows more than I do about the GH, so please see what he has written. The only thing I've been convinced about regarding the GH is that there are at least 2 widely-held and contradictory points of views regarding it which cannot be reconciled within Wikipedia. That's why I have already suggested including all "mainstream" views (by "mainstream" I mean opinions held by a number of reputable experts in the field - perhaps I should instead call it "view widely-held by experts in the field"). I am suggesting we restrict it to "mainstream" views (or some equivalent) so that we exclude extremist views and do not end up with an unreadable list of several opinions from various historians (and non-historians) on each particular topic. That's why I am also asking for sources for any statements written in the article. If a statement can be sourced to one or, preferably,several published books written by historians then at least there is some chance that it represents a view widely-held by experts in the field. Scott Moore 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
An easy way to offer you sources is to browse the footnotes and the bibliography of the arguments sketched above, and for the sake of your requests for variety I'll give only some non-Romanian sources:
I. Boba, Moravia, Bulgaria, "Messiani" and "Sclavi" in Medieval Hungarian Sources, in "Vtori meždunaroden kongres po bălgaristika" (Sofia, 1986), Dokladi, vol. 6, Sofia, 1987,
P. Váczy, The Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and the Saga of the Hungarian Conquest, "Antaeus. Communicationes ex Instituto Arehaeologico Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae", 19-20, 1990-1991
G. Moravcsik, Der ungarische Anonymus über die Bulgaren und Griechen, "Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes", 7, 1969, 1
G. Györffi, Abfassungszeit, Autorschaft und Glaubwürdigkeit der Gesta Hungarorum des Anonymen Notars, "Acta Antiqua ASH", 20, 1972
If you want Romanian sources I can give you some as well. Also you can find totally unrelated points to our discussion about the reliability of the same chronicle in the works of those studying the structure of early Hungarian nobility or various other aspects covered in a way or another by GH.
I've read the talk page of GH some time ago. I do not know whether Juro knows what ALL Slovak historians have to say, but I know that there are Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Hungarian historians who consider, in a lesser or larger degree, GH reliable and published studies that attempted to confirm, criticise and even clarify the realities of Xth century claimed by GH.
Also Juro's way to picture some arguments (for instance, analogies between GH and Nibelungenlied, and not with Getica or the Frankish chronicles of {Pseudo-}Fredegarius, his claims that Hungarian chronicles completely contradict each other - I have painted above an analogy between them :o - or his impressions that Romania is somehow an exit mundi) do not recommend him as the person who knows (or at least doesn't show that he knows) too much about history of these places, about the history made in these places or about GH from certain historical perspectives. Daizus 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Errata: Györffy instead of Györffi :) Daizus 11:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I suggest that you rewrite and expand the article on the Gesta Hungarorum, to talk in general about its importance, relevance and reliability as a primary source. You could also address specific issues including the references to Transylvania (and I have no objection to you including the English translations of certain passages). When you have done that I can add any contradictory opinion(s) from Hungarian historians such as Engel. Or you may want to prepare something in the talk page first and then change the article after we (and any other Wikipedians) have reached an agreement on the text. Scott Moore 09:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I will gladly contribute to its talk page, I already started a quick criticism on Juro's position which was not welcomed. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Re the History of Transylvania article, I still think we should try write a couple of short paragraphs on the late 9th/10th century including any points of general agreement among Romanian, Hungarian and other historians as well as explaining the contradictory opinions on key issues. Scott Moore 09:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. But as you suggested above, considering the potential controversies let's start here; I'll add few points in a couple of days. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, judging by their obituaries both Györffy and Moravcsik were respected Hungarian historians. However, bear in mind that Moravcsik's professional career started in the 1930s and ended with his death in 1972 so his work may now be out-of-date. Moravcsik was a specialist in the Byzantine sources for early Hungarian history, though he did have an opinion on the GH. The following quote is from an article from the early 1980s by historian Janos Harmatta. "Lastly, in one of his last papers, he examined some important problems of the Hungarian conquest. In professional literature different opinions were expressed about the political situation of the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century. According to one conception, the central part of the Carpathian Basin east of the Danube belonged to Great Moravia while according to the other idea the whole territory was uninhabited desert. Consequently, to the east of the Garam-Danube line there existed a political vacuum in the Carpathian Basin. Thus, the latter view denies the reliability and historical reality of the description to be found in the Gesta Hungarorum written by P. magister, according to which the Hungarians fought many battles against local princes of Bulgarian descent and in the course of the conquest they also defeated Bulgarian and Byzantine auxiliary troops.
Contrary to this opinion, Moravcsik has convincingly shown that the data of the Gesta Hungarorum cannot be mere inventions. The Gesta tells that the land between the Danube and the Tisza rivers was conquered by the Great Kean, the dux of the Bulgarians up to the Polish and Ruthenian frontiers. According to the Gesta the Great Kean was great-grandfather of dux Salan, ruling on the territory between the Danube and Tisza at the time of the Hungarian conquest. By help of Byzantine and Bulgarian sources Moravcsik could verify this relation of P. magister and prove the inner probability of that assertion in the Gesta Hungarorum that the Bulgarian tsar Symeon came to the aid of dux Salan and that even the Byzantine Emperor sent auxiliary troops against the Hungarians as well as that the Bulgarian princes were really ruling in the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin with the consent of the Byzantine Emperor in the sense of the Byzantine idea of continuity. These important hints may give valuable orientation and stimulation for further study of the Hungarian conquest at the occasion of its approaching llooth anniversary." Scott Moore 10:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Both Moravcsik and Györffy are some generations behind and I find unfair such discrimination between them (as you can see from my aforementioned references, their works come from close years, though Moravcsik was older than Györffy).
I also strongly oppose the idea of uninhabited desert and consider it basically unscientific as no archaeology study shows an interruption in habitation in Transylvania. The ethnicity, the culture, the language, the political organization of those human communities may be subject of debate, their existence can't be. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Györffy was highly critical about some important aspects of the Gesta Hungarorum. Engel also regards the GH as unreliable (I can provide a quote from him soon). The below is from André Du Nay's "The origin of the Romanians"
"Comparing the story told by Anonymus with historical sources from the 9th century, Gy. Györffy concluded that Anonymus knew very little about the real situation in the basin of the Carpathians in that century. Thus, contemporary sources recorded two events in connection with the Hungarian Landnahme. In 896 AD, Emperor Arnulf appointed Braslav to the defence of Pannonia and of Paludarum urbs (Mosaburg, Blatinski grad, Zalavár); and in 907, the Hungarians defeated the Bavarian army at Bretslavspurc (German Pressburg, Slovakian Bratislava, Hung. Pozsony). Although a large part of the narrative describes battles in the period in question, it does not mention these events. Györffy lists the names of 21 historical persons (prince Svatopluk, bishops Wiching and Metod, Emperor Arnulf, etc.) who had important political functions in the second half of the 9th century in the basin of the Carpathian mountains. None of these is mentioned by Anonymus." Scott Moore 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I commited a mistake in approach. In several occasions I promoted the syntagm "relative reliability" opposing Juro's extremist position which basically says that all reputable and bias-free historians consider GH as pure fantasy (his comparisions were with Niebelungenlied and Arthurian Cycle). I considered hence all types of positions giving different degrees of confidence - the enthusiastic (like Madgearu and Moravcsik), the moderate (like Brezeanu or L. Musset), the skeptic (Györffy); don't focus on criticising my taxonomy - I'm just trying to illustrate the wide interval where I looked for examples :). None claims its a pure fantasy. Even Györffy's account, IIRC, says the Anonymous Notary combined various elements to make an interesting story. Talking of Györffy, though he has grounds to doubt the realities of GH (especially when it comes about picturing some unconvenient - I'd say - ethnical realities), he also sometimes develops hypotheses working with GH - for instance, in the aforementioned study of his, he launches the hypothesis that the Cumans supporting the duke Glad were in fact another Turkic tribe, the Kavars. I don't see how such a hypothesis can be even issued without having a least of trust in the source that mentions them.
While about this criticism from Gy. Györffy which was addressed also by some other historians, I really wondered if the Latin documents reflecting a history of those times (intertwined or not with some propagandastic purpose) have as a general rule a clear and objective presentation of the political or ethnical context, of a full geographical landscape, of the main historical characters (using recognizable names for us today), etc.. For a while I have just used this formulation as an argument, rational, parsimonious but rhetoric. These days I remembered some medieval documents analysed in other various historical studies and analyses and I thought it would be interesting to browse them and see whether I can find several other occurences (for now to serve only as examples, who knows, maybe an entire theory about it can be issued) of similar documents showing little importance to historical figures in particular (as this is one aspect contested about GH).
For now my set of examples come from some French and Latin chronicles about the end of 14th century, beginning of 15th century (they being mostly written during 15th century). One thing I noticed is that few called the Ottoman Sultans by their real name, in most cases the sultan is Murate/Amurat/Amourath/Lamorat (versions of Murad) and only sometimes having an extra explanatory term (for Bayezid - Lamorat-Baxin, l'Amourath-Baquin, though for this sultan we find a separate adaptation of his name - Basite, Basaac or Basac). A spanish traveler, Ruy Gonzáles de Claviijo, was claiming that all the Ottoman rulers are known to them (i.e. Western Europe) as Murate. However, this vagueness persists when the other rulers from Eastern Europe are presented. The king of Hungary is rex Hungarie or roy d'Hongrie. The other rulers simply do not exist, they exists only collectiely as some ethnonyms or some states - Bulgaria(ns), Wallachia(ns). Serbians do not exist at all! This not to mention the even more vague mentions of christians. Also some names for which it's hard to testify their real historical existence are introduced ; for instance, Jean Juvenal des Ursins in his chronicle (Histoire de Charles VI, roy de France (...) depuis 1380 jusques 1422) mentions that in one battle et tut tué le fils dudit Basac, nommé l'Amaurabaquin. I'm not specialist in these chronicles but considering what I've just said about Bayezid, the name of this son of his looks to be another form of his own name (Froissart even provides this revealing link: roy Basaach dit l'Amourath-Baquin).
On a first glance, elements which are to be found in GH and are used as an argument against its reliability are to be found in other medieval chronicles, as well. In GH we have historical proven characters - Rex Stephanus, characters with almost a certain historical existence (i.e. to be found in earlier chronicles) - Ohtum, important rulers under a twisted name - Kean could be a form of Khan, for Salan I have no suggestion at this moment, or characters with no historical evidence and whose names might hide a wordplay - Menumorout may be related with the Hungarian Marót/Morót, hence a reference to Moravians.
I don't think we should be scared by anachronisms (browsing the aforementioned chronicles, Ottoman Turks are sometimes Saracens) but we should solve them out and see where is the source of the confusion. Labeling before hand everything suspicious as a mere invention would mean a greater loss than gain, and also doesn't look too parsimonious to me as it begs many questions. I don't know whether the arguments I tried to sketch above (i.e. Madgearu's or Brezeanu's) are published in English, yet I see them unaddressed, I am open to discuss them and analyse them and I'll try my best to fairly represent those argumentative positions in any eventual debate. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a medieval historian so I can only some general comments. It may be the case that most chronicles from this period are inaccurate. But historians of e.g French or English medieval history often have access to several comtemporaneous narrative sources as well as extensive archives of legal and administrative documents. It seems that the problem for historians looking at Transylvania (or indeed Hungary) before the 14th century is that there are is a lack both of narrative and other sources. Hence the Gestas assume a certain degree of importance for any historian, no matter their view about the reliability or accuracy of the Gestas. In the many cases where the GH is the only source to refer to a particular individual or event, then any historian has to make some assumptions about the references. If a historian assumes that a reference is to a historical event, then the question must be asked where did the author get the information from and how accurate is the reference? If a historian assumes that a reference is not to a historical event, then the questions are why did the author include the reference and where did the idea come from (e.g from mythology, legend, pure invention)? Scott Moore 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I just came across this page and don't have the background, but someone needs to write an introduction to replace the self-referential "this article is about the history of transylvania" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.105.126 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.

I'll do that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing and more

This really could use a thorough copy edit. Also it could use much clearer citation of sources.

One paragraph is poorly enough written that I hesitate to edit it, because I may not understand it.

The Dacians had a very powerful custom which encouraged them not to be afraid of death. This is why it was said that they left for war merrier than for any other journey. In his retirement in the mountains, Decebalus was followed by the Roman cavalry lead by Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Dacian religion of Zalmoxis admitted suicide as a last resort by those who were in pain and misery. The Dacians who listened Decebalus' last speech spread and commit suicide. Only the unkneeled king greater than his god would not seek to forget about his death, but would try to retread from the Romans, hoping that he could still find in the mountains and in the unwalked woods the means to prepare the recommencement of the battle and to seek revenge. But the Roman cavalry followed him without rest. They almost caught him, and at that point the great Decebal meets his destiny by ending his life. The great scene of his death may be found on Trajan's Column in Rome.

  • "The Dacians had a very powerful custom which encouraged them not to be afraid of death." And that custom was...? Or perhaps it means to say "tradition" rather than "custom" in which case the lack of fear would be the tradition.
  • "This is why it was said that they left for war merrier than for any other journey." I understand this, but it's quite a claim with no citation.
  • "In his retirement in the mountains, Decebalus was followed by the Roman cavalry lead by Tiberius Claudius Maximus." "Retirement"? I doubt that is the right word (it would imply that he had ceased to function as king), but I have no certainty as to what is meant.
  • "…admitted suicide…": "admitted" is an odd choice. Perhaps "permitted"?
  • "The Dacians who listened Decebalus' last speech spread and commit suicide." I cannot make head or tail of this. "Spread" makes no sense. Present tense in the second half of the sentence makes no sense. Is this saying that everyone who heard the speech killed themselves (or at least every Dacian who heard the speech)? Quite a statement with no citation.

I could go on through the second half of the paragraph, it doesn't get any better. Would someone please clean this up? - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How much of the population was Romanian

"the majority of the population was almost certainly Romanian" was recently edited to "a significant part of the population was certainly Romanian." The new statement is true, but misleading. "A significant portion" could mean 8%. There may be some question as to whether Romanians were the majority (I'm not sure), but I am pretty confident that there is no question at all that they were the single most numerous ethnic group. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping for a comment. The change happened in two stages: first, someone changed "majority" to "significant portion". That made me unhappy, but I soothed my unhappiness by changing "almost certainly" to "certainly". I still feel that the original statement was true and preferable. I suggest you go ahead and change back to it. Andrew Dalby 13:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think it's better to hold back from making claims like "certainly...majority" without having statistics to back it up. If historical data is included to support this then by all means include that statement but the issue is so contentious it could be inflamatory to some who have other opinions.
Also, when we're taking about Transylvania, are we talking about the entire area west of the Carpathian horseshoe or just the small area tucked between the Carpathians and the Lesser Carpathians? Again, an important point when discussing Transylvania's ethnic mix. User: LeNordique 23 October 2006

[edit] Late Antiquity Transylvania - Corrections

1. BREVIARIVM LIBER NONVS is Breviarium, Liber IX (meaning 9th book).

2. It is a speculation to say Visigoths estabilished a kingdom in Transylvania as there is absolutely no evidence for it. The only thing which is certain is the Goths (the future Visigoths and Ostrogoths) were north of Danube but we know nothing about their organization there. Caucaland is the place about Ammianus Marcellinus says the Gothic chief Athanarich searched refuge before the Hun invasion and there were several places proposed for it, so I am not sure on what grounds the equation Kaukaland = Transylvania (especially in earlier times than Hun migration, "land" is a Germanic term, "Kauka" AFAIK is not). Also the alleged-Germanic archaeological culture Santana de Mures-Chernyakhov is dated in Transylvania since 4th century (a fact which stated in Wikipedia also), so to be in agreement with archaeological evidence, one should postulate a Gothic kindgom in Transylvania starting with year 300 AD. I'll just modify year 270 into 300 and add tags requiring citation for all the other claims. However the last claim is simply erroneous, the Goths didn't create successor kingdoms as they entered the Roman Empire, only several decades later. I don't think the kingdoms of the Visigoths (from Spain - Southern France) or of the Ostrogoths (from Italy) are of any relevance to this article, the fact the Goths were Arians was already enounced, so I'll simply remove this last claim.

Athanaric = Reik (regulus), kindins (dux). So what's wrong with this? That wasn't a kingdom, or was not located in Transylvania?
Actually both, but specifically the 2nd part. Daizus 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
from the same source http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/img/pic/0128.jpg --fz22 10:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've already said Santana de Mures culture is a 4th century culture (in Transylvania) that's why I adjusted the date, what else do you suggest? Daizus 11:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Kaukaland: it is the oldest toponym (Germanic, possible Gothic) refering Transylvania (the whole, or part ... it is unclear) --fz22 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually the oldest toponymy we have in Transylvania is the one from Dacian era. Also Ammianus Marcellinus doesn't place "Caucaland" in Transylvania, so the correlation is not straightaway. What does "Cauca"/"Kauka" mean in a Germanic language? "Cuca", "Cucata" or even "Cucui"/"Cucuiu" are Romanian toponyms quite well-spreaded designating rocky heights (St. Brezeanu has an interesting study concerning this toponym). Daizus 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK Marcellinus placed somewhere in the Eastern Carpathians - even the Nestor Chronicles use the term Caucasus for Eastern Carpathians ... the origin is uncertain: Germanic or Dacic --fz22 09:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The quote from Marcellinus goes as following "ad Caucalandensem locum altitudine silvarum inaccessum et montium cum suis omnibus declinavit, Sarmatis exinde extrusis", therefore it is a high place, with forests, hardly accessible and which was previously inhabited by Sarmatians. In that period Sarmatian populations (i.e. Iranian) were in the north-Pontic steppes and Moldavia but could refer also to the Jazyges from Pannonia (also an Iranian population) therefore there are several locations for this place, mostly in Carpathians (but many not in Transylvania especially if we refer to the Sarmatians inhabiting Moldavia, for instance one hypothesis puts this place near Buzau). Nestor Chronicle is not very relevant as it is much later, however there are Roman accounts labeling Carpathians as Caucasus (see Jordanes) but also other toponyms as "Cauca" in Spain in 4th-5th centuries where the emperor Theodosius was born ("natione Spanus, de provincia Gallaecia, civitate Cauca"). Daizus 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

3. The following paragraph is a bit confusing. The Huns reached Transylvania around 380 and around 420?

4. The semi-independence of Transylvanian Gepids is justified by what? There's no clear information about any of the barbarian kingdoms, why exactly the focus on a possible lack of centralization in the Gepid domination? And on what grounds it is claimed the Slavs cut the "virgin Carpathian forests"? Such story details when the article itself accepts the scarcity of information seem rather fantastic than real. Daizus 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Virgin forests: The Avars did not tarry when they learned that Justinian I had died on 21 November 565; within a week, their envoys were in {1-219.} Constantinople. In the 'insistent tone' that marked the nomads' diplomacy, they demanded that the new emperor renew the alliance. Instead, Iustinus II abrogated the treaty, indicated (in a similarly arrogant tone) that he would no longer pay the 'servants' wages', and declared that the Lower Danubian frontier would remain sealed. In the winter of 565–66, the Avars made an attempt to force their way through, but failed. Almost as if they were trying to escape from a trap, the Avars once again circled the Carpathians, and reached Thuringia in the fall of 566. Although they prevailed on the battlefield against Sigebert's forces, the outcome was a truce and the withdrawal of both armies. The Avars' desperate attempts to break through on the Lower Danube and, twice, to get around Carpathians, were driven by a real sense of danger, and that danger became more immediate in the winter of 566–67. In pursuit of their 'subjects', the Western Turks had crossed the Volga and, coming within striking distance, threatened to kill the Avars 'not with swords but with the hooves of their horses, by treading them into the ground like ants'. It is clear that the Avars, having suffered five years of adversity, yearned for a haven behind defensible natural boundaries — if not on the Lower Danube, then on the plain enclosed by the Carpathian Mountains; yet neither option proved to be attainable. Historical and archaeological sources confirm that the Avars could find no passage through the Northern and Eastern Carpathians. The archaeological data on settlements in the 5th and 6th centuries indicate that along the Northern and Eastern Carpathians, an uninhabited and uninhabitable forest had spread in a swath that was, on average, some 120 kilometres wide (and as much as 150–200 kilometres wide in certain areas). For an entire people and its livestock, this zone would have been virtually impassable even if it had not included, in the middle, a 80–100 kilometre-wide mountain barrier with an altitude ranging from 1500 to 2000 {1-220.} metres. The situation in Transylvania could be extrapolated from the valleys of the Upper Tisza and Lower Szamos rivers: from the beginning of the 6th century, there is no archaeological trace of human life in that region all the way to the Tiszafüred-Nyíregyháza-Debrecen line. In that period, a people intent on migrating would be limited to a few more or less accessible passes in the Southern Carpathians, principally the Vöröstorony (Rotenturm) Pass, in the Olt valley, and the Roman-built roads (later used by Gepidic forces) along the Lower Danube. However, these routes were barred by the Gepids' and Byzantines' strong military outposts. The Avars were truly caught in a trap, for if they were still in the Lower Danube region when the Turks caught up with them, they faced slaughter. These fears had not entirely dissipated even twenty years later, when they lived in the Carpathian Basin (much like the Hungarians' lingering fear of the Pechenegs around 920); in 580, Emperor Tiberius II tried to make them lift the siege of Sirmium by spreading the (false) news that Cherson had been captured by the Turks. In the critical days during the winter of 566–67, emissaries of the Langobard King Alboin met with Bayan somewhere between the Elbe and Oder rivers; Sigebert, Alboin's brother-in-law, had probably acted as mediator between the two powers. The envoys proposed a joint, two-front assault on the Gepids, as well as an 'eternal alliance' ('foedus perpetuum', which in Langobard usage signified a military alliance).[14]14. Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum I, p. 27. They accepted Bayan's demand that, in the event of victory, the Gepids' land, population, and riches be given to the Avars; they even evoked the tempting prospect that the Avars, if they captured Pannonia Sirmiensis, might easily cross the Sava River and realize their dream of occupying Scythia Minor and Thrace, or indeed press on all the way to Byzantium. --fz22 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a text copied from here: http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/41.html. I searched the bibliographical notes but I found no archaeological studies to back up the claims of the author. I've found no archaeological report (I have browsed some Romanian archaeological magazines or databases) to support his claims of extremely (as in uninhabitable) dense and wide forests. At the same time along the Carpathians there are settlements and traces of habitation for the period in question (5th-6th centuries). There are settlements but also other artefacts such as ceramic or late Roman/early Byzantine coins (especially along the southern branch of Carpathians on Mures and Olt valleys). Moreover, there are settlements dated in 5-6th century in the area between Tisza and lower Somes (that would be in the counties of Satu Mare, Maramures and perhaps a bit in Salaj). One easy way to find some of them is this: http://www.cultura.ro/Documents.aspx?ID=89
However it is quite interesting why the Avars were not able to find passage over Carpathians ... as the Magyars, Cumans, Pechenegs, Mongols did ... "In that period, a people intent on migrating would be limited to a few more or less accessible passes in the Southern Carpathians"
I don't think the routes of the Avars are very clearly shaped or their intenions are well known so we can't speak about them being able or unable to pass through a certain region. Daizus 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What I have remarked in that work is the large usage of obsolete sources (many of the scholar references being more than 50 years old) and incomplete bibiliographical coverage for the claims being made. Daizus 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the book was written in the 1980s, and was promoted even by Ceausescu's historians ;). Being obsolate or not: easy to say hard to prove--fz22 09:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Being obsolete mean being not recent, which in a field like archaeology matters very much. And when the author says in the bibliographical notes: "The essential archaeological studies regarding the Visigoths include B. PÓSTA, A marosszentannai sírmező: Emlékkönyv az Erdélyi Múzeum-Egylet Vándorgyűlésére (Marosvásárhely, 19O6) as well as two works by I. KOVÁCS, 'A marosszentannai népvándorláskori temető' (Dolg. ENM 3: 1912) and 'A marosvásárhelyi ásatások' (Dolg. ENM 6: 1915). " for a book published in '86 it cannot be trustworthy as a scholarly source. As a non-scholarly material may be, we, the non-scholars, read what we have handy, not what we should. Coming to my previous reply, when the author says there was no habitation in certain area, he can be easily wrong if he doesn't have access to the most recent discoveries in the field (like I've said I couldn't find in the bibliography what were the archaelogical studies he consulted to conclude the inhabitation of those lands). Maybe it was not known any settlement in the '30s, in the '60s or when the archaeological literature he refers to was published, but not anymore now.
Also though I have not data at hand I doubt very much it was appreciated by "Ceausescu's historians". As the 2001 edition foreword says this book was a reply given to Romanian "official" historiography from those years. Daizus 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Transylvania - Corrections

"In 1293 AD King Endre of Hungary adopted a resolution in which universos olachos in possessionibus nobilium vel quoromlibet aliorum residenes ad predium nostrum regale Scekes vocatum ordinasemus revocari reduci et etiam compelli." I really don't understand the point of this untranslated quote. Some Romanians (Vlachs) are forced to return in their lands. Scekes is just a small territory, not Transylvania. What is the point, what is this quote supposed to prove? To me it seems just another Latin quote containing "universos olachos".

The next paragraph continues: "It should be mentioned that Partibus infidelium (Ungrovalachia) was under direct Hungarian rule (ut vos cum vestris mercimoniis et quibuslibet rebus inter Bozam (Bodza/Buzău) et Prahov a loco videlice ubi fluvius Ilontha (Ilonka/Ialomiţa) vocatus in Danubium usque locum ub fluvius Zereth (Szeret/Siret) nominatus similiter in ipsum Danubium cadunt transire possitis libere et secure) until 1330. " a) It reeks irredentism, there's absolutely no point in mentioning here the expansion of Hungarian kingdom anywhere outside Transylvania, if anything it should be mentioned in the article concerning the Medieval Hungarian kingdom b) It is false, the untranslated Latin quote simply says the king allows free transit in the aforementioned territories, it doesn't say anything more than that. However, when speculating on it, please consider there are also issues between the claims of Hungarian crown and the realities in the field - which is the lack of Hungarian administration in the mentioned territories, so talking of Hungarian rule is unproper lacking direct evidences for it c) IIRC, the dating it is also wrong, as the act belongs to Louis the Great which is post-1330 not before.

The paragraph continues with a unsourced speculation "These parts represented the basis for the so called Univeris Olachis." - it was not estabilished not in this article, nowhere else in the Wikipedia what was the ethnic map of 14th century Transylvania. To make it worse, even the aforementioned Scekes is outside "these parts". And this claim: "After Muntenia became an independent Principality under Woywode Basarab the Romanians lost their independent status and privileges; however, Ţara Oltului remained an estate of the Wallachian Prince." is useless and confusing. Independent? The first sentence in the next paragraph states the Romanians lost their priviledges in 1366. Any Wikipedia reader who checks the reign of Basarab and compares it with 1366 will be left in confusion: when were these privledges actually lost?

From all these reasons I consider these two paragraphs should be removed. It is a bothersome insertion (it was added on 30th March 2006 in one edit) in the text, full of errors and with dubious intentions. Daizus 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Look, the teritories between Ialonita, Siret, Buzau, down toward the Danube's havens were brought under the authority of the Szekelys of Orbai after 1250 (Teleajen/Szekely County). These lands were parts of the Transylvania.
Evidence? Beside this royal agreement on free transit, there's no document, no evidence on local administration subordinated to Szeklers or Hungarians whatsoever. If you want historical parallels, you can check even the Roman rule in Dacia and in Scythia Minor, and though they built fortresses in these lands (eastern Wallachia/southern Moldavia), even they traded and exploited resources in these lands, these lands were never part of the empire as the proper rule on them was never estabilished. Probably around 1250 these areas were under Mongol (whatever remnants they left) hegemony so I really doubt the Szeklers could have any claims of authority over these lands.
Beside Tuetonic castles in the region many Szekely-Hungarian toponym indicates a massive Hungarian presence in the former Szekely district: Buzău, Secuiu, Unguriu, Palanca, Panantau, Chiojdu, Lapos, Laposel, Urlati, etc ...--fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I know of no Teutonic castles in the region, where are they? Secui (Szekeky) and Ungur (Hungarian) are natural since this place was a trade route between Transylvania and the Black Sea and as such many travelers and merchants took this route. Until 19th century there was even an administration district: Saac/Sacuieni so there's no wonder there are also few toponyms. Few of them seem created under the influence of Hungarian language (Chiojdu, Lapos, Laposel). But Palanca is also a Polish and a Turkish word (palanka), Buzau is possibly from the ancient Mousaios but there can be formulated several other hypotheses (inclusively from the Romanian "buza" which has a parallel in Albanian, so it is not a Hungarian borrowing). I never heard of Panantau (nor can I find it, are you sure the spelling is correct?) However, the most frequent toponyms are either Romanian or Slavic (it is one of the areas with dense Slavic toponymy, see especially the hydronymy - see Prahova, Ramnic, Slanic, Teleajen, Ialomita, Dambovita, etc.). Urlati sounds purely Romanian ("a urla" comes from Latin) but also there are several settlements in Romania having this name (for instance, one near Suceava in Moldavia). But the real problem is that many of these examples are not attested anywhere near the period in question, so they are not evidence for a Szekler administrative region in the mid 14th century. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
until 1845 existed even a separate district. http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude%C5%A3ul_S%C4%83cuieni district in Muntenia? Why? What is the Romanian POv relating this question?
This county was first attested in 17th century. Most of the historians I've read justify the toponymy from the trade and the traffic the Hungarians and the Szekely performed on this route. Stelian Brezeanu has a different opinion in his study upon 'Terra Zek' considering 'Saac' is derived from the Romanian/Vlach 'sac'/'sec' meaning 'deserted' because this is how the contemporary acts described this territory. For instance, we know from a Papal diploma the Teuton knights requested also the lands beyond Burzeland, which were deserted. The 'deserted' qualifier occurs often in this medieval space (the 'deserts' of the Avars, the 'deserts' of Bulgaria, the deserted lands of Transylvania, the deserts of Hungary itself) and refers mostly to an uncivilized, rural place. We know from the chronicles of Otto of Freising, most of Hungary (Pannonia and Transylvania together) was rural and the signs of urban habitation (not to tell the stone castles, which were common in those age in Western Europe from where we have most of the testimonies on these 'deserts') were scarce. Daizus 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Desertum desert = 'lakatlan puszta' = 'abandoned place'.
Really? Then how come the same territory, Tara Barsei/Burzenland was also called "terra deserta", "terra vacua", "terra deserta et inhabitata", but at the same time, a diploma to the Teutons mentions "homines, qui terram ipsam inhabitabant, quando dicta donatio facta fuit vobis et domui vestre". The land is either inhabited or uninhabited, according to how the author wants to see it. Lacking civilization/urbanism/Catholicism/etc. or a place good to raise taxes from. Brezeanu makes a fine case on these 'deserts'. Otto of Freising describes Hungary as a barbarian land, lacking walls, cities and most people living in tents and reed houses. And confirming his testimony we find the anonymous chronicle from 1308, Descriptio Europae Orientalis saying everything in Hungary seems to be desert (omnimo vaccum) because the relative small number of cities compared to the vastness of the land. Gervasius of Tilbury traveling to Constantinople in 1213 as he left Danube and went south he notes he enters 'desertum Bulgariae'. Everything in Eastern Europe seemed to be deserted in those days! But this word was not first time used this way in Middle Ages. Ammianus Marcellinus writes: "in immensum extentas Scythiae solitudines Halani inhabitant" (the deserts of Scythia were inhabited by Alans). He clarifies this in another passage: "omnes palantes per solitudines vastas, nec stivam aliquando nec sementem expentas", therefore the state of 'desert' here is related to the state of unworked land. Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
the name Saac was used before 1645 then Sacuieni, Secuieni --fz22 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no mention of any county/district before 1645 and the name Saac was in use until 19th century IIRC. I also want you to notice the unusual 'aa' which is uncommon both in Hungarian and Romanian. Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Too many hungarian names outside Transylvania. They are not explicable with trade routes ...
There are much more Latin, Slavic and perhaps even Turkic names outside Transylvania and in large parts of

Transylvania itself. We can fight with examples anytime you want. ;) Daizus 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many Hungarian names in the specified area ...--fz22 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ad nauseam. They are not at all 'too many'. Or maybe there are too many for someone who doesn't know too many toponyms from Romania. Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, you said the presence of Szekely and Hungarian population in the region is undocumented and those names are imprints of some trade roots on which the Hungariasn used to make contact with the ports of the Black See. The Slavic settlement names were given by slavic population, Turcik names by Pechenegs, Cumans, etc. This is unnatural that a romanian speaking population use hungarian words, for their settlements in a region (+ in hungarian style) just beacasuse tradespeople pass across ...--fz22 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I haven't said that. I said there was no Hungarian/Szekler administration/district/county/etc.. I've said the remnants in toponymy (attesting temporary or permanent Hungarian/Szekler inhabitation) are rather due to the traffic between Transylvania and Black Sea on this route (a lot of people travelling both ways, some of them settled too). To continue with your examples, there is little probability the Pechenegs had any administration on this territory (though they might have controlled it in the manner the most steppe populations do), and the rule of the Cumans is again not-well documented (however infering from the Cuman origin of the Basarab name it seemed they settled and they contributed to local political elites). The only well-attested administration is Romanian and is late. So it's not a discussion of population, but a discussion of political control. This is how it started. Trying to make it look anyhow else is building a strawman. If you have no other arguments, I take it as a final concession. Daizus 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
We are not assigned to put an end to a long lasting debate between the Romanian and Hungarian historiography. I'm just an outsider. According to you up to a specified year (X = ?) any deduction about the apartanence of the teritory is just a simple speculation. However those few documents we know about shows a ecclesiastical and political Hungarian-Teutonic(saxon) presence in southern part of the Carpathinas (before the well-attested Romanian administration) I think it is not irrelelvant what happened between 1000-X in those parts, don't you think? --fz22 11:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no debate lacking evidences. You haven't summoned any document to prove the control of any kind of Hungarian kingdom, of Teutonic Knights (who were campaigning against Cumans in the territories south of Carpathians as those documents say, but not more than that), of Szekler seats or any Transylvanian entity on these regions (in eastern Wallachia) somewhere during the 13th century, i.e. before the creation of the Wallachian state. Daizus 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, to have a scholar opinion on this issue one must be familiar (more or less) with Romanian geography, Romanian language, Romanian archaeological research (most of the sites are led by Romanian archaeologists, most of the reports are in Romanian, etc.), Romanian toponymical research, Romanian ethnography, etc. conditions which many (if not most) of the Hungarian scholars fail to meet. Maybe in future the opening and further development of Romanian scholarship but also joined efforts between Romanian and Hungarian scholars will bring other answers. But so far it's not clear to me what scholarship do you invoke to support your claims. What can Hungarian historiography say about the Romanian toponymy and their etymologies (for instance)? What is the specialization, the scholarly ground for their studies? A scholar is not a scholar in everything, only in certain domains he has expertise. I find very dubious the multitude of studies on/related to Vlachs/Romanians from Hungarian historians given the fact many of them don't even speak Romanian (any of its dialects) or perhaps some of them not even a Romance langauge (a somehow famous case is the case of Vasary who was sharply criticized by Curta in The Medieval Review). That not to question their knowledge of Romanian geography or the other things which I already talked about.
I'm sure the Romanian scholarship has its flaws, but I think we can agree the expertise of Romanian scholarship on Romanian issues is preferable to any other, similarily as Romanian scholarship expertise on Hungarian issues would be obviously eclipsed by Hungarian one. We need the opinions of others, they help us discard the bias, but I cannot agree with the equality in terms of balance between Romanian and Hungarian scholarship in issues where obviously the latter has not the proper specialization. Daizus 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is aplicable for far-away parts of the two country/historiography. But You must be kidding if you want to postulate the expertise of the Romanian historiaography over Transylvania, just beacause for some decades Transylvania belongs to Romania. There are several reputed scholars: Tiplic, Ota, Szekely, Paloczy, Binder, Rusu, Hasselbach, Kristo, etc, etc, let them fight their "war". Regards --fz22 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a postulate, is a provable fact. Let me quote you from Florin Curta's debate with Istvan Vasary in 'The Medieval Review' (started by a review on Cumans and Tatars. Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans (1185-1365) - which is a book regarding also the area and the epoch we were talkinga about):
<< Vasary claims that instead of the Romanian names routinely mangled there are only "three misprints". Here is a complete list: "Jara Birsei" (instead of Tara Barsei) and "Jara Fagarasului" (instead of Tara Fagarasului) on page 28 and 168; "Moldoa" (instead of Moldova) on pages 134 and 143; "Moldva" (instead of Moldova) on pages 136, 143, 156, and 158; "Seret" (instead of Siret) on page 138; "Tratos" (instead of Trotus) on page 104. The entire title (translated into Romanian on page 142) that the Wallachian metropolitan used during the Middle Ages is misspelled: "archiepiscopu si metropolit Ungro-Vlachiei" (instead of "arhiepiscopul si mitropolitul Ungro-Vlahiei"). For someone who not only claims to be able to read Romanian, but also cites Uspenskii and Zlatarski in the original (albeit transliterated) language (e.g., on p. 32 with nn. 74 and 75), the pattern of "misprints" is quite surprising, given that it seems to concern almost exclusively Romanian names. In fact, in his own reply, Vasary manages to mangle even the name of the Communist dictator who ruled Romania for over twenty years ("Ceaucescu," instead of Ceausescu). I was ready to believe Vasary that he had read "every source used for the work in the original language". But misspellings (which should in any case have been corrected at the first page proof) and the listing of articles and chapters in the bibliography with either "f." or "ff." instead of actual page number do not inspire any confidence in his treatment of the Romanian sources. >>. In other words, this Hungarian scholar, though he claimed he can read Romanian scholarly literature, he can't get a couple of words right. You can find the entire debate here: a) the review - http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=tmr;cc=tmr;q1=2006;rgn=main;view=text;idno=baj9928.0601.002 b) the reply of Vasary - http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=tmr;cc=tmr;q1=2006;rgn=main;view=text;idno=baj9928.0603.016 c) the reply of Curta - http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=tmr;cc=tmr;q1=2006;rgn=main;view=text;idno=baj9928.0604.003
I am not saying all Hungarian scholars are like Istvan Vasary regarding such Romanian/Vlach issues, some are better, some are worst. But the knowledge of Romanian realities (like language, geography, ethnography, etc.) are fronteers hard to pass. It doesn't matter only recently Transylvania became part of Romania, what matters is a large part of the scholarly literature on Transylvanian history is in Romanian (though small parts of it are translated in other languages), a large part of the studies (not to mention field reports and other precious sources of information) are performed mostly by Romanian scholars. You cannot seriously attempt to talk about historical Transylvania (or Wallachia) ignoring this. And this is how it happens that many Hungarian historical works on Transylvania have outdated sources. This happens to Vasary, too, from the review of his book I quote again:
<<He reaches the same conclusion suggested nearly fifteen years earlier by Virgil Ciocaltan and Serban Papacostea: that it was the ascension of the maritime and commercial power of the Genoa in the Black Sea area following the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261) that caused the re-orientation of Golden Horde policies towards the sea and the trade routes opening in its ports now visited by Genoese merchants. Moreover, it was the economic re-orientation of the Golden Horde that created not only the conditions for a gradual withdrawal of Mongol forces from the Lower Danube region, but also the circumstances for the rise of the Romanian principalities.
Regrettably, Vasary's omission of relevant previous scholarship is not limited to a unique occurrence. Some of the many oversights include Andras Paloczi-Horvath and Svetlana A. Pletneva for the Cumans, Robert Lee Wolff and Nicolae Serban Tanasoca for the Second Bulgarian Empire, and Thomas T. Allsen for the Mongols. Vasary has apparently not encountered the studies of Alan Harvey on the Byzantine economy and has no knowledge of the most impressive Dumbarton Oaks Economic History of Byzantium. He still believes, together with Ostrogorski, that the "Byzantine manufacture underwent serious decay [in the 1100s], and Byzantium's economic power decreased in every respect" (p. 13). His use of such slogans as the "economic exploitation of the peasantry" and "feudal anarchy" raging in late thirteenth-century Bulgaria indicate residual Marxism, if anything (p. 80). At several points in his book, Vasary insists that "the Vlakhs, as is well known, were Romanised shepherds of the Balkans," although very little, if any, contemporary evidence exists for pastoralist Vlachs. In fact, it is not true that the word Vlach initially designated a "Balkanic shepherd" (pp. 19-20). Transhumant pastoralism was indeed an economic strategy associated with mountains, and old preconceptions about "primitive" or "backward" mountain communities of shepherds may be responsible for the Ottoman-era shift in the meaning of the word "Vlach" from an ethnic label to social designation ("shepherd"). Clearly, Vasary has a very shaky grasp of the abundant literature on transhumance in the Balkans and his book only perpetuates ethnic stereotypes of the worst kind. This may well be because of Vasary's inability to read Romanian, which prevented his access to some important studies. In the bibliography, most articles or chapters by Romanian authors (Ion Minea, Alexandru Sacerdoteanu, E. C. Lazarescu, etc.) are, unlike all others, listed not with complete pages but with "f." or "ff.," a detail that does not inspire confidence. Together with several factual errors mentioned below, this detail leads one to believe that the author did not consult these works directly, but simply cited them from other works. Some sources, especially Niketas Choniates, are paraphrased at lengths of a page or more at a time, even though the author warns that Choniates' account "may be regarded as naïve or one-sided" (p. 15). Vasary apparently ignores the existence of H. J. Magoulias's translation of Choniates (Detroit, 1984) and instead uses a rather outdated German translation by Franz Grabler (Vienna/Cologne, 1958). >>
Though you're not a scholar, your list strenghtens my impression on the incapacity of non-Romanians to create meaningful bibliographical lists on many of the issues we discussed here. We can debate it on smaller topics - like "ancient fortifications from Wallachia" or the "toponymy in eastern Wallachia" or "habitation in south-eastern Transylvania in 13th century".
And the issue of evidences is still open. There's no scholarship without evidences, just rhetoric. Daizus 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I must read the book :). However the fronteers are not so hard to pass ... scores of Hungarian scholars live in Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, etc. They are up to date in both country's historiagraphy. (eg. Palanca 3 other settlement in the former Kingdom of Hungary ) BTW Maybe Prof Curta did not read http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Istoria_%C5%A2%C4%83rii_Rum%C3%A2ne%C5%9Fti_de_c%C3%A2nd_au_desc%C4%83lecat_pravoslavnicii_cre%C5%9Ftini and he is not so expertised in Serbian, Bulgarian old documents ;). --fz22 14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I know of no institution of Hungarian historical scholarship in Romania comparable to the Romanian ones (museums, institutes of research, universities, etc.) so what you call "scores" get rendered as "few" from the other side of the fence. I think it's undebateable most of the Hungarian historians are in Hungary or that most of Hungarian historians do not speak Romanian and other such obvious truths.
There are two things I don't understand: a) To which of the "Palanca"s you refer to? There are several settlements with such a name like those from the counties of Prahova, Bacau, Giurgiu or Valcea (i.e. throughout Romania; and I'm sure there are others as well). Not knowing what are you talking about or what do you mean by "kingdom of Hungary" I refrain from guessing.
b)I fail to see what is the point of mentioning that chronicle. It doesn't support (on a brief reading, I admit) any of the points Curta criticised (and therefore I don't understand your comment). And in case if such kind of arguments will further show up, I want you to notice it is a very late chronicle for the period we've been discussing. As for Curta's expertise he's primary an archaeologist and a medievist, but he certainly is familiar with a large part of the Romanian scholarly literature and he can read even Bulgarian. But based on that I won't claim Romanian historiography has a heavy word in Bulgarian issues and I'll give the Bulgarian scholars the credit they deserve. Daizus 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Right teutonic castles, existed between Olt and Prahova, I was wrong.--fz22 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe many of the 'German' castles in the Carpathians were not build by Teuton knights but by Saxons in later ages. Tell me on which castles do you refer to and I'll help you with what I know. Daizus 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Teutonic_Knights built 'quinque castra fortia extruendo' [[3]] --fz22 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The text clearly says this happens in 'terra Borza' (Tara Barsei/Burzenland), which is in Transylvania. There are indeed Teutonic castles (many are rather forts) there. In a twisted way, yes, this is between Olt and Prahova, but the common meaning suggests between their parallel valleys, meaning in Wallachia ;) Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ceatea Oratii (Rucar) in 'partem contulit Comaniae' + tha german speaking population sometimes was called 'quam Theutonici'. --fz22 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The archaeology of 'Cetatea Oratii' points to a 14th century dating, meaning it wasn't built by the Teuton Knights. The texts you invoked mention no castles or fortifications built by Teutons in Cumania, therefore your association is flawed. As for the Transylvanian control of this castle (rather a fortified tower) it is very possible as the border between Transylvania and Wallachia varied in time and this fortification is only few kilometers south of Bran. If you don't have basic knowledge of Romanian archaeological sites and geography I believe this discussion is pointless. Daizus 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As a side note Transylvania is only inside the Carpathian arch. Daizus 11:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
2. The Romanians from Fagaras passed over the Carpathians and the voivodship of Havaselve (Terra Transalpina) was organised, around 1280. These lands were also integrant parts of Hungary until 1330 when Wallachia was formed (and eg Tara Oltului was included into this Voivodship). The Wallachian Romanian élite counted for Hungarian noble at the beginning and they were invited to the Transylvanian Diet as autonomous Universitas. So the ethnical supression of the Romanians in the Middle Age is a myth.--fz22 11:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It is true in the creation of Wallachian and Moldavian state the role of Transylvanians (Vlachs, but also Hungarians or Cumans - see the debate around the anthroponym 'Basarab') it is significant and worth mentioning but it is false to correlate (only) the creation of these new states and the worsening of situation of Vlachs in Transylvania. a) generally the situation of the peasants worsened (as the revolts from 1437 and 1514 prove) and the reasons are increasingly complex (as it didn't happen only in Hungary) b) the Vlachs were prepoderently in rural areas and low in the social hierarchy and that can be proven with documents since 13th century, so naturally they were affected greatly c) the Vlachs were not Christians (where by Christian, of course, it was ment Catholic Christian). Moreover, in 14th century the Hungarian kings attempted to Christianize even Wallachia. The religious differences would mark a gap between ethnic identities and would promote hatred and discrimination for many centuries in Transylvania. There are plenty of things to discuss. But this do not excuse the statements I have already showed false. Daizus 11:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In contrary: First was the creation of Wallachia, then the situation of the Vlachs inside the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania got worsened as an Estate. Seomthing similar happened with the Hungarians from Southern Transylvania after the 2nd Viena Award --fz22 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In contrary to what? You haven't replied to any of the arguments, so I take it you conceded on all points. Daizus 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Romanian elite here, not the peasentry. --fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about both (see point c)). The syntagm "schismatic Vlachs" refers to both. And I'm talking general phenomena spanning in 14th-16th centuries, otherwise I could remind you the acts of the last arpadian kings, for instance at the beginning of his reign Andrew III consolidated the priviledges of the other Estates, while deprived the Vlachs from "Tara Fagarasului" of their previous autonomy. Such bits are part from another larger cumulative process which triggered the Vlachs' determination to create new political entities outside the Hungarian kingdom. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If you continue to vandalize this article by adding irredentist claims about the dubious expansion of Hungarian kindgom elsewhere but Transylvania I'll be forced to ask for moderation to keep the topic inside some decent bounds. If you have good intentions about adding new information (there were not only two communities of Vlachs as you claim - we can discuss it) in this article please debate here first. I'm open to debate as long as you bring arguments. I can bring as well and I'm willing to, if any discussion gets started. Daizus 11:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Who said this? Me? two communities of Vlachs? I believe you must have misconceived me ...--fz22 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You were talking about two "parts" in the main article. I prefered to name them communities according to the Latin quote saying "universos olachos". Daizus 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Right two parts of the Romanians from Kerc. --fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You were claimed these were the basis of the Romanian estate from Transylvnia which was false. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, the Terra Transalpina was the core territory of the Romanian Estate. --fz22 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually you said something different in the edit I removed from the main article. Anyway, do you care to bring any evidence for this claim? Daizus 14:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Also I believe you're just copying the information from here (though I know little Hungarian, the wording seems very similar to me): http://www.cosys.ro/acta/cikkek/hu/binder.htm. Do you have any other sources to back up these or this is to be supposed to be your capital reference? Daizus 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
then read the romanian version of the same article: http://www.cosys.ro/acta/cikkek/ro/binder.htm.--fz22 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes and related to the points you made here I notice two things:
a) The same baseless inference from a free trade route to a proper rule. Like I already argued, there's absolutely no evidence on a Hungarian subordinated administration or any title of possesion (feud) over those lands. If you prefer I can quote several names disagreeing with that and we'll have a "historians X, Y, Z belive this, Pal Binder believes that".
And what evidence show a Wallachian posession? That present day Romania lies there? At least we have one saying the King allow free trading routes on his property.--fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We know from Hungarian records Basarab and his successors were voivods of Terra Transalpina (a term for the entire Wallachia. Nowhere it was said "except the valleys of Teleajen, Prahova, Ialomita and Buzau".). Also the royal act you invoked was followed (in a year or so) by an open conflict between the Wallachian voivod Nicolae Alexandru and the Hungarian crown, the former declaring himself "autocrator" and choosing the Byzantine Orthodoxy to Hungarian Catholicism. It is very reasonable to hypothesise Louis the Great giving priviledges to Transylvanian merchants conflicted with the Wallachian voivod, de facto ruler over those territories. Also during the reign of Vladislav I, after the wars with Louis the Great in the peace they signed beside giving Vladislav domains in Transylvania the Hungarian king asked for free passage of Transylvanian merchants on the aforementioned route. This rather hints the previous agreement the king had with the merchants it is not suggesting an act of real possession of those lands (as neither this one does). So at the best we have hints (though not in contemporary official acts) of Wallachian possesion of those territories in the mid 14th century but we have not even an insinuation the Hungarian crown ever ruled over those territories. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
b) The only Transylvanian region discussed is Tara Oltului (Kyrch, Altland, Cherzerland), more specifically between Sibiu and Brasov (including of course Tara Fagarasului and Tara Barsei). The same region which is in discussion is stated to be inhabited by Vlachs (after all the title is about the premises of the genesis of Wallachia from southern Transylvania). There's absolutely no information about the rest of the Transylvania. If you like materials written in Romanian I recommend you David Prodan or Stefan Pascu, both giving rich statistics on the ethnical information of Transylvania (even in Late Medieval era).
c) Even if we pack the information from this brief and other historians to deliver a balanced less-biased content, as you can see the corresponding topic would be the formation of Wallachia (or the expansion of kingdom of Hungary if you like to discuss further the Hungarian claims up to Danube or even Black Sea), not the history of Transylvania. Daizus 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Transylvania - Corrections (part 2)

Having bumped into your debate (I see it’s already settled, thanks God), I’m taking the liberty to meddle with, since the paragraphs your debate began from were inserted on 30th March 2006 into a somewhat larger edit of mine. At that time, I welcomed the edit of fz22, since I interpreted it as marking the end of what could have degenerated into an editing war. One month before, I had found in both Transylvania and History of Transylvania what I considered to be unacceptable biased and/or false information on some aspects of Medieval History. Thus, I had to create two entries (Universitas Valachorum and Decree of Turda) in order to fill the information gap, before making the necessary changes in the Transylvania related articles. All that work was not without debate and I can remember the ignorant and arrogant behaviour of user Dahn and the good faith of user fz22, who, despite what I regard as an understandable Hungarian bias, proved to be a civil and open minded partner. Hence, I showed a cordial reaction to his/her last edit on that issue, which displayed a Latin text, of which I attempted a translation on this talk page, as a proof of Hungarian rule over the Ialomiţa – Buzău area. Now, there are important inaccuracies there – Dazius pointed them out – which make those paragraphs quite untenable (to mention but the two pieces of original research: 1. inferring political and administrative rule from a royal document which simply allows commercial privileges; 2. asserting that the only base of the Romanian community in Transylvania (Universitas Valachorum) was the Ţara Oltului). However, I wouldn’t qualify the fz22 interventions as bad intended. I rather think that, assuming an interpretation of Transylvanian Medieval history which blames the Hungarians for the bad fate of the Medieval Romanians, he/she tries to refine that interpretation with complementary elements. Thus, when I remembered the Decree issued 1366 by Louis the Great explicitly calling for the punishment of Romanians (being schismatic, they were criminal), fz22 recalled the devastations of Great Black Pest. When the loss of the Transylvanian Romanian Estate was mentioned, fz22 argued with the schismatic danger coming from Wallachia and Moldavia, which forced the Hungarian Crown to take measures against their own schismatic population. In fact, (historical) causality is circular: Catholic proselytism has driven a part of the Transylvanian Romanians over the Carpathians catalysing the formation of a Romanian state, which in turn pushed the Hungarian Crown to take tougher measures against schismatics…This being said, there is no such thing like historical guilt, especially in the study of history, especially for 500 years-old very complex events and contexts…--Vintila Barbu 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for your warm words :))

However I never said the only base of the Romanaian population in mid 14th century was Tara Oltului. And I still preserve my dissent on the Secuieni problem :), accepting the fact it mostly belongs to Wallachia article. The lack of sources are often amended with toponyms in historiograpghy. Eg. up to 1200s the Hungarian sources have only 27 references about Transylvania (mostly personal names), and nobody contested so far the authority of Hungarian Kings over this land ... Until the 14th century this number increase to 400, still incomparable slim considering the number of sources from the whole Kingdom. So we have a commercial privileges + an administrative untis preserved until the mid 19th century + many possible hungarian orogon place names in the region. ever so little still more then any Romanian document refering the region .. regards --fz22 10:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Fz22 is guilty of original research. As far as I noticed his opinions were backed up by historians or at least by some sites and/or books with history-related material.
And Fz22, to my knowledge the appartenence of Transylvania in the Hungarian kingdom has various evidences: archaeological, toponymical (i.e. the borders - gyepu, kapu or border guards - Szeklers, Bisseni), documentary (the contemporary attestations of titles and administrative functions). More than that, many scholars (K. Horedt, I. M. Tiplic, S. Brezeanu) even could rebuild the process of integration of Transylvania into the kingdom of Hungary roughly between 11th and 13th centuries, the borders of the kindgom moving approximatively from West to East throughout the Transylvania. For instance, Brezeanu gives the following attestation of comitates in Transylvania: Bihor (1111), Crasna, Dabaca (1164), Szolnok-Salaj (1166), Alba, Cluj (1177), Timis (1177), Cenad (1197), Caras (1200), Sibiu (1224), Bistrita (1274), Hunedoara (1276), Hateg (c. 1280), Fagaras (1303). I don't know where he got the information from (unfortunately no footnote), maybe on some he's wrong, certainly in some cases the comitates could have existed some years before the first attestation we know of, but anyway they give us both an evidence of Hungarian proper rule of Transylvania, but also suggest how the authority expanded towards the boundaries. And as we're with Brezeanu, he has plenty of studies on toponymy, but the difference is his toponyms are contemporary - he discusses the toponymical forms from those 13-14-15th century documents, not the name they have today. Daizus 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hungarian POV (provable from contemporany documents): County Alba/Feher, Csanad, Doboka is dated back from the early 11th century (time of St. Stephen). The Bishopric of Bihar (contrary to the hungarian tradition) is dated from the post Stephen period when the szekelys were moved to present day Sibiu county. --fz22 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I know archaeological Hungarian settlements are attested in the middle of Transylvania and along Mures valley since 11th century, if not from 10th (that would count for all of your examples - Cenad/Csanad/urbs Morisena, Alba/Feher and Dabaca/Doboka), but I'm very curious about the documentary attestation of comitates. Please, can you present me the Latin fragments (quoted or links to pages containing them)? Thanks. Daizus 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I remember I read about this in a Hungarian learned journal (www.historia.hu) several years ago. I'll search the web if you want. --fz22 14:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I know only few Hungarian words and for instance searching for Alba/Feher in the given historical context the best material I could get from there was this: http://www.historia.hu/archivum/2001/010506bona.htm. If it's not hard for you to find better materials, I'd appreciate it, otherwise perhaps I'll find it in another day. Daizus 15:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secuieni

I've found several books about the former Secuieni county and its apartenence to Szekelyland in the Middle Age:

  1. Nicalae Iorga: România cum era înainte de 1918
  2. P.P. Panaitescunak: Patrunderea ungureasca dincolo de Carpati

--fz22 10:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you've found this site: http://noborders.interfree.it/englishnew.htm. Nice try. Daizus 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, another one ... and I did not say that I've read them all. It takes me some time to procure them from somewhere ... I gave you as a reference, maybe you know those book better ... --fz22 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a Hungarian online material having roughly the same content: http://www.hunsor.se/dosszie/moldvaicsangokaromtorttukreben.pdf. Anyway my point is you actually don't know the content of the books, and your claim of apartenence is unsupported. I am not sure about N. Iorga's material (but from the context of the page it seems rather related to Csangos from Moldavia), but P. Panaitescu IIRC doesn't credit the Hungarians in Wallachia and Moldavia to come as a consequence of a proper (administrative) expansion of Szekelyland but purely to resettlement due to various reasons since the Cuman Bishopric of Milcov onwards (and with Hungarians, also Saxons and even Vlachs resettled). If you want to read Romanian historians on this topic, I'd rather recommend you more recent authors like S. Papacostea, St. Brezeanu or I. M. Tiplic, though I don't know if their work is available in other languages than Romanian. Daizus 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Banat

The issue of the Banat region, which I discussed on the Transylvania page, is even more easy to see here. While the history of Transylvania, goes on rightly, having little or nothing to do with that of the Banat (they had quite distinct historical paths), the story happily ends with a Transylvania bigger than it never was in 1.000 years of history. That because of an ethimological dispute and systematic misslead by the Cluj current of thought, ignoring what in fact is the major reason why Banat is not Transylvania: history. Please provide citation on the assertiot that the Banat is part of Transylvania! --Radufan 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because Banat has no real history on its own. It was just a frontier region (roman, hungarian, turkish or romanian) . Nothing important happened there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.1.180 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Historical population

Some things about the figures in the Historical population table: There are some small inaccuracies when we compare the data in the table with the one from Árpád Varga's book on Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995 and I'm going to correct them. The other thing I'd like to ask is where was the data for 1850 taken from? The most striking thing is that the total population for 1850 is 1,823,222, while after only 19 years it becomes 4,224,436. This is of course impossible, so probably the 1850 census only took into consideration Transylvania proper, which is inconsistent with the rest of the table. The percentages are also significantly different from those in Varga's book, or Rudolf Poledna's figures in his article from the book Interculturalitate. I think we should either correct the 1850 row, or simply remove it. Of course, correcting it is preferable. Alexrap 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to be interested in this particular issue. Anyway, I investigated it myself and I found that indeed the 1850 data refers only to Transylvania proper. There is no 1850 data available for Banat and Crişana. The data currently presented in the table is however slightly wrong, so I will correct it. I will also add a note explaining that the 1850 data refers to Transylvania proper only and will give 2 references for it. Alexrap 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magyar tribal states

I can give you no referencies on this subject. this is an evidency among Hungarian scholars: - around 850 Khazar state system adopted - nomadic state - Hungariam conquest - tribal confederacy - Later the Magyar tribes in the Carpathian basin followed separate forign policy (the Horka clan conducted raids in Western Europe, the Gyula in the Balcan peninsula) and even their spiritual orientation wasn't uniform (Geza - Catholicism, Gyula - Orthodoxism) - then followed the second state formation. (on the ruines of the first) Based on Western European state system patterns, under Vajk/Stephen. --fz22 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"rulers of independent Magyar tribal states" covers a lot of assumptions (a Wiki reader browsing Wikipedia can easily find that Magyars had some sort of tribal organization, so it's no real problem with that):
  • that there were such things as "tribal states"
  • that Magyars had them
  • that these states were independent
  • that the rulers given for example were indeed rulers of those states. Actually some of them are problematic: on what grounds are Kean or Achtum such rulers?
As we're on Kean, are you sure it's in Chronicon Pictum? Is it said there that he is a duke of Bulgarians and Slavs? IIRC, this info is only in GH. And if you include info from GH, then we should include also the scary triad: Gelou, Glad, Menumorout. Daizus 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is in the Legend of King Stephen --fz22 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I've found the reference. It is also in Keza's GHH. Daizus 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Fz22, don't take it personally, but please provide some transparancy on your attempts of sourcing. I have searched a lot today to check those sources, and still I haven't found them all. If you get the information from some book, or some site, then let the other editors know: "Scholar X believes the source Y says Z". If you access the primary source directly, please provide chapter, paragraph, section, etc.. Thank you. Daizus 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on first visit of Magyars in Europe, I don't think you can back it up with a primary source, given there's no contemporary complete history of Europe. All the chronicles are rather localized. So we need a recent scholarly assessment. Daizus 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
First visit of Magyars in the Frankish Empire (Pannonia): (they fought in the sub-Danube region even earlier in 838-839 against the Bulgars). "Hostes… qui Ungri vocantur, regnum… depopulantur” Annales Bertiniani: http://mek.oszk.hu/03900/03960/pdf/01fejezet.pdf (chapter 1.4, 3rd paragraph)--fz22 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Add the book (the pdf) as reference for that claim. Anyway, I was wrong about Annales Bertiniani, it covers a longer period than I knew. Thank you. Daizus 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarians include Magyars and Szeklers?

Hello, I have always found the relation between the 3 words obscure, and maybe this article clarifies it. The article states that both Magyars and Szeklers are Hungarians. Is this hierarchy widely accepted, or mainstream? For instance, does that mean that not all Hungarians are Magyars, just like not all Hungarians are Szeklers? Dpotop 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Careful with those terms--a "Hungarian" is technically just a citizen of Hungary, not necessarily an ethnic Magyar. So yes, not all "Hungarians" are "Magyars". ;-) (It's hair-splitting I know, but that's one of those tricky little linguistic oddities that always bugs me.)
As far as I know, most Szeklers do consider themselves to be Magyars. There is certainly the consciousness that they are a distinct group of Magyars with distinct history, tradition etc., but it's generally accepted that they are Magyars. I do believe, however, that there are some Szeklers who consider themselves to be an entirely separate ethnic group, related to the Magyars but not Magyars. According to the legends they are descendants of Attila's son Csaba...but whenever we go back far enough that our main sources are legends, it gets pretty murky.
Do we have any Szekler Wikipedians on here btw? A real Szekler could probably explain this situation much better than me... K. Lásztocska 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Székelys consider themselves Magyars, except for those who have double personality and also think they are descendants of Prince Csaba :-). They vote for their parties called Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség, or for Magyar Polgári Szövetség. Actually, if you compare Székely Land with Hungary, it is very surprising to see that Székelys have more "pure" Magyar traditions. Eg. unlike Hungary where the population is of a very much mixed origin, with a lot of Slav and German surnames still in use, in Székely Land you will find a lot more original Hungarian names.
Anyway, in the Hungarian language there is only one expression for Hungarian, this is: "magyar", so there is no distinction between ethnicity and citizenship, like in English. If you want to say somebody is Hungarian (citizen) the expression you can use instead of "magyar" is "magyarországi", or "magyar állampolgár". Consequently if you ask a Székely he/she will say he/she is "magyar". Now, if you translate this into English, the translation will usually be "Hungarian", because Hungarians, as a result of their native language, are not sensitive to this distinction in English. Also, because "Magyar" is less often used and known to English speakers. example 1: BBC Hungarian Language Serviceexample2: RMDSZ
Why are there two expresions used for Hungarian and one for Romanian? I think because the medieval name "Hungarian" is still used by foreigners, while Vlach/Wlach/Olahus was abandoned. --KIDB 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I try to synthesize:
  • In the Hungarian language: Magyar=both nationality (citizenship) and ethnicity. In an ethnic context Szekler is a sub-set of Magyar.
  • In English: Hungarian= both nationality and ethnicity and in an ethnic context Szekler is a sub-set of Hungarian.
Is this correct?
If yes, then should we remove references to "Magyar" on Wikipedia, and replace them with "Hungarian". In fact this is why I asked this question, because someone used the 3 words with seamingly different meanings in a single phrase. Dpotop 07:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Magyar" and "Hungarian", the way I use them in English is "Magyar" to refer to ethnicity and "Hungarian" to refer to citizenship, regardless of ethnicity. So no, we should not replace all instances of the word "Magyar" with "Hungarian" because they do have different meanings, even though they are too often (and incorrectly) used interchangeably. The sentence with "Hungarian", "Magyar" and "Szekler" in it all at once was just an example of really confusing writing (probably by some well-meaning contributor who was nonetheless unclear on the concept...)K. Lásztocska 22:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue is difficult to solve, there was already a discussion here, the result was that there are no clear rules. --KIDB 08:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The migrations part of the lead

I will delete it, because it is not Ok for several reasons:

  1. The region was diverse not only starting in the 4th century AD, but even before. You can go as far as the indo-europeas, if you wish.
  2. The great migrations did not only come from central Asia. I understand the interest in that region, but the slavs were actually closer, as were goths, a.s.o. Arguably, it was the indo-european part that mostly affected the region.
  3. Given points 1 and 2, your conclusion (the ethnic and cultural diversity) cannot be a conclusion. It can be a statement, however, because it's true.

Cheers, Dpotop 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Nobody answered my previous question on magyars, szeklers, and hungarians. Dpotop 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Romania 1600 02.gif

Image:Romania 1600 02.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman rule?

I don't get it - did the Ottomans come to rule Transylvania in 1540 or 1541? --PaxEquilibrium 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does one have a reference for the ethnic composition of Transylvania in 1713?

question asked by Dc76\talk 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Dear User:Koppany, it is very unfortunate that you are starting again this kind of edits. We've already gone through these discussions some time ago. There is no reliable data for the 18th century and before, as unfortunately no Censuses were conducted at the time. Alexrap (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not mentioned Ceasusescu, just added data and sources: Nyárády R. Károly Erdély népesedéstörténete [4] --Koppany (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what does Ceausescu have to do with it. But to address the issue here: the table contains information from official censuses. There were no censuses before 1850, so we can't mix things and put them in the same table. Is like comparing oranges with apples. There are indeed several estimations on the ethnical composition of Transylvania before the 19th century, but unfortunately there is no consensus over the accuracy of these estimations.
So what you're trying to do now is to impose one particular estimation (which I can't even find in your reference - by the way, could you please translate for the rest of us here on the English Wikipedia who don't speak Hungarian the fragment making reference to the 1713 data) and put it next to some census data. Well, we just cannot do that. Alexrap (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Koppany, I believe that you are wrong to remove the useful comment in the Historical population section that states where the figures in the table have been obtained. You may have a good argument that an official tax list is a kind of census; I would like to hear it, because I don't personally mind which population was in the majority in those times. But the figures should be seperated off in some way from the censuses table, with explaination about where they are derived and/or footnote references to works in English. Such a discussion requires *greater* detail in its presentation, not the blurring of details by mixing up figures that have different origins and meanings. Best wishes. Frankieparley (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tacit comment about the ethnic populations in the Middle Ages being ordered by size, as this has been disputed in recent discussions. I've added the Roma, who I'm sure must have been present in large numbers. This article was recently POV tagged by User:Nergaal. Was your concern the argument over population, Nergaal? Or was it something else? Please let us know what you recommend for the POV tag to be removed. Frankieparley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Frankieparley, thanks for your comment. I am sorry for my short explanations, but I have been very busy recently in real life and my main concern was to readd information that was removed by user Alexrap. That is true that before 1850 there was no official census per nomine in Transylvania but we have official tax lists that trace back to the 16th century. These lists iclude the number of all tax payers etc. Due to the fact that only serfs payed tax and with rare exceptions all ethnic Romanians were serfs, we can say that the percentage of Hungarians were even higher that these tax lists show, because among Hungarians the rate of nobility (and they did not pay tax) was relatively high, in some region 15-20%. At the momet I am too busy to translate the sources I added, but appreciate any help in this field. --Koppany (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks User:Koppany, this is interesting history, and is worth presenting on Wikipedia, though I fear this argument never ends! I think you can introduce your pre-1850 statistics in the Historical Population section, but in a different table and with an explaination; then they can be discussed. We still have the POV tag; my revision was removed, but I am not an expert in these matters so I don't know what to do next. I'll wait a while to see what happens. Incidentally, I've been looking for a history book about Transylvania, but I have not yet found one published by an impartial author; though there's a new version coming out in 2010: [5]. Cheers! --Frankieparley (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It was me who reverted to the initial version (before the changes of Koppany). And I do agree with you (as I stated in the revert log): The current data in the table is consistent, coming only from official census (BTW, what is the correct plural form for census, there's none on m-w.com). Moreover, the paragraph of text clearly states what kind of data it's about. Of course, if you have data for the 1700's from reliable sources, you should put it here, but separately (not in the same table), and with an explanation of what it represents. If it's a tax list, then I presume it does not include lots of people (the ones that were too poor to be taxed, for instance). You should say something about it, too. I would have done it, but I can't read Hungarian. Dpotop (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dpotop, yes, I agree with all of what you say. These tax figures can be presented, but differently, and with explainations and warnings that they are not showing the same information as census figures. I can't read Hungarian either, and only some Romanian. --Frankieparley (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Transylvania proper" means nothing

Or, to be more precise, there is no clear definition of what it means. The only solution I think is to choose some historical reference and refer to the "Principality of Transylvania in year 1500", for instance. The current situation is not OK. Dpotop (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It means the properly so called Transylvania ... which was a geographic and less political unit...--fz22 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)