Talk:Glad (duke)/Archive 1

name Glad of slavic origin

 * "Name Glad is possible of Slavic origin, thought meaning of the name is not clear." - i could say "Name Glad is possible of Latin or Celtic origin, see Gladiator and Galahad, Galata". if you don't have something to substantiate the slavic "possibility", better leave it unaddressed -- Criztu 11:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The peoples of Glad
In fact GH never named the people of Glad. Anonymus only said that his army was supported by Cumans, Bulgars and Vlachs.

"dux illius patrie cum magno exercitiu equitum et peditum, adiutorio cumanorum et bulgarorum atque blacorum."

And a gesta is not a chronicle. A gesta is a peace of literature, a medieval historical novel.81.183.151.131 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i am not sure, i know "gesta" means "an account". i checked other Gestas wikiarticles, and they are presented as chronicles, works, collection of annecdotes. Gesta Francorum says latin chronicle, Gesta Danorum says work of history, Gesta Romanorum says collection of annecdotes. Gesta Treverorum says collection of histories. Gesta Hungarorum says work of early history. while a Chronicle is "a historical account of facts and events". i donno, i just find it not aesthetical to have "Gesta Hungarorum is a gesta that ..." but if "Gesta Hungarorum is a chronicle that ..." woud be an incorect thing, i donno Criztu 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia article about Glad, not about Gesta Hungarorum. Thus, for this article is relevant everything we can know about Glad from all sources, not only from Gesta. The fact that area ruled by Glad was mainly populated by Slavs and Vlachs in this time is well known in history, no matter if that is mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum or not. Here are sources where that is mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glad_(duke)#Literature PANONIAN   (talk)  13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The only source mentioning Glad is GH. References all based on GH. So if we speak about Glad and his subjects, then we must use Anonymus. And Anonymus says nothing. In fact he speaks about auxilliary troops which suggest that these people were not lived in this region. (Though this is only my interpretation, it is not relevant.)81.183.151.131 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What you saying here? That we should use only one source for the article? But that is completelly ridiculous. Glad is maybe mentioned by name only in Gesta, but other sources certainly speak more about time period when Glad ruled, thus we must use these sources too to have decent article. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And other sources say that more than a half of the place names in Banat from that time were Slavic by origin, thus it is clear who lived there. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Naturally, if there is only one. If you know any other source that mentions slavs and vlach as inhabitants of the region in the end of the 9th please share with me.! 81.183.151.131 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs_of_Vojvodina#Literature Of course, most of these sources mention only Slavs as inhabitants of the region, but there were also a pockets of Vlachs and others of course. PANONIAN   (talk)  14:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I am not a historian and this is not a place to settle disputes of historiography. (Though you did not give any primary sources.) I suggest that we should insert a remark that GH itslef did not give any information about this. Otherwise the text is misleading.


 * Glad had authority over the Slavs and Vlachs, which consisted most of the population of mentioned regions at the time, though Anonymus did not mention the ethnicity of the population. 84.2.156.252 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Same discussion again... If one want to write article about something then he should use all sources that provide any relevant information about the subject. If this article is only about text of the Gesta, then by all means that text should be mentioned there in its original form. However, this article is not about text of the Gesta, but about duke Glad, thus text of the Gesta is only one of the sources that speak about subject. I do not see that article claim that sentence "Glad had authority over the Slavs and Vlachs" is from the Gesta. So, what is a problem? PANONIAN   (talk)  02:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A dubious map
The map added to the article under the title "Migration routes of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Pechenegians, Cumanians and the great Tartar invasion on Romania's territory" is totally misleading, because:

1. The map’s title refers to “Romania’s territory”, but the Tisa never was a border river of Romania, and the territory between the Prut and the Dniester rivers is now an independent republic.

2. The map describes a situation which never existed at the same time: e.g., between c. 610 and c. 1002, and after 1187 the Danube was the northern frontier of the Bulgarian Empire and not the Byzantine Empire, while the supposed "voivodates" (if ever) existed in the 9th century or in the 13th century.

See, for example, John V. A. Fine, Jr.: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelth Century (ISBN 978-0-472-08149-3) pp. 33-37., 187-188., 197-199.

3. The “Voivodeship of Gelou” and the “Voivodeship of Menumorut” (if ever existed) had been occupied by the Hungarians by 910s even according to the only source which refers to their existence (Gesta Ungarorum); therefore, the reference in the map to the 9th-11th centuries is misleading.

4. Although in the 13th century the Gesta Ungarorum refers to the three voivodates of Gelou, Menumorut and Glad (and only the Gesta Ungarorum refers to them), earlier sources refer to other polities in the territory, for example:


 * The Bavarian Geographer in the 9th century listed the Bulgars and some Slavic tribes (e.g., Meheranos) living in the territory presented by the map.


 * Around 950, Constantinos Porphyrogennetos wrote that the territory on the rivers Tisa, Cris, Mures and Timis had been part of Great Moravia before the Hungarian conquest (around 896), but he also mentioned that at his time the same territory was part of “Turkia” (=Hungary). Moreover, he added that 4 Pecheneg tribes lived around 950 on the territories between the rivers Danube and Dnieper east of the Carpathian Mountains, and the Pecheneg’s territories bordered “Turkia” (=Hungary). Similar descriptions can be found in contemporary or nearly contemporary Muslim writers’ works.

See, for example, Kristó Gyula: Kristó: Early Transylvania, 895-1324 (ISBN 963-9465-12-7) pp. 63-65.

5. The Bolohoveni never lived in the territory where the map locates them.

See, for example, Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5) pp. 93-97., 161-162. 6. The “Principality of Transylvania” was formed around 1570 as a consequence of the Peace of Speyer.

Consequently, I think that the map should be radically changed or deleted. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The map "Voivodship (Duchy) of Glad"
The map under the title "Voivodship (Duchy) of Glad" is dubious because it does not represent the situation the author of the Gesta Hungarorum presents in his work. Glad, Gelou, Salan and Menumorut are exclusivelly mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum, other primary sources make no mention of them, and in the Gesta Hungarorum Salan's country occupies the whole territory between the Danube and the Tisza rivers. Therefore the map should be properly modified or some explanation should be provided in order to explain its peculiarity. Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the map is not based on the Gesta Hungarorum, because the map presents Great Moravia to the north of Salan's country, while the Gesta Hungarorum describes the whole territory between the rivers Danube and Tisa as beign ruled by Salan. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I used these two sources for my map:  - same map of Duchy of Salan is also published in few history books that I have, but these two are only sources that are defining borders of these duchies. I am aware that this source, for example, show that Salan ruled much larger area, but that source does not provide exact borders of his duchy, so I cannot base my map on that. This map that show borders of the Duchy of Salan and Great Moravia is also published in the book "Vojvodina - petnaest milenijuma kulturne istorije" written by professor-doctor Radmilo Petrović and that is an reliable source for usage in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 17:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Vrscia - Orşova or Vršac?
Who exactly translated name "Vrscia" from the text of Gesta as "Orşova"? Name is more similar to Vršac, so it would be more likely that this city is mentioned here. PANONIAN 15:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not refrain from adding a reliable source to the above suggested original identification. Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say that interpretations of names used by Anonymous were made by some scholars who obviously had certain prejudices about origin and character of these names. They simply did not tried to investigate possible Slavic (or more exactly Serbo-Croatian) origin and character of these names, no matter that some of those are still preserved in modern Serbian: Mors (Serbian: Moriš) Vrscia (Serbian: Vršac), Beguey (Serbian: Begej), Ponoucea (Serbian: Pančevo). Sure, these interpretations of names Vrscia and Ponoucea might not be accepted by everybody, but the fact that town of Orşova is mentioned as Ursoua in the following text also deny the validity of interpretation by which Vrscia is another name for Orşova. Why Anonymous would use two different names (Ursoua and Vrscia) for same town? (Especially in the case when there is another town in Banat - Vršac, whose name certainly looks more similar to Vrscia). Anyway, here is an source that identifies name Vrscia with Vršac: http://www.brukenthalmuseum.ro/pdf/Biblioteca_Brukenthal/XXVIII/BB%20XXVIII.pdf Is that reliable enough? PANONIAN  17:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Borsoka
I have no idea why you reverted my edit. Google translate say that description from the source (glad bolgar foldje) means "Glad Bulgarian soil" in English: |en|glad%20bolgar%20foldje I have also few published sources that stating that Glad was Bulgarian and I will quote them when I come home. Do you have any source that claim that Glad was something else instead Bulgarian? PANONIAN 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the 100-year-old map, "Glad bolgár földje" means "Glad's Bulgarian land" - therefore it does not refer to the nationality of Glad. Illyés does not say that Glad was Bulgarian, but refers to his (alleged) Bulgarian origin. For example, Queen Victoria of Great Britain was of German origin, could we refer to her as a "German queen"? Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly Queen Victoria is related to this? Glad was not someone who went from one country to another, but ruled an duchy that still was part of Bulgarian Empire. Or you suggest that it was part of some other country? PANONIAN  17:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the text of the article again (there is always a proper reference and the referred scholarly works can also be chequed). Is there a reliable source stating that he was Bulgarian? Borsoka (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Which part of the article? There was no any part of the article that said anything about his nationality, ethnicity, ethnic origin or character of his duchy. He was described simply as "duke". I can quote later several Serbian and Romanian historians that describing Glad as "Bulgarian", "Slavic" or "Bulgarian-Slavic" ruler (but I am not in my home now and all my books are there). I asked you do you have any source that claim that he was anything else but that? If you have no any source that deny his Bulgarian-Slavic origin or Bulgarian-Slavic nature of his duchy, what is a basis of your attempt to dispute this data? PANONIAN  17:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not refrain from adding any reference to any of the works of those several Serbian and Romanian historians. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
Fakirbakir, we would need exact quotation from your sources (original quotation in Hungarian if possible + English translation), i.e. clarification is needed about the question whether mentioned sources are using term "fictional" or some other term. PANONIAN 12:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Kezdhetjük azzal, hogy a Magiszter minden idegen vezére – most más személyeiről ne is essék szó – kitalált figura, harcaik, vereségeik meg nem történt események. Mindegyikük nevét is persze Anonymus alkotta meg nyelvészeti-névtani alapon teljesen világosan kimutathatóan helynévi formákból. Mért lógna ki e sorból éppen Glád személye és neve? Nemcsak ily nevű főemberről, de egyáltalán ily nevű személyről sem tudunk sem a magyarban, sem a környező népeknél, ami természetesen nemcsak a X. századi, emlékekben még igen szegény időkre vonatkozik, hanem ami ennél sokatmondóbb, nincs ily személynek és névnek további hagyománya sem."


 * From :Benkő, Bóna, Jakó, Tonk, Vekov, ERDÉLY A KERESZTÉNY MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁGBAN, 2001, ISBN 973-8231-05-1
 * Translation: We may begin with the fact, the Magister's foreign leaders - and now other persons not mentioned- are fictional characters, their struggles and defeats are fictional events. Anonymous created the names on linguistic basis and it clearly shows that those are completely originated from toponymic forms. Why would not Glad's personality and identity belong to this row? The Hungarian or the surrounding nations did not know this person (named Glad)....... and this person and name have no other traditions..."Fakirbakir (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we clarified that, but there is no need for such opinions to be presented in very first paragraph of the article - we have "Controversy around his story" section for that. Also it is POV to say "According to others" - names of the authors have to be specified in the text. Otherwise, article would create a false impression that there is a general consensus among "others" (who ever they are) about this issue. Also, here is what Romanian historian Neagu Djuvara says about this: "Hungarian historians are working hard today to dispute any validity of the Guesta". This author also provide an interesting analysis of the arguments for and against. So, there are obviously political reasons behind aims to dispute validity of the Guesta, and therefore, we have no reason to include such politically motivated opinions in the first paragraph of the article. PANONIAN  13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Hungarians are not descendants of Huns as Anonymus stated..........Or should we cite him (as written source) at page of Hungarian people?Fakirbakir (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the point? Work of Anonymus contains both, wrong and accurate data. I will quote Djuvara again - he wrote that such mistakes and anachronisms could be often found in other chronicles. So, you cannot proclaim entire chronicle for wrong only because some data from it is proven wrong (while other data is obviously proven correct). Regarding Glad itself, existence of Glad was not proven wrong, so there is no real evidence that he was invented person. It is a question of dispute whether his name came from name of the settlement (Galad, in Banat) or settlement was named after him. Interestingly, it is not the only settlement that could be named after him. Modern town of Kladovo in eastern Serbia (on the border of the area ruled by Glad) was formerly known as Gladovo (see: http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/muzej.beograd/d/srp/sad/geo7.htm ), which in Serbian means nothing else but the "place of Glad" or "place that belongs to Glad". So far, there are more indirect evidences that Glad really existed than indirect evidences that he did not. PANONIAN  13:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the point? The point is that there were real states as Great Moravia, East Francia-Balaton Principality, First Bulgarian Empire etc and real enemies as Franks, Bavarians, Moravians, Carantanians, Slovenes etc real persons as Svatopluk II, Arnulf of Carinthia, Braslav, Tsar Simeon, Louis the Child,  etc. but Anonymus mostly forgot to mention them (only people of Bulgars were mentioned)......Fakirbakir (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is only a question of interpretation. For example, if Glad was a vassal of the Tsar Simeon, then his existence is certainly not a contradiction to the existence of the First Bulgarian Empire. Also, I do not see that even modern historians would mention just "everything" from the period about which they write - they make a selection and they mention what they consider important or interesting. So, we cannot know why Anonymus mentioned something and did not mentioned something else. According to Djuvara, Anonymus probably used some older chronicle, or (by my opinion) he maybe used some non-written sources as well. All in all, we have no evidence that he simply invented the story by himself. You cannot expect that man from his time would implement methods of modern historiography criticism in his work, so the fact that his work might contain part of the legends or inaccuracies does not prove that he had intention to write an "fictional story" instead something that he saw as a relible historical chronicle. Therefore, each data from his work should be examined partially and each data should be judged by other evidences that either confirming or denying that specific data. In the case of Glad, without an certain evidence that Glad did not (or could not) existed in that time and place, we cannot proclaim him as "fictional". PANONIAN  14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)