Talk:Árpád dynasty/Archive 1

title plural v. singular
Other dynasties are in the singular. --Wetman 12:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Árpád is the name of the founder (tribe leader, not yet a king) it can either be the Árpád Dynasty or the Árpáds. More precisely might be the Dynasty of Árpádian Kings, though I don't know if this term is used in English terminology... - Serinde 19:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Lost information - not quite
Juro, I merged what you just "restored" into the paragraph above. Meanwhile, I did remove two things:
 * the expression "according to less reliable sources", because I found the formulation subjective and I don't know about the sources it is referring to, and
 * the "probably" note about the supremacy of Bohemia, which is IMO pretty clearly unfounded.

Feel free to restore the first in a NPOV form if you know about it. For the second, I'd like to have sources, though if you are pretty damn sure it is true, I can look for mine first... However, I certainly like my merged structure better than the previous one, full of parentheses, commas, and tons of references to who's whose son.

KissL 16:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. I did not notice that you merged the text, I will have to check it once more (the problem is that the difference page just shows a red sea even if you just moved the section) 2. I can assure you this article is based on the best sources available (in this case German, English, Slovak,and Czech as far as I remember). Specifically, what you are asking about is Slovak history, so you should leave it to me (my specialization) to judge whether it is reliable or not, because you do not have any Slovak scientific sources I suppose. "according to less reliable sources" means according to less reliable medieval chronicles (and do not ask me right now and here which ones - this is avery complicated topic) - I do not understand where the problem lies - why should I leave that out if this is a less probable, but acceptable alternative??? Secondly, for the Bohemian supremacy - you will find no Czech text claiming the opposite, around 50% Slovak texts are confirming this (while the other 50% are denying this - therefore it should be mentioned) and as far as I remember all Hungarian medieval chronicles are confirming this in one way or another (the only problem is that the years differ and that the only source are chronicles - but on the other hand that's the case of whole medieval Hungarian history). So especially in the second case - if you do not believe me you have to read (any) Czech texts, for example. Finally, I repeat: this is an article on the Arpads (who is who's son is its main purpose) and not a part of the History of Hungary article (it was added there by someone only later) - you cannot "simplify" articles to the extent that you leaver out information...Juro 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I removed "less reliable" because it is a weasel word. If what those sources say is possible, it is sufficient to say so; if it is not, it can be left out entirely. I did not remove the alternative itself in that case. Also, the best sources on a Hungarian dynasty should IMO include Hungarian sources at least as much as Czech, German, and English ones - the Árpáds being Hungarians, this is not entirely a matter of Slovak history, either.

I'm not convinced by the fact that all Czech (and a number of Slovak) sources claim that some Árpáds accepted a Bohemian supremacy, certainly not so as to accept "probably" - there is a way too high likelihood of forgery there; the case is similar to "you'll find no Hungarian source (well, to be exact: not many) claiming that the Hungarian kings did not rule over the entire Carpathian basin continually until the Turks came".

KissL 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see I have to be more precise. You cannot know everything, and this is not a general knowledge article. I am a kind of expert on this particular period. Point two, you cannot be not convinced by the fact that ALL Czech sources claim something regarding THEIR state with the corresponding proofs (the territory was proovably part of a Czech diocese, for example). You can be happy that it is me that you are talking to, because other people in Czechia and Slovakia consider the above issue a FACT (you will find it in all history atlases and textbooks for schools and universities) - I have only written "probably" because I have read some text years ago dealing with this question and expressing many doubts (any other expert would simply write "was occupied", without any comment). Finally, of course the territory of Western Slovakia is primarily History of Slovakia and not of Hungary, and Hungarian sources use to ignore large parts of the history of the Nitrian principality and other parts of Slovak history, so there is absolutely no reason to include Hungarian sources in this case, given that there is a sufficient amount of other sources for this (but as I already mentioned, I am sure most of Hungarian sources would - if they would bother to treat this (not very important) question - claim the same).

I have checked your edits - what I see is that you just removed the section...Juro

In the meantime, I added "Between 955 and 970, Nitra was ruled either by Zoltán, Árpád's son, or Taksony, son of Zoltán." to the previous paragraph. The rest of the removed paragraph consisted of (1) repeating where the Nitrian principality was (already in the paragraph above), and (2) what I stated above as removed. KissL 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Checking again however, I did mess up one thing - the rule in Transdanubia should exclusively be attributed to Taksony, not Taksony and Géza, until c. 970. KissL 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, I see. The whole text got very confused, I hope the last version is OK now. Juro 13:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It's OK. I reorganised the links a bit (moved them to paragraph beginnings where possible) and added diacritics. KissL 11:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Beleknegini & assasination of Michael
As far as I know Beleknegini refers to Géza's wife Sarolt. Sarolt means white lady and I think Beleknegini also means white lady or something similar.

Could you give me some source about the assasination of Michael? I was unable to find any.

Laszlo


 * Bele Knegini = White Princess --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Juro!

I saw that you changed my modification. I checked again and I am sure that the Beleknegini refers to Géza's wife Sarolt. (my source was Thietmar of Merseburg) Please give us some of your source to resolve this question.

Bye, Laszlo


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Árpád dynasty. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 09:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Move
Made a typo when moving. Shilkanni 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want it to be moved to "... dynasty", it should be to Árpád dynasty. Olessi 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Diacriticals should not be used in titles. Sorry, cannot accept such.

The proposal was actually from Arpad ddynasty to Arpad dynasty - I would regard this as now closed (until a new proposal is made). --Henrygb 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In their own time, "House" was not an established concept for these. Against anachronisms. Shilkanni 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What a bizarre interpretation of the discussion. There clearly was not consensus. --Henrygb 22:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Other names for Arpads
Dear Juro!

You labelled my addition as fascist, while they where simple medieval designations which sometimes appear in modern works.

Clan of the Holy Kings - frequently used name for Arpads in medieval times, while "Arpad dinasty" is a modern invention.

Clan Turul - The invention of Simon de Keza, although the dinasty never named himself in this way, its sometimes appears in modern works.

I would be very happy in you do not delete additional information without any comment or explanation and I am very disappointed that you labels as fascist everything when you disagree.

I reversed my additions.

By the way I am still waiting for sources about the assasination of Michael.

Bye Laszlo 81.183.150.196 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not the one fascist "ring the bell" user constantly vandalising here, then I am sorry, because normally he is responsible for such stupid edits here (Conversely, if you are him, I am NOT sorry). Besides, I do not know what sources for which Michael you mean and when I was talking to you. If you mean the Arpad ruler in Nitra, you can take literally any text dealing with Slovak history in detail. Juro 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear KissL!

I would be very happy if you explain me why a nonsense the mention of names used by medieval sources and modern references. Bye, Laszlo

Source it, Laszlo. I've only heard these terms in ridiculous contexts, but I'm willing to believe you if you come up with actual, specific, sources. KissL 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it is well known, but OK I will give exact sources. On the other hand you are right. The name Turul dinasty or clan often appears in nationalist crap, but not exclusively. Bye, Laszlo

About the "Clan of the Holy Kings": Well the name Árpád-dinasty did not existed in medieval times, but A name was needed for the dinasty. Clan of the holy kings was such a name and was frequently used. references:

- ''Fügedi, Erik: Uram, királyom... - A XV. századi Magyarország hatalmasai'' [My lord, my king... - powerplayers of the 15th century Hungary] published by Fekete Sas Kiadó in 2004.

- Zsoldos, Attila: Nemzettségek halála és születése Szent István korában [Death and birth of clans in the age of St. Stephen] in Szent István és az államallapítás edited by László Veszprémy published by Osiris Kiadó in 2002.

About "Clan Turul":As I said the dinasty had no real name. Simon of Keza created them a name in his chronicle. He used the old myth of the Turulbird, ratzionalised it and created the "clan Turul" (Arpad de genere Turul) This emphasized that the dinasty was originally a simple noble family. The Árpáds did not use this name, but it may appear in modern works. refrences:

- Zsoldos, Attila: Nemzettségek halála és születése Szent István korában [Death and birth of clans in the age of St. Stephen] in Szent István és az államallapítás edited by László Veszprémy published by Osiris Kiadó in 2002.

- Dümmerth, Dezső: Az Árpádok nyomában [On the footsteps of the Árpáds] published by Corvina Kiadó in 2003. bye, Laszlo

Zello's version is fine with me. KissL 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Zello added all information I want. It is Ok for me. Bye, Laszlo

Naming convention
It seems that this stupid question simple did not want to die.

I suggest the usage of current official names, even if it is anachronistic (like Bratislava). This encyclopedia is for international public and not Slovaks, Romanians or Hungarians. Somebody from China or Mexico etc. is unable to find Pozsony in a map, but he can find Bratislava. The historical names can be placed on brackets.

By the way this practice exists in Hungarian historiography if the work is published in a foreign language. (See: Pál Engel - The Realm of St. Stephen) 81.183.150.84 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought this encyclopedia is for English-speakers. Maybe the English names of those locations should be used.  I notice that Pozsony redirects to Bratislava so hopefully everyone takes initiative to click on the wikilink if they can't find it on a map.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

81.183.150.84, would you also support these?


 * "Istanbul was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire."
 * "New York State was inhabited by the Lenape Native Americans at the time of its discovery by Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano."

– Alensha    talk  16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * These are well known cities with an English name. Naturally when a city has an English name we should use that. (-> Prague not Praha etc.) The practicality is essential. 84.2.210.183 06:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way this is a much better conception than using latin names, based on this stupid "Latin official language" idea. :-( 81.183.150.74 07:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Grand Prince?
In 971, Géza (c. 971 – 997), the son of Taksony, became a "Grand Prince", moved his seat to Esztergom and began to form a unified Hungarian state (hence the title "grand") – a task completed only later by his son.

Are there any source about the changing of titles or this is a later interpretation of events? 81.183.150.74 06:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nyitra?
It is only one of ~50 counties of the time, also a border-county that was less important. So why is it mentioned 10 times in an article about a Hungarian dynasty ??

Btw, there's no such thing as "slovak nobles" in 997, and "western Slovakia (c. 955 – c. 970)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.124.41 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "'Monarchs' Sainthood'" :
 * "'Korai Magyar Történeti Lexikon'" :
 * "'Heraldry'" :
 * "'A magyarok és Európa'" :
 * "'Árpáds'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Heraldry'" :
 * "'A magyarok és Európa'" :
 * "'Árpáds'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'A magyarok és Európa'" :
 * "'Árpáds'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Árpáds'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Történeti Kronológia'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :
 * "'Origins'" :

Wrong statement
In the article, it says that Hungary annexed Croatia, what is wrong; Croatian tribes officialy signed the pact. There is also a statement which says that Hungary and Croatia formed a political union. They didn't, they formed a PERSONAL UNION. MR.CRO95 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Pacta Conventa should be mentioned, although it is most likely a late medieval forgery (Curta, Florin: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500-1250), p. 267.).
 * Several scholars think that the union of the two kingdoms exceeded the level of a pure personal union (similarly to the case of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Of course, based on reliable source, other views should also be cited. Borsoka (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles: King of Hungary, Dalmatia, ... and BULGARIA
What is the name of this King of Bulgaria from the Árpád dynasty?

Matrilinearity and Insular claims
Hello,

the matrilinear section is probably irrelevant, but for sure wrong. If as claimed Charls IV. was matrilinearly descendant of the Árpáds, then the line does *not* end in 1946, but is still alive. On the other hand, for dynastic reasons you usually do not count this.

The sentence "The Croÿ family of Belgium[1] [2] and the Drummond family of Scotland claim to descend from illegitimate sons of medieval Hungarian kings." also borders on irrelevance, as "medieval Hungarian kings" does not automatically mean Árpádians. They could be Přemysl or Angevins, Jagellonians or... any other dynasty.

I propose removing these sections. Szabi (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Croys claim that they have descended from Andrew III, and the Drummonds are said to be the descendants of Andrew I. Therefore, the reference to them should not be removed.Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)