Talk:John Hunyadi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Hunyadi article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

Contents

[edit] title

Judging by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) this article should be moved to a page title with the anglicized form of his name. I've seen "John Hunyadi" used in a couple of English-language sources, but "Hunyadi" is a Hungarian form; is there an alternative in English? I seem to remember having seen "Hunyady", but this could just be an alternative Hungarian spelling. Scott Moore 15:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hunyady is the old Magyar spelling, John Hunyadi is the correct English name (drived from the Transylvanian castle "Hunyad") - actually it should be John of Hunyad, but in Google you will only find 3 results like that. Juro 16:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the derivation and the fact that some other languages use their own form rather than the Hungarian e.g. Romananian de Hunedoara. I think the form "John of Hunyad" may be too archaic to use in English, and other surnames (e.g Bathory) retain the Hungarian form (except for the loss of diacritics, of course). Interesting to note that when Hungarians emigrated to or travelled to English-speaking countries (in the 19th/early 20th century) they sometimes changed their surnames to a German or French form (von xxx, de xxx) or even a compound (Georg von Bekesy) Scott Moore 17:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article must not have been renamed to a Romanian form in the first hand. I am pretty worried to see that some editors do that without discussing it first. Hungarian form would be more correct, as he happened to be pretty much Hungarian, but this is English Wikipedia, so English naming is correct. --grin ✎ 20:23, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
He was actually Romanian, not Hungarian. This is because he was born in a Romanian family and in a historical Romanian province (that was by that time not yet united with the other provinces). -Paul- 09:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I thaught that his mother was Hungarian, but you seem to ignore that. By the way, we can then say that king Carol I and Mihai I were Germans. Zmiklos 11:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the move wasn't proper to begin with, and no double redirects were fixed by Rronline after it. I've used my admin mojo to move it back. --Joy [shallot] 21:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. --grin ✎ 06:51, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Gentlemen! In the article it is emphasized that John Hunyadi was a Romanian. I will start adding to all Romanian historical articles the ethnicity of the personalities. For example: Carol I was German, Carol II was German, Michael I was German, and so on. What about that?! Zmiklos 12:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The article should say that his father was ethnically Romanian. You can say that Caron and the others were ethnically German. There's no secret in that. --Candide, or Optimism 13:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] family and origins

I cleaned up the paragraph about Hunyadi's family and origins. Reference to his grandfather (Serb or Serbe) could be added to the article on the Hunyadi family. Elizabeth Morzsinay was his mother (although some recent research disputes that she was from the Morzinay family) while his wife was Elizabeth Szilagyi. The paragraph about the name Corvinus was largely duplicated from the Matthias Corvinus article, so I removed it. Scott Moore 12:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

is there a Hunyadi family article ? --Criztu 12:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
actually is was a disambiguition page for some reason. I've now changed it to a stub. It is still rather brief and jumps straight from Matthias Corvinus to a modern speed-skating champion! Scott Moore 14:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
John Hunyadi's Romanian origin is confirmed by contemporary Pope Pius II (Enea Silvius Piccolomini, 1405-1464) in his opera In Europa, Historia Austrialis chapter, BAV, URB, LAT. 405, ff.245, Ex urbe Roma, IIII kal. Aprilis MCCCCLVIII. But also here the pope Pius II wrote that John Hunyadi was not from a noble origin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabricioRB (talk • contribs) 04:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
His father was knighted and given the title of Count of Hunedoara after John was born. Interpret as you wish: you can say he was son of a count, or you can say he was sone of an ordinary knight. Later on, John let, or at least did not hinder, the rumor that he might be the ilegal son of Sigismund of Luxemburg, because he needed much more than noble blood to rule, he needed royal blood. Pope might be referring to this when he says John was not noble. He might be simply saying John had no royal blood.:Dc76\talk 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ascension error?

The text states that the King of Hungary borrowed money from John. Is that possibly accurate? If so, can a supporting reference be made here in the discussion, please? That should clarify it, either way.

[edit] biased

The language in the article tends to be very biased, probably from EB1911. I'm tempted to add the /POV check/ template... --Joy [shallot] 23:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biased in what way? Do you have one or two examples?

[edit] "long campaign" was written in latin or german

  • the famous expedition known as the hosszú hadjárat or "long campaign."

is there any original document that displays this hosszú hadjárat for Hunyadi's campaign ? from what i understand, the chronicles in Hunyadi's time were written either in Latin or German

[edit] Anglicization

I've finally settled on Vojk as the English version of the name of Hunyadi's father. Vajk is used more often in English texts, but I think this is from the Hungarian form of the name (which I'd rather not use). I've also seen Voyk used. Scott Moore 17:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the name is pronounced 'vay-k', so changing it to 'o' does nothing for the English reader (and would actually lead to mispronouniation). What's so strange about Vajk that's rectified by changing it to Vojk?
At first, it bothered me that someone would "not want to use" the Magyar spelling, but after further reflection, I see your point. Given that the family name was Vlach, it would seem very likely that a Voicu-derived spelling would be more accurate. In fact, it is too bad there are no historical English references to Voik, which would be even closer. So, I suppose, in the end, that Vojk is a the best answer. It borrows heavily from his probably Magyar maternal heritage, his Magyar marriage, and his political loyalty to the Magyar kingdom (going so far as to have his son be the exciting King Mattias), yet it gives deference in small measure to his Vlach paternal lineage. All in all, a good choice given that Voik would be unacceptable.

[edit] Szörény

This is not the banate of Oltenia, but the banate of Severin which is west of Oltenia. Daizus

well, edit the article then, what are you waiting for ? :) -- Criztu 07:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 :D Did it. I removed the link as otherwise it would have been pointing to Severin city. The banate of Severin held the western part of today's Olternia and some parts of today's Banat. Daizus

[edit] Hungarian names

Gentlemen, Iancu de Hunedoara was a Romanian, born in a Romanian family, called Voicu. Voicu is a Romanian name, ask anyone who speaks that language. "John was born into a Vlach (Romanian) noble family in 1387 (or 1400 according to some sources) as the son of Vojk (alternatively spelled as Voyk or Vajk in English, Voicu in Romanian, Vajk in Hungarian)" Therefore that quote is weird, to say the least. Instead of spelling the family name Voicu, it is spelled, incorrectly, with Hungarian influences. Why? Second of all, if he was a Romanian, born in a Romanian family, why is his named spelled in English all over Wikipedia (quote: John Hunyadi), after a Hungarian name-translation (Hunyadi)? Third, "Vlach Knyaz from Banate of Severin (Szörény in Hungarian). " <---- the correct spelling is "cneaz", not "knyaz", and since Severin is, and always was in Romania, can someone explain to me why the word "Szoreny" appears there? I didn't find the Hungarian translation of the following cities: Washington DC, New York and Beijing on Wikipedia, so why should there be a Hungarian translation of Severin? WikiRaptor 16:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

During Hunyadi's times we gather names and possessions from Hungarian documents, therefore Hungarian spelling is justified as an alternate. Talking about "Milano (Mediolanum)" while talking about Late Roman Empire is not inappropriate, is it? Daizus
Your complaints are justified when it's about other realities of Romania which benefit of Hungarian alternate spelling (for instance the city of Drobeta Turnu-Severin). Daizus 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No, because he wasn't "ban of Drobeta". I think this is perfectly justified, since readers are most likely to find informations on him as ban of whateverthenameisinHungarian. Dahn 12:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My second addition was about pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drobeta-Turnu_Severin. The Hungarian alternate spelling is futile in city's presentation, it's not a region with a significant Hungarian minority. Daizus 17:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It is on this page as well. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with it, and for the reason stated: one is very likely to find 5 times more references to it in Hungarian than in Romanian before 1918 or so (although it's also likely that both fade in comparison with Medieval Latin). Dahn 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
For once, I have no problem with Szörény/Severin duality in this page. Some time ago I even edited the correspondence Szörény-Oltenia to Szörény-Severin (the banate of Severin and the banate of Oltenia are two different beasts).
I'd like to point two sides of this issue. One is the one you argumented for: like I've said in my first reply to WikiRaptor, I have no problem with alternate spellings in a historical context. So in a history of the city Drobeta Turnu-Severin I am fine with dual Severin/Szörény denominations if the historic contexts asks for it. But I find anachronic and preposterous a dual denomination of a Romanian actual city with insignificant Hungarian population, related insignicantly to Hungarian culture. I understand to be the case for those settlements were a bilingual approach is demanded by the ethno-cultural realities (like those from Harghita, Covasna or Mureş, plus several other settlements spreaded out through Transylvania and Banat). As I remarked on my talk page, Belgrade/Nándorfehérvár is almost an inexistent pair in this city's description - try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade, the Hungarian name occurs only in specific historical contexts (the battle of Belgrade/Nándorfehérvár, 1456). On contrary, Severin is in many cases taken as Szörény, even if it's not a specific situation demanding the Hungarian alternative.
The other side is something I've been thinking on since my first contribution to this section of the talk page. Sometimes today's Hungarian version helps in finding a closer match for the version contemporary with the historical events in question. Though in many cases, this is not true. Let's talk on examples. Today's Timişoara was known in one 13th century document as castrum Tymes. Would you say the Hungarian Temesvár or the German Temeschwar are of any help to decypher this occurence? Romanian version is as good and enough. Alba Iulia was known in 11th century as civitas Alba Transilvana. Gyulafehérvár may help some to figure out where "Iulia" is coming from but not is giving to a non-Hungarian speaking user an opportunity to identify this 11th century occurence with the actual city. The actual Bihor (in fact Biharea), in Hungarian is Bihar, and the city that started these names was known in 11th century as civitas Bihor/Byhar/Bichor. Again, the Hungarian alternate is offering no additional help. Cenad (Nagycsanád in Hungarian) is known in 11th century as urbs Chanadina and of course as urbs Morisena and civitas Morisena as well. Of course, for some other occurences you can invoke Hungarian alternate as helpful. Cluj (Kolozsvár in Hungarian) was known in 12-13th centuries as Kuluswar. These being said, even in a historical context the Hungarian alternate to a city or territory might be superfluous at the times. Daizus 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I too am annoyed by giving 12 versions on every page, and especially by the assumption that the Hungarian name was "the former name" of cities, when we all know that Latin was the official language in anything involving Hungary until 1830 or so). However, in many cases it may be necessary (depending on what the case is). For many, I think my ranking still stands (Romanian<Hungarian<Latin). In the case of Severin (on its page), I think a mention of the name in Hungarian is prolly called for (as opposed to dual mention on every page, excluding the likes of thisun). As a parallel, consider that the Hungarian-speakers in many cities were arguably insignificant as opposed to German-speakers (and yet the name in Hungarian should stay there). This may be a matter of curtesy to the reader (and, after all, no matter what the pop., Drobeta was Hungarian for a long, long time). Dahn 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In the 13th century we have terra Zeurino or castrum Zeurini. In 14th century we find the title comes de Seuerinio. We know of the medieval Severin starting with the documents of the Hungarian king Andrew III and it's probably a city built during these days; the ancient Roman city was deserted as the limes organized by Justinian I collapsed before the attacks of Avars and Slavs. There will be struggles between Hungarians and Wallachians over it for the next centuries. The Hungarian-built city will be destroyed by Ottomans in 1524. The new city is built in the 19th century.
About Cluj I found out that the original is probably the Latin term "clusa", a mention from 1213 gives castrum Clus and another Hungarian version from the same century is Clwusvar. A 14th century German form is Clusenburg. Daizus 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

If Dahn persists in reverting the changes I want to challenge the neutrality of this page. He claims that he makes some changes because his opinions dictate him so. I want to remind him that wikipedia is not a blog, so the claims made should have a degree of objectivity and impartiality. Daizus 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that I HAVEN'T (and you misread my message on your talk page - again, I was not trying to push a POV, I had just wondered if you would've had agreed to keep a sentence which was featured in Britannica if reformulated. It was not essential, nor was it determined by a view I would have on the matter). Chill. Dahn 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You cannot (without jesting) call "POV" my attempt to confirm with NPOV. I may be clumsy, but you cannot prove that I have an agenda. This is why I had asked of you not to assume. Dahn 20:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I think I got your point. I was a bit too assertive about your possible reasons and you're right about it. However my point was and still is that a claim about John Hunyadi's better opposition to Ottoman Turks than any other Balkanic ruler is a way too dangerous claim to hold because of the inherent bias (and honestly an unconstructive bias which oftens leads only to boosted egoes and hard feelings) but also because the lack of an objective (by objective I don't mean naive absolute truthness but a scientific approach) criterion to construct these judgements of value. Like I said on my talk page "According to historian X/In the opinion of historian X" is an acceptable method to give voice to such comparative quality-emphasizing claims. Especially that most of these judgements of value are in the context of a POV (Hungarian or Romanian favourable versions). Considering the tensions and the precedence of ideology-driven historiographies, I'd say we have to be careful about these issues. Daizus 20:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. However, note that the fragment (which I don't need to have back in there), even in its very first version, did not say that he was "the best", just that he was the "most successful" (which I had changed to "arguably most succesful"). Granted, John, unlike Stephen, never had to shake off Turkish [nominal?] vassalage, and he did not live to have his country cede to the Ottomans. (Plus, the reference to "of his time" could bypass Stephen altogether - it depends on what you consider "his time" to be; and you may still want to consider that one fought in Belgrade - out of his territory - and the other in Vaslui, Bucharest at most). But again, this is of little relevance besides shaking of all notion a reader may have that I'm somehow biased. Dahn 21:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think valid comparisions can be made so easily. While John was struggling against Ottomans in southern Transylvania and northern Balkans, Skanderbeg organized Albanian resistence with quite a success though he had not the means to launch a real offensive against the Ottoman Empire. The success of his resistence is measured by the fact that Albania was not subdued during his lifetime (he died in 1468), and Albania unlike Hungary or Transylvania or even Wallachia was a stringent target for Murad II and Mehmet II. However the Ottomans succesfully sieged Krujë only as late as 1478 and Albania was gradually incorporated into the Ottoman Empire many years after (IIRC the process ended in 1506), during this while numerous revolts occured. Moving the focus on Stephen III, we can regard the events from 1474-76 as a success, Mehmet II being unable to punish Moldavia and extend his domination accordingly (moreover in the following years Stephen keeps interfering in the Wallachian politics, replacing Ottoman named voivodes with his own), and only the events from 1484 (when facing Bajezid II) as a failure (and vassalage to the Polish king is not a failure per se, but losing the sea ports to Ottomans, main trade centers and gates). Now John Hunyadi had his successes (like the victories from 1442-43 or lifting the siege of Belgrade in 1456, his failures - Varna 1444, and relative successes - can be seen also as insuccessses - the long Campaign: I find the article unfair about this one - the objective of this campaign was Adrianopole, an unattained objective). Anyway, these are just a sketch to point out that judging a success/insuccess is a more tricky thing to do. A full-fledged comparision is unfruitful as John Hunyadi was subordinated to (and supported by) the King of Hungary, while the other rulers had other and arguably greater reponsibilities.
Like I already pointed out I find the article too mild on John Hunyadi, so this is again one reason because I wouldn't like to rant about relative successes/insuccesses (especially if the wiki text is taken as reference). Let me take a specific example. In the spring of 1442 there were two battles during the Ottoman offensive in the south-central Transylvania. First clash happened near Sântimbru on 18th March and Hunyadi lost this battle having a significantly high number of casualities. The second battle from 22/23th March 1442 is also somewhere in the neighbourhood (in a place called Kapu, some Hungarian authors erroneously consider this place as the Iron Gates) and this last battle ment the sounding victory for Hunyadi. So unlike the main article said the first clash was not merely a retreat. Hunyadi followed and probably destroyed some Ottoman avanguard bodies eventually getting himself surrounded by the Ottoman main army from several sides. Many perished while retreating. This may look like a Mongol battle on a smaller scale - luring into the trap, surrounding, chasing the fleeing remnants and killing as many on the run. However the Ottoman brilliance is overlooked while Hunyadi is (not without reason, of course) seen as a great military mastermind. I don't deny the latter, but he was not the only one and it's at least unfair to emphasize only his victories without shaping the his failures.
And one last point about Belgrade and offensive campaigns. You seem to forget that King Lazslo appointed Hunyadi as captain of Belgrade as he came to the throne. Belgrade was within Hungarian domination of those days. However your point remains valid if we refer to Hunyadi's campaigns in Balkans and his participation to crusade. With a note though, he was not alone. Daizus 12:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Hunyadi was not always supported by the King László V- he had to raise and support an army himself during the Seige of Belgrade, and a less farsighted leader would have understandably rebelled in his circumstances. Second, the defeat at Varna was not his fault, but that of the King of Poland who ignored his sound advice. I do agree that he was not the only military genious in his time and the Turks were also brilliant and innovative as well. But that sort of goes without saying, since if he had been the only great military mastermind in his time, it would have probably been the Turks who found themselves conquered!Shield2 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, two things can be said of him as the "best" of the Balkan anti-Ottoman fighters, but important ones.

a) His military innovations were the most significant of any Eastern European leader at the time, indeed any European leader in his day. He was a very important figure in bringing European tactics out of the Middle Ages. So was Mehmed the Conquerer, of course, but he was not a European leader in the sense that this word is traditionally understood. Hunyadi met the challenge to European military tactics offered by the Turks.

b) Strategically, the Siege of Belgrade was the most decisive defeat of Mehmed's forces by a European army. Hunyadi stayed out of the Siege of Constantinople because he needed to focus his relatively meager resources on a strategically more important garrison. Belgrade was what prevented Mehmed from ruling over the Balkans unchallanged, and thus being able to fully turn his attention and resources to his goal of controlling all trade on the entire Mediterranean Sea, extorting Central and Western Europe as he pleased and conquering Rome. It was not neccesarily the greatest tactical victory over Mehmed by a European army. Vlad Tepes and Stephen III won more impressive tactical victories, but those were of strategic importance only in that they were necessary in maintaining the strategic defense of Europe already won by Hunyadi. Dracula and Stephen may well have been more advanced and effective tacticians, but Hunyadi was a tactical innovator of grand historical importance who showed them the way.Shield2 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voivode of Transylvania

Hunyadi wasn`t "governor". This is a modern term, and used only in modern histography. He wasn`t George Bush.... Back then he was elected as Voivode (voievod in Romanian, vajda in Hungarian, Wayvodae in Latin). That how the denomination for the duke/prince/governor of Transylvania was, all around this part of Europe. E.g.: see this greier 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

There is a trend in present day romania to romanize everybody, who born in transylvania, by simply declaring them semi- or fully ethnic romanians. The names, morizsnai, szilagyi, hunyadi all hungarians, and i've never seen any facts about his vlach ancestry, just the translation of these names into romanian, then calling them vlach or other romanian ancestry. This is how things nowadays happen. --195.56.95.160 21:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that his Vlach ancestry was mentioned in the 1911 Britannica. While I may agree to the irrelevance of that in the larger picture, this takes mahes his relation to Romanian nationalism clear, I believe. In this case, your objection is for the sake of objecting. Dahn 07:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The unquestionable source about John Hunyadi's Romanian origin is from Pope Pius II (Enea Silvius Piccolomini, 1405-1464) In Europa, Historia Austrialis, BAV, URB, LAT. 405, ff.245, Ex urbe Roma, IIII kal. Aprilis MCCCCLVIII. It was writen in 1458 and then published at Memmingen in 1481 and Nurnberg in 1493, both in Latin and German. Do you think the contemporary Hunyadi's Pope was wrong?...

[edit] Does anybody knows latin?

The image says that it`s the Hussite Campaign. I`ve uploaded an image depicting the same thing, an I can make out:

De bello per ... Johannem wayvoda circa castro nando .... 

...............

...iohanes de hwnijad wayvoda trassilvani banat sewerin ... etc.
The first sentence is: "about the battle which was led by Janos voivode at the castle of Nándorfehérvár/Belgrade"
The second: "Janos Hunyadi voivode of Transilvania, ban of Sewerin." Baxter9 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So it`s clear that is about John Hunyadi, the voivode of Transylvania, Banat and Severin (I`m saying this because the same image appears on Battle of Baia, where it says it`s between Mateias Corvin against Moldavia). But I think de bello...Castro Nando means "on the war of fortress Nando" (Belgrade), and hence I think the image depicts the Siege of Belgrade. Of course, the image could as well not be related to the text... Best would be if one could translate what it says... And it would be better to replace the old pic, as it seems somewhat altered... greier 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

John Hunyadi in the Hussite Campaign, as depicted in the Johannes de Thurocz Chronicle
John Hunyadi in the Hussite Campaign, as depicted in the Johannes de Thurocz Chronicle


I think it`s indeed the Battle of Baia. The images are recycled, and re-appear in many pages of the chronicle. I`ll remove it from this article. greier 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Greier, I think that is what Thurocz did. If you'll note, all images tend to repeat themselves, and I'm willing to bet none include actual witnnessing of the scenes or characters depicted. This is not a reproach to Thurocz: it is stating that everything may turn up under several guises, and that it is not necessary to provide a link to every single version of the same drawing (but rather provide a link to what the very-similar-to-another drawing claims it is). Dahn 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know if the Battle of Baia should be considered as being in fact the Battle of Baia (although it might be not the same as version 2, but a third and "completely different" version of the same drawing). The image with text is clearly in a John Hunyadi context, and you can tell without knowing Latin (I don't speak Latin): he is mentioned throughout the page (iohanes de hwnijad). Dahn 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion that is was the Battle of Baia rather than the Hussite campaign or the Siege of Belgrade, was given by the fact that the flag depicted in the battle looks surprisingly simmilar to the flag of Moldavia. greier 12:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the images

Let's stop this nonesense. Create a gallery on commons and include all that can't be included here over there. There is no point in flooding this in versions of the same image. Dahn 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Will you create this gallery? Adam78 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never downloaded on commons. Can you guide me through it? Dahn 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. I'm sorry for not explaining the steps; you can find a guide at its help. Adam78 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Gubernator

The proper English translation of Gubernator is Regent, not Governor.

[edit] Hunyadis as Serbians

Dear Daizus!

Why are you propagate an obsolote (19th century) theory (moreover you labelled it as modern)? It is not an accident that there is no "modern" (at least 2nd half of the 20th century) biography which mentions it.

It is not me who vandalizing this article, but you.

In the main article there's a referenced theory (the one you keep removing) which makes a certain claim. It is mentioned as such (i.e. as a theory) and as long as the premises of the theory or the argumentation building it are not shown blatantly wrong (by other authorities in field), there's absolutely no reason to be removed. "obsolote" is not an English word (it's the third time you use this form) and I suspect you mean the word "obsolete".
Also as I pointed out most of the article is based on 19th century sources, so your criticism is biased if removes only one of these. And also, 19th century is part of the so called "modern age". You may confuse the term "modern" with the term "contemporary" which indeed suggests the time from the 2nd half of the 20th century onward. Daizus 13:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not the usage of 19th century references, but the mention of theories which are long dead. But if you stick to this theory, it is okay for me if you mention that this is an old theory and remove the word modern.
mod·ern ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mdrn) adj.
1.a. Of or relating to recent times or the present: modern history.
b. Characteristic or expressive of recent times or the present; contemporary or up-to-date: a modern lifestyle; a modern way of thinking.
2.a. Of or relating to a recently developed or advanced style, technique, or technology: modern art; modern medicine.
b.Avant-garde; experimental.
often Modern Linguistics. Of, relating to, or being a living language or group of languages: Modern Italian; Modern Romance languages.81.183.150.254 13:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Read definition 1a. Okay, now head to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history. Modern times start from 18th century (in most historiographies, of course, but then again you should supply sources for "original" interpretations). Q.E.D. Daizus 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So Daizus? I am still do not understand why should an outdated/rejected information appear in the article.81.182.180.66 07:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rejected by whom? Outdated by what other theories? Which of the Dr. Borovszky's premises (I'm not acquainted with them, but I assume you do if you claim this is an outdated theory) were invalidated by more recent research? Please provide a balanced view of hypotheses and theories on Hunyadi's origins (and try not to give only the views favoured by Hungarians). Don't just minimize the incovenient opinions, argue against them from authoritative sources. If you cannot, then you should leave it as it is. Daizus 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I used the following reference:
Radu Lupescu - Hunyadi János alakja a magyar és a román történetírásban [John Hunyadi in the Hungarian and Romanian historiography] in Századok 2/2005.
It summarizes the history and current state of the historical research of John Hunyadi's life and role in history. 84.2.210.177 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you quote your source to put a light in the origins of John Hunyadi? Does your source explicitely claims the falsity of some earlier scholarly claims (particularily the ones invoking a Serbian origin?) Daizus 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You can find the whole article here (in Hungarian)[1] Since the article shows the different opinions in the history of historiography, Lupescu did not express any own theory. He only states that after the essays of Wertner (1900) and Karácsonyi (1901) Hungarian historians did not query the Romanian origin of the Hunyadi family. In fact Dr. Borovszky's contribution in this question was so unimportant that Lupescu doesn't even mention him.
If Lupescu failed to mention Borovszky it may be also he didn't know of him or his writings. Like I said, if you have a better reference bring it, but do not remove a sourced statement just because you don't like the claim. That statement is qualitatively superior to many other statements in the article which do not have references at all. Daizus 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand anything, what are you quarelling about? Can you cut and paste here the 2-3 sentences from your sources that say what you support, please. (Could you, please, translate those 2-3 sentences in English):Dc76 17:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that both Romanian and Hungarian historiography (for more than a hundred years)agree that the Hunyadis were of Romanian descent. I do not think that mentioning old outdated theories in an encyclopedia is right. Bye, 195.38.101.234 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who keeps deleting my addition to the last paragraph?

Why does my addition to the last paragraph keep getting deleted? Knock it off.Shield2 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

From John Hunyadi to his real name in Hungarian, János Hunyadi. Do you agree? discuss. Stefanmg 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Me not. Because sourses in English already present him as John Hunyadi. By the way, why should the name in Hungarian be preferred to the one in German, Romanian or Slovak, or better Latin - the language in which his name was most often written during his lifetime? Of course, wikipedia articles in those languages would use the respective names.:Dc76 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Since he was Hungarian his Hungarian name must be prefered. But since he was a ruler (regent) his name must be use in its English form just like in the case of other rulers. I oppose the change. Bye, 195.38.101.234 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

Hunyadi's legacy was far more important than this section states. Besides his victory at the Siege of Belgrade, he also built up a strong Hungarian sphere of influence in the Balkans that outlived him and kept Mehmed the Conquerer out of Central Europe. Matthias Corvinus, Vlad Tepes, and to a lesser extent Stephen III of Moldavia, were very much his hand-picked successors (Vlad Tepes was just as responsible for Stephen's rise to power as Hunyadi was, but by then Tepes had already gone from Hunyadi's enemy to his most promising protege next to his son). Mehmed's goal was to expand as far into Europe as he possibly could, and Hunyadi was more responsible than any other figure in European history for containing him. These are unbiased facts and should be included in this section. "[D]efense of Christendom against the Ottoman threat" is too vague and does not describe how and to what extent.Shield2 03:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what you just wrote is based on interpretations - accurate perhaps, but interpretations nonetheless. IMO, you would need to reference that entire paragraph, and indicate who said what about whom. Dahn 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could try to formulate it better, then only 1-2 claims would absolutely necessary need reference. Although, this article beeing already B-class, it would be a pity not to reference everything. Hungarian sphere of influence - I guess you mean Kingdom of Hungary or Order of the Dragon's idea, not any kind of ethnical influence (not in 15th century). About Stephen III of Moldavia: His father, Bogdan II, was a personal vassal of John, brought him personal homage, and was very proud of this. Stephen did not pay any homage neither to John, nor to Vlad Tepes, but was supported in vitrue of previous alliances and alleagences, or simply by common interest. Mattias, as John's youngest son (ie not the original heir), had a somewhat different viewpoint, which in the end led to war. I also know the same info about Mehmed as you write, but it would really be nice to reference everything, to keep the quality of the article. So, I guess Dahn's objections are not about the content, but about the quality of the article. :Dc76 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunyadi as prince?

"In 1448 he received a golden chain and the title of Prince from Pope Nicholas V,(...)"

The article states that Hunyadi was a prince and this title was given to him by the pope. Are there any reference to prove this? Popes did not have the authority to elevate peoples to princedom. In fact Hungarian law did not know the noble title 'prince' till the XIX. century. Bye, 195.38.101.234 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voicu or Vajk?

I would like to comment on the above quote by WikiRaptor regarding the names Voicu and Vajk. In his comment of Hungarian names WikiRaptor states that "Voicu is a Romanian name, ask anyone who speaks that language." He goes on to complain that the name is spelled with "Hungarian influences" and wonders why. My reply is this, Vajk is a Hungarian name, ask anyone who speaks that language!

Chances are the Hungarian name Vajk predates the Romanian Voicu. Voicu is probably a Romanianized version of the Hungarian Vajk. I say probably because I am not familiar with Romanian. Before the Hungarian/Magyar tribes that settled in the Carpathian Basin adopted the Christian religion, there was a Hungarian name that happened to be the original name of Hungary's first King István (Stephen) before he converted to Christianity, and that name was Vajk. The use of this name happened hundreds of years before the birth of János Hunyadi. So could it be possible that his father's name was Vajk and not Voicu? Or is it coincidence?

I am Hungarian, and I do admit that Hunyadi was of Romanian parentage at least on his father's side. This is noted in many Hungarian books dealing with his life. The Hungarian writer Elek Benedek, in a biography on Hunyadi stated that Hungarians should accept his Romanian origins. Many non-Hungarians living within Hungary eventualy assimilated and became Hungarianized and Hunyadi is one example.

Other non-Hungarian and non-Romanian editors of this article have puzzled themselves over the confusion over the use of this name, and have attempted an anglicized compromise by spelling it as Voyk. My intent here is to show that there is an historic precedent for the use of the name Vajk by Hungarians. The Romanian Voicu seems suspect to me unles it can be proved that this Romanian name predates the reign of Saint Stephen of Hungary whose original name was Vajk. Gyula 22:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Voicu and Vajk come from the same Slavic root, meaning warrior, so it is most likely that a form of this name existed in this area before the arrival of Hungarians. I suggest the spelling of the name according to the person’s ethnicity. Morosanul (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Knight

Philippe de Commines mentions John Hunyadi's nickname, as follows (Memoirs, b. VI, ch. XII, §9, translation and square-bracketed remarks are mine):

In our time reigned also two valiant and wise princes, the king of Hungary, Mathias [the Just], and Mehemet Ottoman [Mohammed II], emperor of the Turks. Said king Mathias was the son of a very gentile knight, called the white knight, from Valachy, a nobleman of great sense and virtue, who long governed that kingdom of Hungary, and had many beautiful victories against the Turks, who are neighbours of said kingdom because of the lordships which they usurped in Greece and in Esclavony [Slovenia ?], and in Bosnia. And soon after his demise, came to age king Launcelot [László], to whom said kingdom belonged, with Bohemia and Poland. The latter was counseled by some (it is said) to capture both sons of said White knight, saying that their father had taken too much mastery and lordship in said kingdom, during his [László's] childhood [...] and immediately had the firstborn put to death, and said Mathias put into prison in Bude, main city of Hungary [Buda = Budapest high town, right of the Danube], who was the second [...]

-- Tonymec 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to rename this article to Johannes Hunyadi

The points are the following

  • Johannes: to be NPOV, I propose to use Johannes instead of John - as his name has nothing to do with English (as nation, as language, as any way). The latin version is more neutral name, and this is not discgraceful for him. (Though, I have nothing against anything English)
  • Hunyadi: Everybody needs to agree, that regardless his origin, written documents use the "Hunyadi" version.

One remark: those who really emphasise he was Wallachian, (not Romanian, sorry, this didn't exist at that time) do not understand ethnicity in KoH. The secret is the special connection with Sacra Corona of Hungary: all entities living in Carpathian basin were happy to be a part of metaphysic experience. This is the reason why Kossuth (Slovak), Petofi (Serbian? but Slovak), Grassalkovich (Serb), and Hunyadi knew their origins but they were happy as Hungarians. This ancient view was slowly lost after Maria Theresa. It sounds odd today, and even difficult to digest, but it was a different time then. Abdulka 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is more a nationalistic pov. If we want to stick on Latin, we would use Iohanes de Hwnijad.
Of course Romanians existed, Walachian is the way the foreigners called them. Romanians always named themselves român or rumân.
And it is not a matter of how happy were some people to fill whatever, but of their actual ethnicity. Iohanes de Hwnijad was a Hungarian noble, but with Romanian origins. Morosanul (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He was a Hungarian noble of partly Hungarian, partly Wallachian ethnicity (at least according to some sources). Encyclopædia Britannica simply uses János Hunyadi as the article's name. Squash Racket (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)