Talk:History of Transylvania/Archive 1

Historical counties
The listing of counties in Transylvania during Austria-Hungary was removed in this edit. I am referring to During this historical period, when Transylvania was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Hungarian administration, "Transylvania proper" consisted of a 15-county (Hungarian: megye) region, covering 54,400 km&sup2; in the southeast of the former Kingdom of Hungary. The former Hungarian counties were Alsó-Fehér, Beszterce-Naszód, Brassó, Csík, Fogaras, Háromszék, Hunyad, Kis-Küküllő, Kolozs, Maros-Torda, Nagy-Küküllő, Szeben, Szolnok-Doboka, Torda-Aranyos, and Udvarhely. Today, Transylvania proper includes only 9 of the aforementioned 16 Romanian counties: Alba, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Braşov, Cluj, Covasna, Harghita, Hunedoara, Mureş, and Sibiu. In addition to Transylvania proper, modern Transylvania includes part of the Banat, part of the Pannonian plain, and the former Partium. Does anyone have objections to reincluding this information in the History article? Olessi 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Olessi, you have brought in an interesting point which sometimes is overlooked. Transilvania proper is not the whole yellow area on the map. The western part is the Banat and there is already an article for that. While the North-Western parts are the Crishana and Maramures territories. In the real sense, Transilvania is just the central area (I think there is a map which depicts it in yellow, while showing the other territories in dark-yellow/). I think that the whole article should focus on the history of Transilvania proper, rather then this mistaken idea of a Transilvania that also includes the aforementioned territories. Constantzeanu 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Early middle age
Why the refferences to Gepids, Avars, Kaukaland, Slavs, Magyars before the KoH were deleted? --fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cumans in the Carpathian Basin, in the 9th century ??? funny :)--fz22 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "After conquering Transylvania, the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers" - Nuts! See the next paragraph about the Voievod ... the word vajda is derived from the slavic word Vajvoda ... but there was no any Slavic system maintained by the Magyars ...--fz22 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Late middle age
"Autonomous" T. versus KoH is a POV. I think the original title: T. as part of the KoH is perfect.--fz22 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

MAPS
Only Romanian maps are present in the article. We should come to term about what maps should be included. I propose to add at least one map for each period--fz22 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the maps are written in English, not Romanian.Constantzeanu 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * the language of the maps is irrelevant ... I object having map associated only with Romanain history. --fz22 08:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * it is natural to have the Romanian maps only. Transylvania was and is a romanian territory. That's why are the romanian maps so evident and your hungarian irredentism is disgusting.
 * Stop it, Bonny, or you will be blocked.

For those interested, here are the maps right now. Olessi 09:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Dacia 82 BC.png
 * Image:MagyarsInTransylvania.PNG
 * Image:East-hungary13th.PNG
 * Image:Romania 1600 02.gif
 * Image:Romania 1920.png
 * Image:TransylvaniaProper.png

Misericordia... text
The article currently contains the text "The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) - and 1604 (fall of gen. Basta) was the most tragic period of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. 'Misericordia dei quod non consumti sumus' (only God's merciful save us from annihilation) carachterised this period an anonymous saxon writer." I previously had changed that to read: "The period betwen 1599 (Battle of Şelimbăr) and 1604 (fall of Basta) was considered one of the most tragic periods in the history of Transylvania since the Mongol invasion. Besides the internal struggles, the Ottomans, the Tartars, famine, and plague all menaced the region. An anonymous German writer described it in Latin as Misericordia Dei quod non consumti sumus ('it is only by the mercy of God that we have been saved from annihilation')." The relevant text was discussed here, but the older text was reintroduced into this History of Transylvania article. If there is a consensus to include the Latin quote, I prefer the paragraph be copyedited (my prior version being a possibility). Olessi 09:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok you're right. But after the vandalism everything was mixed up, and I was unable to find the last accepted version ...--fz22 09:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum
Cool, so "Gesta Hungarorum" is a good-enough source to maintain that Hunagrians first came to Transylvania, but not good enough when it comes to Gelou, Menumorut, and the wlachs in the area. Don't you think it's a bit POV? Dpotop 09:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you dont have to confuse the Gesta Hungarorum written by magister P. around 1230 and the prime Gesta Ungarorum which is a more authentic source from the early 11th century.
 * GH is nothing but a fairytale based on region's ethnic structure of the 13th century. It knows nothing about the Magyars real enemies: Ratislav, King Arnuf, Svatolpuk, Tsar Simeon, etc. but talks about some fictious Princes: Gelou, Turzol, Zobur, Glad, Salan, and Menmarot. These peoples are simply unknown for any other europian cronicle from the 10th century. Contains a lot of idiocy like, the Magyars were not able to subdue "Prince" Menmarot whilst they were unstoppable for 50 year wherever they have gone in Europe--fz22 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I presumed there was a "Greater Hungary" guy behind it... Dpotop 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid
I have got to delete this inbecility ... the Romanian in the late middle age were not tax-payers neither ... They were forced to pay only "quinquagesima ovium" ... of course until the early 17th century when the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely? estates ... even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs.--fz22 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles ... --fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)--fz22 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... --fz22 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"I have got to delete this inbecility..."

thank you, very civilized...
 * I didn't want to offend you ... I've used as a synonim for prostie, marhasag

"the tax-payer magyar and saxon population were decimated and when the romanians started to settle in mass on parochial and squirely?"

same old song...

Besides, it has nothing to do with Unio Trium Nationem. We speak about a political act, a state contract which layed the bases of a segregation system.
 * Sure, segregation between the political nation (Hungarians, Szekelys, Saxons, Romanians nobles) and the serfs.

"even the word "chinez-cneaz" was borrowed from Hungarians and not from the Slavs"

My dear, with all sympathy and respect, sorry, but this is such a RIDICULOUS ENORMITY !! in Romanian "cneaz" comes from the Slavs (Russian - kneaz, Ukrain. - Knjaz) Simply hit a dictionary... as for "chinez" this means chinese in Romanian
 * Sure, but the oldest form -chinez- was borrowed from the Hungarian language. Chinezul, the famous football team from Timisoare have had nothing to do with the Chineses ...

"The Romanian conditionarius nobles from Maramures have kept their ortodox religion even after they became "common" nobles "

and that's why they became "common" nobles, that is, they have lost their official nobility attributes,descending into a state of "rural nobiliy"

Actually, what we are debating here is, if Unio Trium Nationem had crucial consequences for the constitutional, political and social order of Transylvania. And it had, exactely in the sense of excluding the Orthodox. Not the Romanians, the Orthodox. It happened that Romanian were Orthodox. The ennemies of the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom were the heretics (Orthodox) not the Romanians. Thus the Unio Trium Nationem was a political act directed against serfs and Orthodox. It happend that the most of them were Romanians...


 * So the problem is more complex ... First we have to make a difference between the period (1000-circa1300) and between 1300-1541. In the first period the Romanian were free sheperds and warriors finghting against the Tartars, Litvanians, and even Prince Bogdan with a semiindependent status. They were ruled by their own leaders, Chinez(Kniaz) ... they really had a chance to form their own Szekely-Saxon like self governing system. But they failed
 * This failure was a direct consequence of highest political interests (of the King of Hungary). The same thing happened with the Cumans too. They were not usefull in western campaign as light cavalry horsemen so the King had no interest in preserving their rights as a comunity (some leaders became nobles they was awarded with estates ... and gradually the free Cumans became serfs). This could also happend to Szekelys too, the "nationality" is irrelevant in this period as you well know ... BUT their military power was usefull enough to be preserved by the King. (the eastern enemies of the Kingdom had used the same light-cavalry tactics)--fz22 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Orthodoxism became an enemy in the later period, when the Prince of Wallachia tried to extend influence over Transylvania using the Orthodox religion. This is why in South Transylvania only Catholics were allowed to join the nobles (contrary to Maramures) --fz22 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"prevailed? undocumented statement (in fact I know the contrary)"

Yes, there are no "documents" to prove this, you're right. That's why I renounced this statement

could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? .......let's forget it, i don't want to bother you

"the serfs were excluded not the Romanians... why is so hard to understand? Just like the womans until the early 20th century ... "

entirely agreed (unsigned, undated)


 * Apartheid is the exact word to describe the condition of Romanians. The so-called Edict of Tolerance of 1568 excluded the Orthodox. Nice freedom of religion. When some Romanians, one hunddred years later accepted to become Greek Catholics, their hopes to receive equal status were dashed, the Tranylvanian Diet rejecting all their demands, even though they were promised that thei situation will be improved. Therefore the exclusion, legally sanctioned, continued until the 19 th century. Razvan2001
 * this is ridiculous. You cannot use a 20th century term backward. Similarly


 * we can't call terrorist those Romanianas who blew up that trek near vilage Ip,
 * we also can't use the term 'foreign worker' for the Romanians who were invited in Hungary after the Mongol invasion ;) --fz22 08:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Fz22 on this. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

>>could you elaborate on the contrary allegation ? were the Magyars the majority ? << --> pls ask the ghost of Causescu why he faked archeology / cut funds on reserches / filled sites with concrete in Transylvania. Of course, I cannot confirm, or proove, but it will come :) Abdulka 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hungarus vs Valachus
This example is dated from the Mid 16th century ... Belongs more to the next Paragpraph (Independent Principality)--fz22 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the sake of simplicity, i'm suggesting to avoid - if possible - repetitions of themes. I think that the theme of the discriminating caracter of the three-nations political system should be treated only once - at least regarding causes and structure - namely at its beginnings between 1366 and 1437. That is the reason why i took the liberty to give examples from another epoch: they are supposed to illustrate the essence of a regime which began in the 14-15th and continuated up to the 19th. Though Romanians (but not exclusively them) continued to remain mainly miserable and oppressed all these centuries long, it would be boring for the readers to repeat it in each section.


 * Excepting the chapter of the Tolerance Edicts (1542 -1572), presented in a quite glorifying manner, while they were for the majority of the population exactely the opposite, i would't have further commentaries...


 * As for your suggestion, i followed it, specificating the epoch.


 * Regards,
 * --Vintila Barbu 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

around 1366

 * i propose to reformulate lines reffering years around 1366. Two main thing was ommited the Black Death from the year 1359AD and the fact that the Seals of the Kingdom have been lost in a campaign in Bosnia (1363) ... so every donation had to be reafirmed/validated with the new Seal--fz22 11:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus the stucked anti-Ottoman negotiation between the Emperor and King Lois --fz22 11:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sory for reacting late

If you want to show that the measures taken by Louis I in 1366 had more complex reasons than just annoying Romanians, please do.

Nobody wants to suggest that Angevins in general or Louis in special were obsessed to bother the Romanians.

Louis was a great king, he had European ambitions, Romanians were to insignificant for him; nevertheless, he took actions which negatively influenced the fate of the Romanians.

But please mention only historical contexts and facts which are relevant (with a direct or clearly traceable link) to the History of Transylvania, otherwise we risk to write the History of Europe, since everything is connected to something.

Since our topic is History of Transylvania, of which Romanians were an important constitutive part, since the beginnings, alongside the glourious medieval Hungarian History we should eventually touch on the fate of the medieval Transylvanian Romanians too. It is only in this context, that I pointed out to the year 1366.

Regards,

--Vintila Barbu 11:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

congratulations for your today contribution ! primary documents-based info, if pertinent, are always welcomed

--Vintila Barbu 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ... Can you help me to translate the latin citations to english? BTW: King Endre's resolution is a quite good argument for Hungarian POV that the Romanians were not so numerous at this time, don't you think?

I'm not against well documented contributions, I've just thought it is more suitable to have a citation free article (it is more readable) and the discussion page is used for confrontation/demonstration. Either way i don't mind.

--fz22 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * and here are your translations (I'm not a Latinist)


 * universos olachos in possessionibus nobilium vel quoromlibet aliorum residenes ad predium nostrum regale Scekes vocatum ordinasemus revocari reduci et etiam compelli


 * all Romanians who live on the possessions of noblemen or of whoever else are peremptory ordered to be driven and returned on our royal estate of Székes


 * ut vos cum vestris mercimoniis et quibuslibet rebus inter (Buzau) et Prahov a loco videlice ubi fluvius Ilontha (Ialomita) vocatus in Danubium usque locum ub fluvius Zereth (Siret) nominatus similiter in ipsum Danubium cadunt transire possitis libere et secure


 * …in order that you and your merchandise and whatever goods you please can transit free and secure between Buzau and Prahova and from the place commonly called the river Ialomita up to the Danube and likewise up to the place where the river called Zereth flows into that same Danube


 * I cannot see by any means that an order of forced resettlement of Romanians could contain whatever indication about the number of those relocated peasants, probably bondsmen. If any speculation about the size of that population could be done, than it would lead rather into the opposite direction as those suggested by you: if the King himself - of course appointed by his barons - takes such a measure, than it should have been an considerable population at stake.


 * I don't think however, that this is so important. Anyway there is no reliable evidence on the ethnic and demographic structure of Transylvania of that time.


 * Actually, my only suit in this matter is, that the medieval history of Romanians in Transylvania is adequately mentioned.


 * Of course, I do not wish a self-inflating or self-glorifying historigraphy of Transylvanian Romanians - anyway their achievements were very modest. On the other hand, the Hungarian historical strategy of not mentioning Romanians at all or only in a cursory/deprecatory manner has nothing to do with respectable science and only aims at delegitimating Romanians.

Insofar I can compensate this kind of "boycott-by-silence", I'm open to every information or interpretetion which would help to better understand a remote time, which is by no means related to what happens today in Transylvania or elswhere.

Regards

--Vintila Barbu 10:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum, part 2
I see above that you are retreading some of the same discussions that took place on the issue of the GH in 2004 and 2005. In any case, the current formulation [The earliest document...the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers] contradicts the information in the entry on the Gesta Hungarorum. It is also biased towards a Romanian POV (no mention is made of the opinions of mainstream Hungarian, or indeed US and British, historians about the Magyar conquest of the region) and is based largely on information from a single Website. So it doesn't meet the requirements for verifiability.


 * I don't see where the concept of Verifiability requires a minimum number of sites and Verifiability is a different concept from NPOV, so please don't bring red herrings! The site in question is not a Romanian site so your bias accusation is supported by ... ? The information is just a brief from the chronicle and not a judgment of value whether the things said are true or not. If you would have at least bothered to read that site you could have remarked the following paragraph: 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!. At the most you could ask for better, scholarly translations of the chronicle ;) Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems I need to quote the article on Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

The problem is that the site used as a source does not meet the above requirements. It is a personal Website created by two dancers (not historians!)


 * That site contains only a translation in English from GH. I find your reaction a bit idiosyncratic. There's no analysis, no interpretation to claim for an academic source, and them being dancers does not label them as unreliable in reproducing a text (it's unfortunate they do not source their translations). If it were the case that excerpts in Latin (GH is on Wikisource) were presented in parallel with an ad-hoc English translation probably none would have commented (there are plenty of cases where translations are given in Wikipedia's pages with no reference to translators). Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The site contains more than a translation of parts of the GH. The site itself states, "These pages summarise the history of the Balkans and the peoples who have lived there with the purpose of putting the Romanians and their folklore in context". It is also written on the Website, "These pages summarise our personal view". There is a bibliography, so it seems that the Website authors (Liz Mellish and Nick Green) have themselves written the history based on several secondary sources. Probably they have spent some time on writing this history and they may be knowledgeable about this topic, however I am sure that they have not followed Wikipedia's rules as they were not writing for Wikipedia. Unfortunately someone has quoted them directly in the Wikipedia article on the Gesta Hungarorum. Scott Moore 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My formula was unfortunate. The site contains more, the page which was linked here doesn't. Daizus 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The following statement is biased (and no source is provided for it): ""Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest". Scott Moore 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But before I remove the current text, I suggest working together to produce a revised version which reflects all mainstream opinions (ie those of reputable comtemporary historians). It may not be possible to reconcile these opinions, but they should be summarised and we should explain who holds these opinions. Clearly, verifiable sources (in English where possible) should also be provided. I wrote a summary some time ago based on several English-language sources (written by both British and Hungarian historians), which I believe represents the (most widely supported) mainstream view outside of Romania.


 * Funny is that Hungarian historians are among reputable sources while Romanian alternatives are not even considered. I am very curious about one thing - on what criteria do you claim a mainstream historiographic view? What historiographies have you analysed, which scholars? Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Its funny that Romanian Wikipedians always put words into my mouth. It seems that they must create a Hungarian nationalist to react against. Anyone who makes a criticism becomes a Hungarian nationalist in their view.


 * I haven't called you nor Hungarian, nor nationalist, so you're putting yourself words in your mouth (rather fingers). Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly who is not considering alternatives? I haven't written anything in the article yet, I'm just making suggestions. Whoever wrote the text I quoted is not considering alternatives and certainly hasn't analysed any historiographies or scholars (unless they regard a couple of dance teachers as historical scholars). Where exactly do I claim a mainstream historiographic view? Scott Moore 10:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have written here. I don't see what alternatives are to be considered for an English translation, because I must repeat, this was the only material taken from that site.
 * However, from a more general perspective you have asserted "which I believe represents the (most widely supported) mainstream view outside of Romania.". I don't care about the mainstream view in journalism therefore I assumed the epithet that bothered you as obvious. If you cannot justify why a view you believe is mainstream is mainstream, I don't see how you can request a NPOV while enforcing your beliefs.
 * Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the variety of sources and your contributions both to article and to this talk page. Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific on the problems with the current formulation:

1) the extensive quotation from the GH is unwarranted. It is clearly included to support the views of certain Romanian historians that are based on the reliability of the GH. However, both Hungarian and Slovak mainstream historical opinion regards the GH as unreliable.


 * I agree the length of the text is unjustified for an article about a two millenia Transylvanian history, and rather would fit in a narrowed timespan. But unreliable as what? As a crystal-clear image of Eastern Europe? Or as giving some hints about some specific realities? GH covers several issues. Isn't GH showing at least an intellectual tradition (if not even some unavailable written sources) that Romanic and Slavic populations were inhabiting those territories before Magyars? Moreover, few scholars dismiss GH in an absolute sense. What do you have to say about those Hungarian historians who are aware of some perils but still try to repaint a historical reality out of it? (G. Györffy, for instance).
 * And what about your bias? I see you find convenient to ignore that Serbian historiography often supports Romanian (and viceversa) in some medieval historical questions (in GH issues as well) but you like to mention that Hungarian historiography is suppoprted by Slovak. Along your contribution you tried to paint Romanian historiography as being isolated and in disagreement with some reputable scholarship, why? Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What contribution? I haven't written anything in the article yet! Where exactly did I write that Romanian historiography should not be included in the article? My point is that the article should not ignore non-Romanian historiography. We should include all historiography (including but not limited to Romania, Hungarian, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish and Arabic) as long as it is sourced according to Wikipedia's rules on verifiability. Obviously we cannot include the opinions of every single historian, so we need to write a summary of the mainstream views (ie we should not include extreme or isolated opinions). Scott Moore 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have written here and that's a a contribution to this discussion. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying, yet you aggresively address me such questions. I haven't claimed you wrote such things.
 * I agree with your point as you detailed it here, and I welcome your interest in these pages. But I appreciate more the information summarized from Macartney than rants about mainstream or how a translation is biased.
 * I didn't say the translation is biased. My objection is that the inclusion of a lengthy quote from a particular primary source supports a particular point of view at the expense of other points of view. Scott Moore 15:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I already questioned you about the mainstream views and you avoided the issue. Who's to say what are the mainstream views? Not a historian? Not someone from an academic background? Are you one? Other than that, let's refrain from the word "mainstream" and just widen the perspective upon the events with different views. In time we could suceed to filter them out and present only a relevant summary. It's hard for any of us to judge if an opinion is isolated or extreme, if we don't have a proper perspective over several historiographies and trends. Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a historian from an academic background is the person best qualified to say what is a mainstream view regarding a historical topic on which they are an expert. I am not a historian myself, so I rely on the opinion of historians to judge e.g. the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum. Similarly, I would rely on a historian to summarise the mainstream view on a topic. In this case, I would rely on the opinion of Pal Engel. His book "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526", was written precisely to be a summary for English-speaking readers about this period of Hungarian history (he did not current any original research for the book, but rather presents a summary of existing research). He is very careful to point out when opinion is divided or when evidence is lacking. For example, regarding the Magyar occupation of the Carpathian basin he contends that the primary source material is contradictory and thus it is not possible to be sure exactly what happened. There are several potential interpretations of the source material - all of them historically valid. Scott Moore 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In the bottom of this page I added some arguments considering a relative reliability of GH not from myself, but compiled from some historians. You would rely on the opinion of Pal Engel (isn't he Hungarian? :p), I would rely on the opinions of St. Breazeanu and Al. Madgearu, and secondarily of G. Moravcsik, Imre Boba, G. Györffi, etc.. I hope their nationalities and their methods are varied enough. Daizus 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

2) "the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes". Again representative of a certain Romanian point of view (and I say 'certain' because no one has yet been able to tell me whether this is mainstream historical thinking in Romania). The word Duke is anachronistic (taken from 'dux' in the GH).


 * I agree about the anachronic use of "dux". However Transylvania and Banate were in the Bulgaro-Byzantine (there are various hypotheses) political and cultural space before Magyars descended in Panonnia is that not a Romanian specific POV. On contrary, Romanian nationalism tries to minimize Bulgarian and in general Slavic influences in Transylvania to transform this territory in the historical craddle of the Romanian nation. Daizus 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

3) "After conquering Transylvania, the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers". I would be interested to see the sources for this statement.

Scott Moore 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll answer your point 3, for it is the simplest, and using only Hungarian sources. At least until the battle of Mohacs (I didn't check later) the title of the Transylvanian prince is "voivode" (vajda, in Hungarian). The father of Matthias Corvinus, for instance, was voivode of Transylvania. Given that the voivodal title appears only in Transylvania, it must be specific to it. Even extremist Hungarians do not state otherwise, see.
 * The knez (hu: kenéz) title is different in Vlach (Romanian) land than in Slav land. They represented in Transylvania the small Vlach nobility, as you can see in.
 * It's funny that westerners buy so easily the Great Hungarian propaganda. :) Dpotop 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nay, I looked onto your page, it must be the Tokay wine and Hungarian sexy women. Dpotop 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To conclude, it's not just Gesta Hungarorum, which the Hungarians throw away as soon as they don't agree with. Dpotop 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, before you criticise the Romanian approach to history, take a look at the Hungary and Talk:Hungary, to see how history is "made" in Hungary. According to the same techniques, what would you get for the Romanian/Slav inhabitants of the region? Dpotop 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see any source supporting the statement: "the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers". Its funny that the Romanian Wikipedians who contribute to the articles on Transylvania need to portray anyone with a different point of view from theirs as a Hungarian nationalist (or as a Westerner corrupted by Hungarian wine and women. Obviously any Brit who has bought a bottle of Tokaj from their local Sainsbury's has now succumbed to the Hungarian nationalist plot to infect Tokaj wine with opinion-changing superdrugs. As you know so much about the effects of food consumption on points of view, maybe you could answer this question of mine: I eat parmesan cheese and parma ham. Does that make me an Italian fascist as well? Or do the mind-changing effects of food only work if you consume them in the country of origin?) Scott Moore 10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument for "voivode" is the clearest. The title is not Hungarian, nor western. It's a slavic title that originally denoted the principal commander of the army. Now, why would the Hungarians import a title to use in an important region of the kingdom, when they already had enough titles? And why did they only use this title in Transylvania? And why was Transylvania autonomous?
 * What we should know about voievod/vajda is that in the early ages right after the Hungarian conquest, the word "vojevoda" was used by Purple born for Magyar chieftains. In Hungarian early documents (1111) the term "Princeps Ultrasylvanus" was used for the ruler of the South Transylvanina region (south of Mures). The word voivod first appeared in historical documents in 1193. Prior to that, the term "ispán" was used for the chief official of the County of Alba ...So it takes 300 years to borrow the word from the old bulgarian language --fz22 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But why borrow the word from old bulgarian? And why in Transylvania? Have you ever heard of the Occam's Razor? Dpotop 13:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, in your view, the Hungarians came to a void Transylvania, then went to fight the Bulgarians south of Danube, found that the title "Voivode" is chic, and decided to give it to the feudal lord of Transylvania, but of course not to other lords. Dpotop 13:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nay, the Hungarians came to a rarely populated Transylvania. The sothern part, south to Mures was under Bulgarian influence which was winded up later. You don't deny that the word voievod is of Slavic origin ... was borrowed from the Slavic people by the Romanians too. So they have its own word for chieftains, but as it happened in many other cases the new form drove out the old form (eg. kovacs/vasverő/blacksmith the latter disapeared, birka/juh/sheep the old form -juh -was however preserved). --fz22 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And again, I come again to my double standard argument. You accept as undisputed facts some wild extrapolations like in Hungary, but then refuse to accept common sense facts such as the one that the word "Vajda/Voivode" comes from pre-existent people. Aren't you just a bit bothered by this? Dpotop 13:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, for the Tokai stuff. If you find it offensive, sorry. I saw that you live now in Hungary, and probably have time to do it. Dpotop 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dpotop & Fz22 - The discussion about the use of the term voivod in Transylvania is all very interesting, but ultimately these types of discussion do not usually manage to achieve a consensus (I base my opinion here on past experience of many such discussions on Wikipedia talk pages). Clearly there is no consensus about who/what existed in Transylvania when the Magyars invaded, so it is problematic to present anything as a fact. What we can include are the opinions of historians as long as we make it clear who holds these opinions and who doesn't. I would accept the statement "the Hungarians maintained the pre-Hungarian Slavic system of Voivode and local Knez rulers" if it were preceded by an attribution (e.g. according to historians X & Y...) and the sources referenced. That would then allow other Wikipedians to add opposing opinions, and then any reader can see what opinions exist among historians and refer to the sources. Scott Moore 14:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a section from the article for the reasons given below. I have left in, for now, the paragraph starting "After conquering Transylvania...". But this statement still needs to be attributed and sourced. Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"The earliest document from around the time of the Hungarian conquest concerning the area of modern Transylvania is the "Gesta Hungarorum"." This isn't strictly true as De Administrando Imperium is earlier. In any case, if we only mention GH and not other primary sources, then we need to explain why.


 * Correct, but you miss few things.
 * DAI says almost nothing about Transylvania (well, it says between Hungary/Tourkia and Patzinakia there's a four days trip).
 * And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_early_Hungarian_history, GH is given as earliest source on Hungarian history, so for an user having no idea about DAI, but being an informed Wikipedian (and keeping Wikipedia's coherence by asserting the same thing in other pages) it's the expectable thing to say. Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"It covers the history of the Magyar peoples moving into the Carpathian basin. The work is attributed to Peter, a high priest in Buda, during the time of King Bela III in the late 12th century. However, 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. Some of the facts in the "Gesta Hungarorum" can be corroborated with other evidence, but some information is unique. The "Gesta Hungarorum" offers important information on the peoples inhabiting Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest." This is already a Wikipedia article on the GH, hence I provided a link.

"Here follow some excerpts link title" In such a short article, a lengthy quotation from a single primary source is inappropriate. Besides, the entire document is included in Wikisource.

"Knowing that much of the Balkans was under Bulgarian rule but had fallen to Byzantium before the Magyar tribes entered, the population met by the Hungarians was likely to have been a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, lead by Bulgarian, Slav and Vlach Dukes." Weasel words (was likely to have been). Who holds this opinion? Why are opposing opinions not mentioned? Scott Moore 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fz22 - what is this "prime Gesta Ungarorum from the 11th century" that you added to the article? It sounds like the Gesta Hungarorum to me. The same points I made above apply here. Just because a single primary source states this, doesn't make it an indisputable fact. You should include an attribution and source for the statements in this paragraph. Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * is another Gesta dated from the King Ladislaus era used by Anonymous ...

it is reconised as a more reliable source then the Gesta written by Belae Regis Notarius (which Bela? there were four)--fz22 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the so-called 'primeval gesta'? According to Pál Engel this was the earliest piece of work on Hungarian history, which was written at some time in the late 11th century. However the existence of this gesta has only been deduced from philological analysis. Also according to Engel "later tradition also held that Álmos 'was killed in Transylvania for he was not allowed to enter Pannonia'. This somewhat obscure reference in the Illuminated Chronicle to the death of Álmos is often thought to have preserved the memory of a ritual murder of a kende". This seems to be identical to your quotation, but you are clearly not referring to the Illuminated Chronicle. Scott Moore 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sources I've used in the past, together with a few direct quotations I have to hand. I'll also check what Kontler and Engel write about the issues.

C.A. Macartney, "Hungary: A Short History", Edinburgh University Press, 1962

- In 892 the Emperor Arnulf enlisted a contingent of them to help him against his rebellious vassal, Sviatopluk. The weakness of the land was revealed to them. In 894 they were back, raiding Pannonia on their own account, and in the autumn of 895 or the spring of 896 the entire nation, with their auxiliaries, crossed the mountains for good. A little fighting left them in possession of the Alföld (where the Szekels submitted themselves voluntarily) and put an end to any resistance from Transylvania. The Germans and Moravians patched up their differences in view of the common danger, but by A.D. 900 Frankish rule in Pannonia had vanished. The final destruction of Moravian rule in the north-west came in 906. In 907 a Bavarian army was annihilated at Ennsburg and the Magyars' rule extended up to the Avars' old frontier where the Enns runs into the Danube.

- Árpád's own horde settled in the Dunántúl, between Székesfehérvár, on the site of which, or near it, he made his headquarters, and Buda. Of the six other Magyar hordes, three settled respectively north-west, west and south-west of the leading tribe, one on the middle Tisza and one on the upper. The seventh, the tribe of Gyula, after first settling in the west, moved to the approaches of Transylvania. The plain of the lower Tisza and its tributaries was allotted to the Kavars, while the 'Kuns' took the northern fringes of the Great Plain.

Miklós Molnár, "A Concise History of Hungary", Cambridge University Press, 2001

- …and in 894, just before leaving for their new homeland, had fought alongside the Byzantine Emperor, Leo the Philosopher, against the Bulgar Tsar Simeon.

- Around 895, Hungarians….suffered a lightning attack by the Pechenegs…The Hungarian tribes, fleeing the Pechenegs, crossed the Carpathians through two or three passes. The conquest began under the leadership of two chieftains, Arpad and Kursan, leading the seven Magyar tribes and the Kabar tribes of Turkish origin who joined the Hungarians. By 900, the occupation of the basin was completed and in 902 the Hungarians turned their attention to the Moravian principality.

- The title of gyula did not, however, disappear: the Transylvanian lords carried it and exercised quite extensive local control, becoming increasingly independent of the princely and then royal authority.

- ...with the obscure period between the disappearance of Arpad around 907 and the rise of Fajsz, then Taksony around 955. During this long period, the gyulas ruled over Transylvania.

Norman Davies, "Europe A History", Oxford University Press, 1998

Rob Joustra, Dr. Payton, "The Magyars: Pre-History to Conquest", October 1, 2004

The Magyars, thoroughly outflanked, were forced to retreat with haste westward, crossing the passes over the Carpathians and entering the Pannonian plain in 896 (24)

Russian Primary Chronicle details migrations of the Magyars into this region already in 890 (26)

(24) Obelensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453. London: Phoenix Press., 2000.

(26) Endre Haraszi. The Ethnic History of Transylvania (Toronto: Sovereign Press., 1971),

László Kontler, "Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary" Atlantisz Publishing House, Budapest, 1999

Pál Engel, "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526", I.B. Tauris, 2001 Scott Moore 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Arguments which consider GH relatively reliable


 * In one study Al. Madgearu discusses the political beginnings of Banate during Xth century. I'll sketch some parts of his argument.
 * In one chronicle from Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, the emperor Charlemagne conquered a territory named Dacia, across Danube from Pannonia (utramque Pannoniam et adpositam in altera Danubiae ripa Datiam). Al. Madgearu rejects the opinions of A. Decei and A. Bejan identifying this territory with Dacia Ripensis because he argues that for the Western authors of those times (Alfred the Great, the geographer from Ravenna) Dacia was the north-danubian territory. Also in the ex-Dacia Ripensis the Bulgarian presence was already certain by that time.
 * In 824 in Annales Regni Francorum we find messengers from a population called Abodrites/Praedenecenti who inhabited a Danubian Dacia neighbouring Bulgarians (Caeterum legatos Abodritorum, qui vulgo Praedenecenti vocantur et contermini Bulgaris Daciam Danubio adiacentem incolunt) and they requested help against Bulgarians. Kurt Horedt claims these Abodrites/Praedenecenti inhabited the western Banate, between Tisza and Danube. But the Abodrites are known to be inhabiting a territory near Elba-Oder so an homonymous ethnonym had to be postulated. However, Imre Boba thinks there are two different populations, Abodrites and those who are called Praedenecenti. What should be noted is that Bulgaria stretched its domination over these territories around 824.
 * This domination can be also noticed in Gesta Hungarorum (chap. 11, 30, 38-43) where we find Salan, a Bulgarian ruler. G. Moravcsik admitted the authencity of the informations about Salan and Glad considering the alliance of Bulgarians with the Greeks being possible in the last years of Emperor Leo VI (before 912) when between Byzantines and Bulgaria was a period of relative peace.
 * Also, a contemporary testimony, the chronicle of Regino of Prum shows the raids of Magyars over border Bulgarian possessions. The Magyars entered middle Danube basin in the last years of 9th century and devastated Carantanorum, Maharhensium ac Vulgarum fines. Fines may mean the borderlands and it can be assumed that the most affected area was the area in question. Regino writes in 908 and dates the event in 889, and such he confirms the first Magyar raids took place before 896. It's possible that this raid is the same with the one recorded in Annales Fuldenses in 894 where there's a mention of an Avaric attack in Pannonia.
 * While Bulgaria was powerful (after the campaigns of Krum and Omurtag until the death of Simeon - 927) it's probable it had some control over its entire territory. However after Simeon's death, the peripheral territories probably started slowly to release themselves from the Bulgarian hegemony. Theodor Daphnophates noted that when the people surrounding Bulgaria - Croatians, Turks (=Magyars) and other people learned about Simeon's death decided to start an expedition against Bulgarians. In this context, Madgearu argues, the little state of Glad, perhaps with Pecheneg support (GH mentions Cumans), succeeded to get independence from Bulgarians. We can see the Anonymous author of GH mentiones the Pechenegs in other sections of his chronicle. In chapter 25 he names them picenati (a denomination different from the contemporary Hungarian bisseni). The critics of GH claim an anachronism relating picenati with the pincenates/piccinaci from 1st crusade. However the chronicle of Regino (mentioned above) says that Magyars were chased away from Scythia by pecinaci. Another possible criticism may state that Pechenegs entered Wallachia only in the 2nd part of Xth century, but we know that even Pechenegs have their attack bases in Atelkuz, they covered with their raids the parts of Lower Danube. They should have helped the Byzantine army in 917 against Bulgaria (the alliance was not finalized, but it's important to note that their action radius reached so far). G. Györffi assumes the Cumans coming in the help of Glad were another Turkic tribe, the Kavars, a hypothesis which cannot be excluded.
 * The article continues but it doesn't cover any more correspondences between GH and other sources. Should be noted however that there are no relevant archeological finds for Xth century to confirm the main fortresses of Glad, rather than some less important defensive fortreses from the Xth century (Arad-Vladimirescu, Cladova, Bulci, Pescari).
 * Other articles of Al. Madgearu cover the evidences for Menumorut or Gelou. However I won't insist so much on these types of arguments because I want to present a different types of approach, as well. But before that I'll give one short link to an abstract: http://www.geocities.com/amadgearu/notary.htm.


 * St. Brezeanu issues the chancelary traditions about the beginnings of Hungarians by comparing three sources. Gesta Hungarorum, the gesta of Simon de Kéza and the chronicle of the French Anonymous from 1308. I will just extract the relevant passages about the populations encountered by Magyars when they settled in Pannonia and Transylvania.
 * The Anonymous author of GH describes Panonnia inhabited as such: quam terram habitarent Sclavi, Bulgarii et Blachii ac pastores Romanorum and later adding that after Attila's death, the Romans occupied Panonnia and settled their shepherds there. About Transylvania he mentions Blasi et Sclavi under Gelou. And again in Banate, Glad receives help: adiutorio Cumanorum et Bulgarorum atque Blacorum.
 * Simon de Kéza does not confirm Anonymous' ethnic realities at the arrival of Magyars but he mentions Blacki/Vlachi in two different other episodes and preserving some similarities. After the devastations of the Huns, a lot of people ran away but Blacki remained there: Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia and later, after the Hunnic king's death they are still there: Panonnia exstitit X annis sine rege, Sclavis, tantum modo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Vlahis advenis remanentibus in eadam, qui vivente Ethela populari servicio sibi serviebant. But the same population is also mentioned contemporary with Simon de Kéza, the Székely (Zakuli) being neighbours to Blacki and sharing the same life in mountains.
 * The French Anonymous, a dominican monk, is giving us a description of the Europe around 1308. He talks about Pannonia's old inhabitants panonii, shepherds of the Romans being led by 10 powerful kings in the entire Messia and Pannonia which were later defeated by the Magyars coming out of Scythia. Later he gives a different identification: in Macedonia, Achaia and Thessaly there's a very numerous population, named blazi, which were once shepherds of the Romans and lived in Hungary. But because they were chased away by Hungarians they settled in other places. The French chronicle confirms the previous two Hungarian ones. Also let's note that in GH Arpad's warriors Sclavorum et Panonniorum gentes et regna vastaverunt et eorum regiones occupaverunt.
 * In all three chronicles we find the laitmotifs of shephers/coloni of the Romans, of Blacki/Blazi/Vlachi, Sclavi or Panonni being chased away at Magyars arrival. Brezeanu's analysis is a bit wider and deeper it's just that I've spent a while to compile these two arguments and I'm a bit out of mood in writing more now. ;) Daizus 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Daizus, please look at [Talk:Gesta_Hungarorum]. This issue has been debated a number of times in Wikipedia already. Juro knows more than I do about the GH, so please see what he has written. The only thing I've been convinced about regarding the GH is that there are at least 2 widely-held and contradictory points of views regarding it which cannot be reconciled within Wikipedia. That's why I have already suggested including all "mainstream" views (by "mainstream" I mean opinions held by a number of reputable experts in the field - perhaps I should instead call it "view widely-held by experts in the field"). I am suggesting we restrict it to "mainstream" views (or some equivalent) so that we exclude extremist views and do not end up with an unreadable list of several opinions from various historians (and non-historians) on each particular topic. That's why I am also asking for sources for any statements written in the article. If a statement can be sourced to one or, preferably,several published books written by historians then at least there is some chance that it represents a view widely-held by experts in the field. Scott Moore 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An easy way to offer you sources is to browse the footnotes and the bibliography of the arguments sketched above, and for the sake of your requests for variety I'll give only some non-Romanian sources:
 * I. Boba, Moravia, Bulgaria, "Messiani" and "Sclavi" in Medieval Hungarian Sources, in "Vtori meždunaroden kongres po bălgaristika" (Sofia, 1986), Dokladi, vol. 6, Sofia, 1987,
 * P. Váczy, The Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and the Saga of the Hungarian Conquest, "Antaeus. Communicationes ex Instituto Arehaeologico Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae", 19-20, 1990-1991
 * G. Moravcsik, Der ungarische Anonymus über die Bulgaren und Griechen, "Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes", 7, 1969, 1
 * G. Györffi, Abfassungszeit, Autorschaft und Glaubwürdigkeit der Gesta Hungarorum des Anonymen Notars, "Acta Antiqua ASH", 20, 1972
 * If you want Romanian sources I can give you some as well. Also you can find totally unrelated points to our discussion about the reliability of the same chronicle in the works of those studying the structure of early Hungarian nobility or various other aspects covered in a way or another by GH.
 * I've read the talk page of GH some time ago. I do not know whether Juro knows what ALL Slovak historians have to say, but I know that there are Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Hungarian historians who consider, in a lesser or larger degree, GH reliable and published studies that attempted to confirm, criticise and even clarify the realities of Xth century claimed by GH.
 * Also Juro's way to picture some arguments (for instance, analogies between GH and Nibelungenlied, and not with Getica or the Frankish chronicles of {Pseudo-}Fredegarius, his claims that Hungarian chronicles completely contradict each other - I have painted above an analogy between them :o - or his impressions that Romania is somehow an exit mundi) do not recommend him as the person who knows (or at least doesn't show that he knows) too much about history of these places, about the history made in these places or about GH from certain historical perspectives. Daizus 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Errata: Györffy instead of Györffi :) Daizus 11:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I suggest that you rewrite and expand the article on the Gesta Hungarorum, to talk in general about its importance, relevance and reliability as a primary source. You could also address specific issues including the references to Transylvania (and I have no objection to you including the English translations of certain passages). When you have done that I can add any contradictory opinion(s) from Hungarian historians such as Engel. Or you may want to prepare something in the talk page first and then change the article after we (and any other Wikipedians) have reached an agreement on the text. Scott Moore 09:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I will gladly contribute to its talk page, I already started a quick criticism on Juro's position which was not welcomed. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Re the History of Transylvania article, I still think we should try write a couple of short paragraphs on the late 9th/10th century including any points of general agreement among Romanian, Hungarian and other historians as well as explaining the contradictory opinions on key issues. Scott Moore 09:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. But as you suggested above, considering the potential controversies let's start here; I'll add few points in a couple of days. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, judging by their obituaries both Györffy and Moravcsik were respected Hungarian historians. However, bear in mind that Moravcsik's professional career started in the 1930s and ended with his death in 1972 so his work may now be out-of-date. Moravcsik was a specialist in the Byzantine sources for early Hungarian history, though he did have an opinion on the GH. The following quote is from an article from the early 1980s by historian Janos Harmatta. "Lastly, in one of his last papers, he examined some important problems of the Hungarian conquest. In professional literature different opinions were expressed about the political situation of the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century. According to one conception, the central part of the Carpathian Basin east of the Danube belonged to Great Moravia while according to the other idea the whole territory was uninhabited desert. Consequently, to the east of the Garam-Danube line there existed a political vacuum in the Carpathian Basin. Thus, the latter view denies the reliability and historical reality of the description to be found in the Gesta Hungarorum written by P. magister, according to which the Hungarians fought many battles against local princes of Bulgarian descent and in the course of the conquest they also defeated Bulgarian and Byzantine auxiliary troops.
 * Contrary to this opinion, Moravcsik has convincingly shown that the data of the Gesta Hungarorum cannot be mere inventions. The Gesta tells that the land between the Danube and the Tisza rivers was conquered by the Great Kean, the dux of the Bulgarians up to the Polish and Ruthenian frontiers. According to the Gesta the Great Kean was great-grandfather of dux Salan, ruling on the territory between the Danube and Tisza at the time of the Hungarian conquest. By help of Byzantine and Bulgarian sources Moravcsik could verify this relation of P. magister and prove the inner probability of that assertion in the Gesta Hungarorum that the Bulgarian tsar Symeon came to the aid of dux Salan and that even the Byzantine Emperor sent auxiliary troops against the Hungarians as well as that the Bulgarian princes were really ruling in the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin with the consent of the Byzantine Emperor in the sense of the Byzantine idea of continuity. These important hints may give valuable orientation and stimulation for further study of the Hungarian conquest at the occasion of its approaching llooth anniversary." Scott Moore 10:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Moravcsik and Györffy are some generations behind and I find unfair such discrimination between them (as you can see from my aforementioned references, their works come from close years, though Moravcsik was older than Györffy).
 * I also strongly oppose the idea of uninhabited desert and consider it basically unscientific as no archaeology study shows an interruption in habitation in Transylvania. The ethnicity, the culture, the language, the political organization of those human communities may be subject of debate, their existence can't be. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Györffy was highly critical about some important aspects of the Gesta Hungarorum. Engel also regards the GH as unreliable (I can provide a quote from him soon). The below is from André Du Nay's "The origin of the Romanians"


 * "Comparing the story told by Anonymus with historical sources from the 9th century, Gy. Györffy concluded that Anonymus knew very little about the real situation in the basin of the Carpathians in that century. Thus, contemporary sources recorded two events in connection with the Hungarian Landnahme. In 896 AD, Emperor Arnulf appointed Braslav to the defence of Pannonia and of Paludarum urbs (Mosaburg, Blatinski grad, Zalavár); and in 907, the Hungarians defeated the Bavarian army at Bretslavspurc (German Pressburg, Slovakian Bratislava, Hung. Pozsony). Although a large part of the narrative describes battles in the period in question, it does not mention these events. Györffy lists the names of 21 historical persons (prince Svatopluk, bishops Wiching and Metod, Emperor Arnulf, etc.) who had important political functions in the second half of the 9th century in the basin of the Carpathian mountains. None of these is mentioned by Anonymus." Scott Moore 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I commited a mistake in approach. In several occasions I promoted the syntagm "relative reliability" opposing Juro's extremist position which basically says that all reputable and bias-free historians consider GH as pure fantasy (his comparisions were with Niebelungenlied and Arthurian Cycle). I considered hence all types of positions giving different degrees of confidence - the enthusiastic (like Madgearu and Moravcsik), the moderate (like Brezeanu or L. Musset), the skeptic (Györffy); don't focus on criticising my taxonomy - I'm just trying to illustrate the wide interval where I looked for examples :). None claims its a pure fantasy. Even Györffy's account, IIRC, says the Anonymous Notary combined various elements to make an interesting story. Talking of Györffy, though he has grounds to doubt the realities of GH (especially when it comes about picturing some unconvenient - I'd say - ethnical realities), he also sometimes develops hypotheses working with GH - for instance, in the aforementioned study of his, he launches the hypothesis that the Cumans supporting the duke Glad were in fact another Turkic tribe, the Kavars. I don't see how such a hypothesis can be even issued without having a least of trust in the source that mentions them.
 * While about this criticism from Gy. Györffy which was addressed also by some other historians, I really wondered if the Latin documents reflecting a history of those times (intertwined or not with some propagandastic purpose) have as a general rule a clear and objective presentation of the political or ethnical context, of a full geographical landscape, of the main historical characters (using recognizable names for us today), etc.. For a while I have just used this formulation as an argument, rational, parsimonious but rhetoric. These days I remembered some medieval documents analysed in other various historical studies and analyses and I thought it would be interesting to browse them and see whether I can find several other occurences (for now to serve only as examples, who knows, maybe an entire theory about it can be issued) of similar documents showing little importance to historical figures in particular (as this is one aspect contested about GH).
 * For now my set of examples come from some French and Latin chronicles about the end of 14th century, beginning of 15th century (they being mostly written during 15th century). One thing I noticed is that few called the Ottoman Sultans by their real name, in most cases the sultan is Murate/Amurat/Amourath/Lamorat (versions of Murad) and only sometimes having an extra explanatory term (for Bayezid - Lamorat-Baxin, l'Amourath-Baquin, though for this sultan we find a separate adaptation of his name - Basite, Basaac or Basac). A spanish traveler, Ruy Gonzáles de Claviijo, was claiming that all the Ottoman rulers are known to them (i.e. Western Europe) as Murate. However, this vagueness persists when the other rulers from Eastern Europe are presented. The king of Hungary is rex Hungarie or roy d'Hongrie. The other rulers simply do not exist, they exists only collectiely as some ethnonyms or some states - Bulgaria(ns), Wallachia(ns). Serbians do not exist at all! This not to mention the even more vague mentions of christians. Also some names for which it's hard to testify their real historical existence are introduced ; for instance, Jean Juvenal des Ursins in his chronicle (Histoire de Charles VI, roy de France (...) depuis 1380 jusques 1422) mentions that in one battle et tut tué le fils dudit Basac, nommé l'Amaurabaquin. I'm not specialist in these chronicles but considering what I've just said about Bayezid, the name of this son of his looks to be another form of his own name (Froissart even provides this revealing link: roy Basaach dit l'Amourath-Baquin).
 * On a first glance, elements which are to be found in GH and are used as an argument against its reliability are to be found in other medieval chronicles, as well. In GH we have historical proven characters - Rex Stephanus, characters with almost a certain historical existence (i.e. to be found in earlier chronicles) - Ohtum, important rulers under a twisted name - Kean could be a form of Khan, for Salan I have no suggestion at this moment, or characters with no historical evidence and whose names might hide a wordplay - Menumorout may be related with the Hungarian Marót/Morót, hence a reference to Moravians.
 * I don't think we should be scared by anachronisms (browsing the aforementioned chronicles, Ottoman Turks are sometimes Saracens) but we should solve them out and see where is the source of the confusion. Labeling before hand everything suspicious as a mere invention would mean a greater loss than gain, and also doesn't look too parsimonious to me as it begs many questions. I don't know whether the arguments I tried to sketch above (i.e. Madgearu's or Brezeanu's) are published in English, yet I see them unaddressed, I am open to discuss them and analyse them and I'll try my best to fairly represent those argumentative positions in any eventual debate. Daizus 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a medieval historian so I can only some general comments. It may be the case that most chronicles from this period are inaccurate. But historians of e.g French or English medieval history often have access to several comtemporaneous narrative sources as well as extensive archives of legal and administrative documents. It seems that the problem for historians looking at Transylvania (or indeed Hungary) before the 14th century is that there are is a lack both of narrative and other sources. Hence the Gestas assume a certain degree of importance for any historian, no matter their view about the reliability or accuracy of the Gestas. In the many cases where the GH is the only source to refer to a particular individual or event, then any historian has to make some assumptions about the references. If a historian assumes that a reference is to a historical event, then the question must be asked where did the author get the information from and how accurate is the reference? If a historian assumes that a reference is not to a historical event, then the questions are why did the author include the reference and where did the idea come from (e.g from mythology, legend, pure invention)? Scott Moore 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
I just came across this page and don't have the background, but someone needs to write an introduction to replace the self-referential "this article is about the history of transylvania" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.105.126 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.
 * I'll do that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

}}

Copy editing and more
This really could use a thorough copy edit. Also it could use much clearer citation of sources.

One paragraph is poorly enough written that I hesitate to edit it, because I may not understand it.

"The Dacians had a very powerful custom which encouraged them not to be afraid of death. This is why it was said that they left for war merrier than for any other journey. In his retirement in the mountains, Decebalus was followed by the Roman cavalry lead by Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Dacian religion of Zalmoxis admitted suicide as a last resort by those who were in pain and misery. The Dacians who listened Decebalus' last speech spread and commit suicide. Only the unkneeled king greater than his god would not seek to forget about his death, but would try to retread from the Romans, hoping that he could still find in the mountains and in the unwalked woods the means to prepare the recommencement of the battle and to seek revenge. But the Roman cavalry followed him without rest. They almost caught him, and at that point the great Decebal meets his destiny by ending his life. The great scene of his death may be found on Trajan's Column in Rome."


 * "The Dacians had a very powerful custom which encouraged them not to be afraid of death." And that custom was...? Or perhaps it means to say "tradition" rather than "custom" in which case the lack of fear would be the tradition.
 * "This is why it was said that they left for war merrier than for any other journey." I understand this, but it's quite a claim with no citation.
 * "In his retirement in the mountains, Decebalus was followed by the Roman cavalry lead by Tiberius Claudius Maximus." "Retirement"? I doubt that is the right word (it would imply that he had ceased to function as king), but I have no certainty as to what is meant.
 * "…admitted suicide…": "admitted" is an odd choice. Perhaps "permitted"?
 * "The Dacians who listened Decebalus' last speech spread and commit suicide." I cannot make head or tail of this. "Spread" makes no sense. Present tense in the second half of the sentence makes no sense. Is this saying that everyone who heard the speech killed themselves (or at least every Dacian who heard the speech)? Quite a statement with no citation.

I could go on through the second half of the paragraph, it doesn't get any better. Would someone please clean this up? - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How much of the population was Romanian
"the majority of the population was almost certainly Romanian" was recently edited to "a significant part of the population was certainly Romanian." The new statement is true, but misleading. "A significant portion" could mean 8%. There may be some question as to whether Romanians were the majority (I'm not sure), but I am pretty confident that there is no question at all that they were the single most numerous ethnic group. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was hoping for a comment. The change happened in two stages: first, someone changed "majority" to "significant portion". That made me unhappy, but I soothed my unhappiness by changing "almost certainly" to "certainly". I still feel that the original statement was true and preferable. I suggest you go ahead and change back to it. Andrew Dalby 13:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I think it's better to hold back from making claims like "certainly...majority" without having statistics to back it up. If historical data is included to support this then by all means include that statement but the issue is so contentious it could be inflamatory to some who have other opinions.


 * Also, when we're taking about Transylvania, are we talking about the entire area west of the Carpathian horseshoe or just the small area tucked between the Carpathians and the Lesser Carpathians? Again, an important point when discussing Transylvania's ethnic mix. User: LeNordique 23 October 2006