Talk:Buda Chronicle

Some edits and some thoughts
New Page Reviewer here. I rewrote the lede because at the time the lede of the article was identical to the lede of the Chronica Hungarorum. Sources looks fine and I do believe that this article is indeed notable.

However, I checked on Britannica and it says Chronica Hungarorum, (Latin: “Chronicle of the Hungarians”) also called Budai Krónika (Hungarian: “Buda Chronicles”). I wonder if I made a mistake by calling the Buda Chronicle a book of the Chronica Hungarorum? If they are the same, then we got a bit of a problem, since Chronica Hungarorum is currently entirely dedicated to the Thuróczy Chronicle...

This is beyond my responsibility as a new page reviewer, so I am noting this here.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi TheLonelyPather,
 * I was thinking on this. I am really familiar in the Hungarian chronicles, there are many. Originally I rewrote the full Chronica Hungarorum, when it became more longer I decided to split the article. And the confusion is the title of "Chronica Hungarorum" is many different medieval books. In Hungary we have a separate name for them: Buda Chronicle and Thuróczy Chronicle (and can be more).
 * Mostly historians who refer to the "Chronica Hungarorum" means the Thurócy chronicle wich is also "Chronica Hungarorum" and it is more famous and more well known than the Buda Chronicle. You can see the Thuróczy chronicle has many images and many Wiki articles are using those images refering to the chronicle as "Chronica Hungarorum". So I decided to keep that name.
 * Buda 1473:
 * This a newest facsimile (copy which looks the original medieval one) edition of the book by the Hungarian national library, it called "Budai krónika" = Buda Chronicle: https://chronica.oszk.hu and the original title is Chronica Hungarorum, here is an original medieval version: https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/9946065153506421
 * Thuróczy 1488:
 * This is also the Hungarian national library, you can see the Thuróczy chronicle also called "Chronica Hungarorum" https://corvina.hu/en/corvina/virtual-corvinas/inc1143-en/
 * Hungarian Wikipedia use this format:
 * https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai_krónika
 * https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuróczy-krónika
 * @Norden1990 What do you think? Keep? Or Should rename Chronica Hungarorum article to Thuróczy chronicle? Or "Chronica Hungarorum - Thuróczy Chronicle" or "Thuróczy Chronicle (Chronica Hungarorum)"? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @OrionNimrod,
 * Thank you for your detailed explanation. It seems that "Chronica Hungarorum" indeed refers to different books. Here are some suggestions:
 * The article Chronica Hungarorum should be made to introduce different texts under the name "Chronica Hungarorum". That means most of its content will be moved to an article dedicated to the Thuróczy chronicle, outlined below;
 * There should be an article dedicated to the Thuróczy chronicle. It can be named "Chronica Hungarorum (Thuróczy)", according to Wikipedia naming conventions;
 * This article (Buda Chronicle) could keep its name, since "Buda Chronicle" is a name that really differentiates it from the other text.
 * Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi TheLonelyPather, I show you one example Louis I of Hungary you can see the image refer to "Chronica Hungarorum" (Thuróczy chronicle in this case). And there are hundred of posted images from this book in hundred of Wiki articles in the same way.
 * The name "Chronica Hungarorum" is Latin, so it needs italic text. But the name "Buda Chronicle" is an English name. Buda is the place of the origin, the Hungarian name means exactly the same as the English "A chronicle from Buda = Buda Chronicle", I think it does not need italic text. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @OrionNimrod,
 * Thanks for letting me know. You are right that we need to italicize Latin words, but I believe that "Buda Chronicle" is the name of a long work and so needs to be italicized (see MOS:NAT). Honestly, I am not 100% sure, as I have come across English sources that don't use italics for "Buda Chronicle". Feel free to change the italics in this article. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Buda Chronicle" is a historiographical modern name of this work, I don't think it's necessary to italicize the article title. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi TheLonelyPather,
 * Thanks to letting me know, I see other book titles are italic The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * TheLonelyPather, Norden1990
 * I think Norden has right, the original name is "Chronica Hungarorum" and the modern historiography name is "Buda Chronicle" to make difference between the chronicles. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Norden1990
 * Since the 15th century, the Chronica Hungarorum was first republished in 1838 by academician József Podhraczky as Chronicon Budense in Latin, since that time the historiographical name of the chronicle is "Buda Chronicle"
 * https://pestbuda.hu/cikk/20230623_budat_550_eve_erte_el_a_gutenberg_galaxis_az_orszag_elso_nyomtatott_konyve_matyas_uralkodasa_alatt_keszult
 * The Chronicon Budense from 1838, you can download by clicking on the right:
 * https://books.google.hu/books?id=XAEZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=hu&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false OrionNimrod (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Outside the printed copies, there were manuscripts too created in the 15–16th centuries. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi TheLonelyPather, do you know why the title of the article is italic? I do not see any option to change it. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @OrionNimrod:
 * I am not sure. When I first saw the page, the title was already in italic. I suggest that you ask it at the WP:Teahouse. Ask them how you can remove the italics from the title.
 * Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Moldavian campaign
Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus!

I know well the result of the battle is debated between Hungarian and Romanian historians. But I am writing about the chronicle, and the chronicle clearly says it was the victory of Matthias that is why I wrote "victorious campaign" when I listed the events what is in chronicle. Written after just 5 years of the battle in this chronicle:

  Then, gathering a huge army, he marched into the land of Moldavia, the province subject to the Holy Crown, which had revolted at that time. In a desperate battle, he won a famous and memorable victory. He brought a lot of flags from here to Buda, signs of his famous victory, and hung them with great solemnity in the parish church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, they can still be seen today."''

OrionNimrod (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello OrionNimrod. We can rewrite it to and the return of King Matthias from his Moldavian campaign in 1468, which ended in a victory for Hungary according to the chronicle. to include this detail. I am assuming that the cited source says this and that it is not directly taken from the chronicle, or it would be a violation of WP:PRIMARY I think. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, I agree with you, I know that rule and I know what you mean. I am not intend to rewrite modern academic views and rewrite Battle of Baia article based on this primarly source Buda chronicle. (However that battle article is not balanced, only Romanian point of view is provided, almost only Romanian sources provided, but we have many Hungarian modern sources regarding the subject, however this battle is not so important topic in Hungary among the other battles. When I have time later, I could add the modern Hungarian views regarding the battle.) I agree, we can keep a neutral language just "Moldavian campaign" if we talk about the fact about the existence of that campaign. Because the article is about the old book, and "according to the chronicle" is a fact also, it show us what is in the old book, which of course can be different than modern historian views. For example "according to the Bible the world was created during 7 days" but we all know that the modern academic view is different, but this is the story in that old book. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is okay if we include a quote from a book as long as we say it comes from that book, this is called attribution, it would be okay to add this information here if you wish to. I am aware of the situation at the Battle of Baia article but I don't know what do reliable sources say, still I would suggest that this article follow what that one says, consistency among articles is desired. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, I do not doubt Romanian historians say that is Romanian victory. Battle of Baia: I see mostly Iorga (not so modern), Pop, Spinei and Dlugosz which is medieval Polish source. There are vast amount of reference from this source: "Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495" which is Bonfini. Btw Bonfini clearly claim that battle was victory of Matthias with many details regarding this, so it is strange that Bonfini sourced many times in the article but only by selective manner. But of course Bonfini is primarly, so we could write "according to Bonfini". Do you want to see what Bonfini wrote? I can show you, it is a long text about the battle.
 * But I found Hungarian academic sources:
 * 2016 The result of the Moldavian campaign is a controversial issue between Hungarian and Romanian historians. There are two reasons for this: on the one hand, the controversial content of sources; on the other, the national interests. The aim of the present paper is to give a collection of sources and views, then to compare and to analyse them. The campaign in question was the last Hungarian attempt to re-establish suzerainty in Moldavia. The campaign was led by the king himself. Initially, the Hungarian army seized and destroyed Bacău, Roman and Târgu-Neamţ, and finally arrived in Baia. The Moldavians were encamped farther from Baia, between the Moldova River and Şomuz. Overnight the leader of the Moldavians, Stephen the Great, sent detachments to set the town on fire, and then the Moldavians attacked the Hungarian camp. But the Hungarian army repulsed and destroyed them in a bloody battle. However the Hungarians left the town after three days. The retreating Hungarian army, on its way to Transylvania, was stopped by a blockade, but they were able to break through it. In my opinion, the campaign was unsuccessful but not a defeat, since the Voivod Stephen could not defeat the Hungarian army; however, he did not come under Matthias’s influence.
 * Banlaky also do not write Moldavian victory, but he writes that Hungarians drove the enemy out of the city, then the Moldavians retreated to a suitable distance, casualties: 1200 Hungarians, 7000 Moldavians, he writes all parties demanded the victory, both sides boasted of having taken possession of several enemy flags, arriving in Buda, Matthias hung them in the Church of St. Mary. Because of the injuries, Matthias ordered his retreat immediately after the battle, but on the other hand, Moldavians did not dare to attack him anymore, and there is no source about the persecuting the Hungarians. And finally Stephen became the vassal of Matthias.
 * The book from 2019 says, the Moldavians got huge casualties, Hungarians retreated orderly because the king was wounded, and Moldavians did not chase the Hungarians. Both side claimed the victory, Matthias placed captured flag in Buda as a sign of his victory, while the propaganda of Stephen excessively magnified his victory.
 * This was published in 2021 : "Matthias won the battle, but lost the war if we consider that he did not achieve his war goal. He could not follow his father's example, he could not put a fief voivode on the throne, and he definitely came out of the campaign worse than Stephen voivode. If only because he was seriously injured. But all's well that ends well. After all, both rulers could have died there, but the power of both was consolidated in their country. They both more or less won" OrionNimrod (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Right now I will not engage in this complicated issue from another article. If you wish, we can leave things as they are in this article, or we can briefly mention the chronicle calls Baia a Hungarian victory as you initially asked, I have no problem. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, yes this is quite offtopic, you can see the quoted modern source admit this: The result of the Moldavian campaign is a controversial issue between Hungarian and Romanian historians.
 * I agree with your suggestions. (how can you make green text?) OrionNimrod (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks once more for your cooperation.
 * You make text green by putting it within the template. It's useful for quotes. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! OrionNimrod (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong names
The opening states:

"The Buda Chronicle (Hungarian: Budai krónika) is a 15th-century chronicle treating the early and medieval Hungarian history. While its original name is Chronica Hungarorum (Latin for "Chronicle of the Hungarians"; Hungarian: A magyarok krónikája), the chronicle is better known as the "Buda Chronicle" since the 19th century."

But that is a totally different MS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronica_Hungarorum 79.106.203.19 (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, both chronicles are called Chronica Hungarorum, as the article also refers to it. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)