Talk:Gesta Hungarorum/Archive 1

Untitled
There are now two article stubs which duplicate content: this and the 'Author of Gesta Hungarorum'. Shouldn't they be consolidated into a single article? Scott Moore 09:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this now be redirected to the article Sources of early Hungarian history? Scott Moore 14:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No, because it has the potential to develop into an full article. Bogdan | Talk 18:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence from Sources of early Hungarian history and put a link to that article Scott Moore 16:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Controversy

 * don't be riduculous Pannonian, the Gesta are one big fairy tale, and every serious scientist knows that

For Juro: I just translated these quotes from this book: O scurta istorie a romanilor, povestita celor tineri de Neagu Djuvara, Bucuresti, 2002 (A short history of Romanians by Neagu Djuvara, translated into Serbian and published in Novi Sad in 2004). He claim that the ONLY strong argument against the existence of 3 dukedoms is that Guesta Hungarorum mentions Cumans 150 years before they actually came to the region. Djuvara also claim that these mistakes are not unusual for the chronicles, and that author of Gesta probably confound Cumans with Pechenegs. So, what is the problem with his observations? User:PANONIAN

The problem is that, as I have already mentioned several times here, (1) you cannot just take one or two books written by who-knows who (he could be anybody) for such a hypercomplicated topic, (2) one has to look at the Gesta as a whole plus take into account the preserved and not preserved (reconstructed) sources it has used, archaeological finds, chronicles and reports of other countries etc. (as I have told Criztu, it is really not that simple to take the text part you are interested in and guess - can it be true? can it be wrong, and to say like the Romanians - just because they would like that the persons are reality - we say it is true), (3) one has to know all the other related Hungarian chronicles (all of them are completely contradicting each other), (4) the Gesta is full of such "errors", because it just does not describe the reality in 80% and extrapolates the authors present to the past with obvious propaganda purposes for the then ruling family, (5) "all the older chronicles are full of such errors" - that's the exactly the problem. How can that be taken as a argument in favor of any text?? (If someone constantly lies to you in reality, do you decide to believe him one day on one topic just because you say: I cannot prove that it is not true so it is true and because you say that other people lie to you too?- of course you don't... so why should this be different for a chronicle??). And of course - the parts of other chronicles that contain errors are also ignored in history, so what is the point? (6) you just must believe me, I am a third party in this topic, have no reason to advocate either side, but if you take any scientific analysis of the chronicle you see that it contains mostly non-sense (for that time period), and it's not surprising, because such legends were compiled throughout Europe at that time (King Artus, Nibelungenlied etc.) Juro 01:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Developing a quite large paranthesis about GH in the talk pages of "History of Transylvania" article I thought it's may be wise to reply here as probably many of the opinions held about GH may be fed with the arguments and claims made here.
 * In short: Hungarians chronicles do not completely contradict each other (see St. Brezeanu and my brief in the aforementioned talk page), most if not all medieval chronicles have errors, the liar analogy is misleading: there're informations GH offers which we know they are true from other sources (relating Transylvania and anthroponyms - see the Ahtum-Ohtum link with Vita Sancti Gerardi), a fair analogy would be with Gothic or Frankish histories wrapped around an ethnogenetic myth - Jordanes, Isidore of Seville, Fredegarius not with any legend (this is minimalization, hence bias, even if you claim you're a third party to be trusted), and last but not at least, some Czech and Slovak historians have ideologic problems with some claims relating the early Hungarian history (and possibly the trustworthiness of GH, I can't be very certain on this particular point as I haven't read enough) - see the claims of Imre Boba, locating the Great Moravia of Sviatopluk south of Danube. Daizus 13:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not discussing with persons citing Imre Boba etc. as a reliable source and exhibiting primitive nationalist behaviour. Your changes to this and other article are completely wrong, no normal historian considers the Gesta reliable, and yes the chronicles DO definitely COMPLETELY contradict each other. The fact that you do not know that or try to lie even in such elementary points is another reason not to enter in any discussions with persons of your type here. We have had similar Hungarian, Slovak etc. here, and you should just leave the wikipedia altogether, that's all I have to say to you, dear peasant. Juro 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling someone "dear peasant" is "exhibiting primitive nationalist behaviour" and against wikipedia's policies (check the no personal attacks section). Dividing historians into "normal and abnormal" is also "exhibiting primitive nationalist behaviour" but also a flawed approach. Moreover, your violent reaction to Imre Boba (whose theories are supported or partially supported by other historians - see Charles R. Bowlus or Toru Senga) proves that Slovak nationalism exists and you're not outside bias, though you waved a flag here for being otherwise.
 * There are historians considering GH relatively reliable (don't build straw men!) - and they were listed in the talk pages considering GH. From a significant and maybe even massive credibility given by G. Moravcsik or A. Madgearu to a moderate opinion like that of L. Musset or St. Brezeanu or to opinions giving little credibility like Gy. Gyorffy. I really question the percent of those totally rejecting GH and considering it as an absolute fiction (see your parallels with Nibelungenlied and Arthurian Cycle). I'm talking about argumented and educated opinions, of course.
 * And last but not at least, a discussion and the "journey" to a NPOV cannot be built by repetitive, stubborn, emphasized claims (talking again of "exhibiting primitive nationalist behaviour") but on arguments and evaluations, which so far you seem to refuse. About your "complete contradiction" you may want to explain why two of three chronicles (GH, GHH, DEO from 1308) mention Hungarians defeating Vlachs upon their arrival, while the third one nor contradicts nor gives incompatible evidence, yet shows Vlachs in two episodes which interpolated indicate their presence at the arrival of Hungarians; why all three chronicles mention Vlachs as shepherds/coloni of the Romans (a single source/tradition?); why none of these chronicles argues for a migration of Vlachs over Hungarians etc.. The relations will get increasingly complex if we regard their informations about Sclavi, Bulgari and other agents, if you have any arguments at hand we might reach to talk about these other claims. Daizus 10:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 questions here:
 * (1) Is the entire Gesta Hungarorum a true story?
 * (2) Is the mention of 3 dukedoms a true story?

The answer to the first question is already given in the article: The "Gesta Hungarorum" contains correct facts, inaccurate facts, and information that cannot be confirmed from other sources. So, your statement that the ENTIRE Gesta is wrong is simply not correct. You can also see that quote here:

The answer to the second question is that mention of 3 dukedoms cannot be confirmed from other sources, but the story about them is not necessary proved either correct either wrong. So, why not post both kinds of arguments in the article: arguments against and arguments for?

Other things:


 * as I have told Criztu, it is really not that simple to take the text part you are interested in and guess - can it be true? can it be wrong, and to say like the Romanians - just because they would like that the persons are reality - we say it is true

But, just because Hungarians would like that the persons are not a reality, we should say that it is not true, right? The story has two sides here. If we talk about entire Gesta, than we cannot say that ENTIRE chronicle is wrong, but only parts of it. So, if the entire Gesta is not wrong, then one small part of it about which we talk could be correct, right? There are arguments, which support the existence of 3 dukedoms, for example, the chronicle of the Nestor from Kiev also claim that Hungarians founded Vlachs when they crossed northern Carpatians. So, the existence of 3 Vlacho-Slavic dukedoms in this region does not contradict with other sources.

And of course - the parts of other chronicles that contain errors are also ignored in history, so what is the point?

Well, that is exactly the point. We talk about one part of Gesta Hungarorum, and we know that it had one error – the Cumanians. So, I did wrote that in the article, but I also wrote the alternate opinion that Cumanians could be actually a Pechenegs, which means that the mention of Cumanians is not necessary error. I do not see why we should not to include this opinion in the article. One more thing, there is good possibility that these 3 rulers did existed, while only parts of the story about them are wrong. For example, the story about these 3 rulers is full of details. So, some details in the story could be wrong, but the general existence of the rulers is another question. One proved error in the story is not a proof that entire story is wrong, but only this specific part of it.

is controversial and denied by virtually all Hungarian and Slovak and most other historians

Do we talk here about Gesta in general or only about 3 rulers? I do not think that Slovak historians are much interested to write about rulers of Transylvania. Tell me, then, does Slovak historians talk about these rulers, or they actually talk about Zobor? So, let just talk about 3 rulers in this part of the text, not about entire Gesta. Also, the book written by Neagu Djuvara is not the only book I read, which claims opposite thing than you. For example, here I will name 2 other books, which treat duke Glad as a historical person:
 * Radmilo Petrović, Vojvodina, Beograd, 2003.
 * Jovan M. Pejin, Iz prošlosti Kikinde, Kikinda, 2000.

Seems to me that existence of these dukes is a matter of opinion among historians. Also, it is interesting that two of three names of mentioned rulers (Glad and Gelou) are more or less confirmed personal names, so the author of the Gesta could not just to imagine these names, because these 2 names did existed as such. User:PANONIAN

The first sentence you cite above is either from you or it is a result of a compromise (I would not write it that way) - and you cannot use sentences from the wikipedia as an argument...But in general: look, I wanted to explain to you what the reality is, I am not interested in Zobor or in anything in the Gesta. If you prefer to believe popular literature, do what you want. All books treating anything from the first parts of the Chronicle as historical facts are no science (whatever the author says). I have explained clearly above, which elementary things have to be taken into account when analysing a selected part of a chronicle. It is a matter of basic logics that the question of the reliability of the whole Gesta cannot be separated from the question of reliability of one part of it. Even if there were no other arguments (such as that the whole Gesta are are just a fairy tale), there are no other sources for the particular persons etc. in question in the context in question (because they have been invented in reality like most of the other persons in the chronicle), so already for this reason it is not scientific to consider them to be true, in the first place. And you did not answer my question whether you would a-priori believe a person of which you know that it has constantly lied to you, but one day you just decide to believe what she says (and your argument is that other persons lie to you too and that you have no other source, so you assume that it is true) - because that is the point you are constantly making...Juro 03:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S: I have forgotten...There is absolutely NO Slovak historian considering the Gesta a reliable source and that is considered an undisputed fact. The only general point (besides some particular issues) that is considered true by some is the location of the counties (but even that without any special arguments)Juro 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence is from here:

Here you can see some quotes from this web site:
 * There are no written documents from around the time of the Hungarian conquest concerning the area of modern Transylvania apart from the the "Gesta Hungarorum". It is thought that this was written by Peter, a high priest in Buda, during the time of King Bela III in the late 12th century. 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.
 * 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!
 * Some Hungarians propose that the names Morout and Menumorout were invented from from earlier chronicles regarding Morot, the leader the Hungarians met in Pannonia, other suggest these names could have come from the Hungarian name for Moravians whom they defeated in 906.
 * Much of the Balkans was under Bulgarian rule but had fallen to Byzantium before the Magyar tribes entered. Any Dukes met by the Hungarians were likely to be "Bulgarian", and the population might be expected to be a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, as found in other Bulgarians territories.
 * It is known that the Bulgarians fought the newly arrived Hungarians, and Bulgarian armies may have included Vlachs. Several centuries later Bulgaria was to create a second empire of Slavs and Vlachs south of the Danube. Ahtum is a known historical Prince who lived in the region of Banat and was subdued by King Stephen at the start of the 11th century.
 * Hungarians ruled the lands of Transylvania by maintaining a typically Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers suggesting that the pre-Hungarian organisation was maintained.

The other interesting web page about this subject could be found here:

Here are the quotes:
 * The purpose of this book is to analyse the passages about Romanians contained in Gesta Hungarorum (GH), by comparison with other written sources and with the archaeological discoveries. The Romanian historians often used the Anonymous Hungarian Gesta, but there are very few studies focused on the trustworthiness of this source.
 * Recent archaeological investigations brought new lights about the first period of Romanian-Hungarian contacts in Transylvania. In the mean time, several historians published in the last two decades some papers concerning the instances about Romanians in GH. We consider that a monographic study on this problem is now possible and necessary.
 * Being a medieval gesta, the purpose of the source was not the recording of the past, but the legitimation of the present by means of history. GH has a propagandistic character. Its prototype was another Gesta Ungarorum, written in the late 11th century. The Anonymous Notary (also known as Anonymus) used several traditions and oral genealogies, but he tried to write a truthful story. His critical spirit is remarkable. It is also true that his work contains several anachronisms and confusions.
 * Despite such confusions, GH remains a valuable source. The Byzantine and Frankish sources confirm the remembrance of the Bulgarian domination in the lower basin of the Tisa. GH mentions in this area a certain duke Salan of Bulgarian origin. His name is not real, but his alliance with the Greeks could be. The 10th century chronicler Liudprand wrote about a Hungarian victory over Bulgarians and Byzantines in the early 10th century.
 * Other data given by the Anonymous Notary are confirmed by the archaeological researches: the presence of a group of Khazars (Kavars) in the region of the Criş rivers, before the Hungarian conquest; the coming in Hungary of some people from Bulgaria Magna (on Volga) is proved by some specific clay buckets (Tonkesseln) found in the Serbian Banat.
 * The rest of our book discusses the chapters 9 and 24-27. The third passage concerns the campaign through Banat towards Bulgaria (934). The existence of the local ruler Glad is proved by the survival of his name in the toponymy. In this passage the Blaci are mentioned among the allies of Glad. There is no reason to deny this information. The Cumans involved too in this alliance might be the Kavars.
 * The GH version is not a forgery because the author had no reason to do it. His purpose was to argue the mastership of the Arpadian dynasty by the assertion that Arpad gave to Tuhutum the mission of conquering Transylvania. Gelou is recognized as a dominus of this land (he had dominium). Tuhutum took his right after the victory. The relation about Transylvania was inserted in GH because there was a need to legitimate its subjection to the Hungarian crown. (Transylvania was not a part of the Hungarian kingdom, but a separate state). The propagandistic purpose of GH had no reason to invent the presence of the Romanians (Blaci), because the medieval Hungarian mastership in Transylvania was founded on the conquest and not on historical arguments, as in the Modern age.
 * Several historians considered that Gelou was not a real person and that his name was created from the placename Gilău. In fact, it was shown that Gilău derives from Gelou.
 * S. Brezeanu recently sustained an autochthonous origin of the name Gelou. The conclusion is that the placename Gilău preserves the memory of Gelou who, according to GH, was killed just there.
 * Therefore, the relation recorded in ch. 24-27 mixes truth and fiction. The existence of the Romanian population is out of doubt because it had no value for the propaganda.
 * A critical study of GH shows that this source contains several true facts, mixed with confusions and anachronistic records. Some events are confirmed by archaeology. The Anonymous Notary wrote a very valuable source for the history of the early medieval Transylvania. Some of our historical interpretations are different from the general accepted points of view: the date of the first Hungarian invasions in Transylvania, the name of the conqueror, the chronology of the fortresses. There are still many questions to be resolved in this field of research.

etc, etc...

To conclude: these quotes do not claim that ENTIRE Guesta is some kind of fiction, but a mixture of true facts with confusions and anachronistic records. So, the claim that all personal names from Gesta are invented is not valid. I will give you only one example, the Gesta mentions a duke Ahtum, ruler of Banat, whose existence was confirmed by other sources. The point is - Guesta did not invented him. As for your question, would I believe to the person who constantly lie to me. The real question is: did the author of the Guesta lie or not? The quotes I posted above are, I believe, right way to find the answer to that question. User:PANONIAN

You do not have to prove to me that there are (Romanian) persons claiming the opposite. I just remark that I could cite a lot of other much more complicated texts (studies, monographies etc.) claiming the exact opposite, in which you would see the complexity of the issue. But, I am really sorry, I see no reason to invest my time in this particular topic, despite the fact that your involvement above would require an adequate response with examples. I am sure all of the statements can be easily refuted after some research and by the way, some of the statements above are absolutely ridiculous even without further research if they are supposed to be arguments - like the point above "The existence of the Romanian population is out of doubt because it had no value for the propaganda" - and what about errors and extrapolating the later situation to the past (which he has done repeatedly), for example? And as for Gelu - unless a document was found stating the opposite, it is impossible to make the liguistic "conclusion that the placename Gilău preserves the memory of Gelou (as the person in question)" - that's a non-sense from any point of view and it only shows how big the motivation of some people is to somehow "prove" things that are unprovable. The Zobor mountain you have mentioned above is a good example: You know, we have the advantage in Slovakia - as compared to Romania and other eastern countries - that we have several sources (Czech, Polish, German, Hungarian) for some historical events and you would wonder how it always turns out that all of them contradict each other for the Middle Ages (the German ones are by far the best one, by the way). If there was only the GH, the situation would be exactly like with Gelou and everybody would conclude (for lack of other sources) that the Gesta are right (because - using the above pseudoargument - "he had no reason to lie"), but the truth is that the person and the whole story is completely invented, just like all the other persons who all "happen" to have the same names like geographical objects etc. etc. And I could go on this way with Menomorut and the other points above etc.(and that's only at the "general logics level", the there is the "linguistics, comparision of various chronicles etc. level"). Finally, you have to distinguish between the parts referring to much more recent events (which are correct) from those referring to the time of Gelou et al. I can only repeat - of course it is possible that Gelou (etc.) existed, but it is illogical and not scientific to believe that given the rest of the document. Juro 02:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC) 02:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One thing bothers me extremely in your paragraph. For Romanian history we also have Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Serbian, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Ottoman, Italian written sources for various events from our history. On the other hand you don't have Czech, Polish, Hungarian written sources for some parts of your early history, if you'd care for a fair analogy. Daizus 13:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many studies covering the claims of GH. I'm no specialist in this topic, but I can help you with some references or arguments if necessary. Daizus 13:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

 * THE ROMANIANS IN THE WORK OF ANONYMOUS NOTARY

Can anyone restore or replace it? Thanks Andrew Dalby 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary link?
As far as I know only the Gesta Hungarorum deals with the alleged Vlach rulers of Transylvania, so I don't know whether we really need a link to the article Origin of Romanians. Is there any other written source about that? I think the Origin of Romanians article should be inserted in a separate "See also" section at the bottom of the page. As the reader won't find more information on these rulers in it there is no reason to refer to it in the text. Squash Racket (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Karantans"
The article mentions "Moravians, Slovenes, Karantans, Franks, and Bavarians". I know what all the others are, but I have never heard of "Karantans", and Google found me nothing useful. I guess it means "Carinthians" - Carinthia was invaded by the Magyars in 901. I will alter it to this unless someone has a better idea. Maproom (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also spotted that one and didn't know what to do with it. Feel free to change it if nobody objects, but adding a reliable reference would be great. Squash Racket (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect what is mean is the Carantanian Slavs, which are Slovenes. Check Carantania --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference removed
In case anyone wonders, I've removed the reference to a book by Andrew L Simon as he published it himself, see and our policy at WP:SPS. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

spelling of Anonymus/Anonymous
Is there a reason that the author is referred to sometimes as Anonymus, and sometimes as Anonymous? If yes, what's the reason; if not then I'm going to change them all to the correct English spelling Anonymous. Emika22 (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason is that he described himself, in Latin, as "Anonymus Bele Regis Notarius"; and some people translate this into English as "anonymous". Is it right to anglicise a Latin name, e.g. "Pompeius" to "Pompey"? I have no idea. Anyway, that's the reason. Maproom (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I would have guessed too, so thanks for confirming my opinion! I agree that I don't know about anglicizing names, but in this case "Anonymus Bele Regis Notarius" wasn't a given name anyway, it was more of a title. So I'm going to change it all to "Anonymous". Emika22 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre Du Nay
See.

"Dacians, Romans, Romanians by Gàbor Vékony - 2000 - 252 pages The author used a pen-name, Andre Du Nay, the work (The Early History of the Rumanian Language, 1977) has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information. lts style and structure suggest ...

Lumea1983

... of course, the study is elaborated at the level of the documents existing at the end of the past century. Last but not least, a linguist who hides under the pseudonym of Andre Du Nay discusses tendentiously an..

There are others, pro and con, but it's shaky to use the contested work of an anonymous author written over 30 years ago to back the statement (which is copyvio at the moment as it's actually a quote from him) "Certain descriptions have been verified by records from other sources: the existence of the successor of Glad, prince Ahtum, by the Legend of Saint Gerard, the events in Transylvania in the first years of the 10th century, by chroniclers from the 13th and 14th centuries, the occupation of the fortress of Biharea, the events concerning Gelu etc., by the latest archaeological excavations"   He gives no sources for this, just an assertion, whatever excavations he is talking about - are they really the latest? If he's right, we should be able to find real sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed
Hypotheses as to the identity of the author:


 * The chancellor to King Béla II of Hungary (1131–41)—a certain Petrus who in 1124 was chancellor to the previous King Stephen II.
 * Péter Pósa, Bishop of Bosnia.

There are needed sources for these theories Panoniann (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No 'Vlachs' but 'blaks'
Quotation from the article: "and the Vlachs which, according to these authors, suggest that his choices reflect the ethnic and political realities of the 12th century." Actually, in the original text you cannot find 'vlachs' at all. Anonymus mentions 'blaks' starting with the letter 'b', everytime he mentions them (blaks are oguz-turks remaining in the region after the Avars and Onogurs). This 'b' is very important, because the whole early Romanian history (dako-roman theory) is built on Gesta Hungarorum and most specifically on this single letter. :) Unfortunatelly it's not a joke... Strange that, most scholar find Gesta Hungarorum an unreliable source, but this didn't scare off Romanian scholars, and they built the complete early history of "Romanians" on this. Truth is, at that time there was no Romania at all, and even if Vlachs were present as small ethnic communities in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin, and even if Anonymus really talked about vlachs and not blaks (oguz-turks), there is no other archeological or textual evidence that shows that their presence would have been continous there - actually the Gesta's information is also not enough to confirm that. The massive Vlach migration into the region started at the XIV-XV, Vlach settlers came to Hungary in hope of a better life. Until the national movements of the late XIX. century, Vlachs didn't have any common knowledge or conception of a united Romanian or even Vlach nation, Romania was established only in 1863. You could say it's interesting, but it's not: most of Romanian youngsters are raised up on books that contains the theory as a fact: Romanians are equal to ancient Dacians. Scholars from around the world say, Anonymus is an undistrustful source - even Hungarian scholars doesn't really trust it, but Romania needed evidence (which they couldn't find in trustful sources) of their continous presence in the CB - so they made one for themselves based on this single letter "v". Why they needed it? Simple. To theorize why Transylvania is their original homeland. And the world just doesn't say anything but accepts it. Strange, stupid world - and a good lesson to everyone working with letters and writing, how important a single letter can be.81.183.245.214 (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr Janossy, Blach means Vlach. The Second Bulgarian Empire (Bulgarian-Vlach Empire) was referred as Regnum Blachorum et Bulgarorum 86.127.9.74 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)