Talk:History of Transylvania/Archive 2

Late Antiquity Transylvania - Corrections
1. BREVIARIVM LIBER NONVS is Breviarium, Liber IX (meaning 9th book).

2. It is a speculation to say Visigoths estabilished a kingdom in Transylvania as there is absolutely no evidence for it. The only thing which is certain is the Goths (the future Visigoths and Ostrogoths) were north of Danube but we know nothing about their organization there. Caucaland is the place about Ammianus Marcellinus says the Gothic chief Athanarich searched refuge before the Hun invasion and there were several places proposed for it, so I am not sure on what grounds the equation Kaukaland = Transylvania (especially in earlier times than Hun migration, "land" is a Germanic term, "Kauka" AFAIK is not). Also the alleged-Germanic archaeological culture Santana de Mures-Chernyakhov is dated in Transylvania since 4th century (a fact which stated in Wikipedia also), so to be in agreement with archaeological evidence, one should postulate a Gothic kindgom in Transylvania starting with year 300 AD. I'll just modify year 270 into 300 and add tags requiring citation for all the other claims. However the last claim is simply erroneous, the Goths didn't create successor kingdoms as they entered the Roman Empire, only several decades later. I don't think the kingdoms of the Visigoths (from Spain - Southern France) or of the Ostrogoths (from Italy) are of any relevance to this article, the fact the Goths were Arians was already enounced, so I'll simply remove this last claim.
 * Athanaric = Reik (regulus), kindins (dux). So what's wrong with this? That wasn't a kingdom, or was not located in Transylvania?
 * Actually both, but specifically the 2nd part. Daizus 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * from the same source http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/img/pic/0128.jpg --fz22 10:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already said Santana de Mures culture is a 4th century culture (in Transylvania) that's why I adjusted the date, what else do you suggest? Daizus 11:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kaukaland: it is the oldest toponym (Germanic, possible Gothic) refering Transylvania (the whole, or part ... it is unclear) --fz22 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the oldest toponymy we have in Transylvania is the one from Dacian era. Also Ammianus Marcellinus doesn't place "Caucaland" in Transylvania, so the correlation is not straightaway. What does "Cauca"/"Kauka" mean in a Germanic language? "Cuca", "Cucata" or even "Cucui"/"Cucuiu" are Romanian toponyms quite well-spreaded designating rocky heights (St. Brezeanu has an interesting study concerning this toponym). Daizus 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Marcellinus placed somewhere in the Eastern Carpathians - even the Nestor Chronicles use the term Caucasus for Eastern Carpathians ... the origin is uncertain: Germanic or Dacic --fz22 09:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote from Marcellinus goes as following "ad Caucalandensem locum altitudine silvarum inaccessum et montium cum suis omnibus declinavit, Sarmatis exinde extrusis", therefore it is a high place, with forests, hardly accessible and which was previously inhabited by Sarmatians. In that period Sarmatian populations (i.e. Iranian) were in the north-Pontic steppes and Moldavia but could refer also to the Jazyges from Pannonia (also an Iranian population) therefore there are several locations for this place, mostly in Carpathians (but many not in Transylvania especially if we refer to the Sarmatians inhabiting Moldavia, for instance one hypothesis puts this place near Buzau). Nestor Chronicle is not very relevant as it is much later, however there are Roman accounts labeling Carpathians as Caucasus (see Jordanes) but also other toponyms as "Cauca" in Spain in 4th-5th centuries where the emperor Theodosius was born ("natione Spanus, de provincia Gallaecia, civitate Cauca"). Daizus 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

3. The following paragraph is a bit confusing. The Huns reached Transylvania around 380 and around 420?

4. The semi-independence of Transylvanian Gepids is justified by what? There's no clear information about any of the barbarian kingdoms, why exactly the focus on a possible lack of centralization in the Gepid domination? And on what grounds it is claimed the Slavs cut the "virgin Carpathian forests"? Such story details when the article itself accepts the scarcity of information seem rather fantastic than real. Daizus 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Virgin forests: ''The Avars did not tarry when they learned that Justinian I had died on 21 November 565; within a week, their envoys were in {1-219.} Constantinople. In the 'insistent tone' that marked the nomads' diplomacy, they demanded that the new emperor renew the alliance. Instead, Iustinus II abrogated the treaty, indicated (in a similarly arrogant tone) that he would no longer pay the 'servants' wages', and declared that the Lower Danubian frontier would remain sealed. In the winter of 565–66, the Avars made an attempt to force their way through, but failed. Almost as if they were trying to escape from a trap, the Avars once again circled the Carpathians, and reached Thuringia in the fall of 566. Although they prevailed on the battlefield against Sigebert's forces, the outcome was a truce and the withdrawal of both armies. The Avars' desperate attempts to break through on the Lower Danube and, twice, to get around Carpathians, were driven by a real sense of danger, and that danger became more immediate in the winter of 566–67. In pursuit of their 'subjects', the Western Turks had crossed the Volga and, coming within striking distance, threatened to kill the Avars 'not with swords but with the hooves of their horses, by treading them into the ground like ants'. It is clear that the Avars, having suffered five years of adversity, yearned for a haven behind defensible natural boundaries — if not on the Lower Danube, then on the plain enclosed by the Carpathian Mountains; yet neither option proved to be attainable. Historical and archaeological sources confirm that the Avars could find no passage through the Northern and Eastern Carpathians. The archaeological data on settlements in the 5th and 6th centuries indicate that along the Northern and Eastern Carpathians, an uninhabited and uninhabitable forest had spread in a swath that was, on average, some 120 kilometres wide (and as much as 150–200 kilometres wide in certain areas). For an entire people and its livestock, this zone would have been virtually impassable even if it had not included, in the middle, a 80–100 kilometre-wide mountain barrier with an altitude ranging from 1500 to 2000 {1-220.} metres. The situation in Transylvania could be extrapolated from the valleys of the Upper Tisza and Lower Szamos rivers: from the beginning of the 6th century, there is no archaeological trace of human life in that region all the way to the Tiszafüred-Nyíregyháza-Debrecen line. In that period, a people intent on migrating would be limited to a few more or less accessible passes in the Southern Carpathians, principally the Vöröstorony (Rotenturm) Pass, in the Olt valley, and the Roman-built roads (later used by Gepidic forces) along the Lower Danube. However, these routes were barred by the Gepids' and Byzantines' strong military outposts. The Avars were truly caught in a trap, for if they were still in the Lower Danube region when the Turks caught up with them, they faced slaughter. These fears had not entirely dissipated even twenty years later, when they lived in the Carpathian Basin (much like the Hungarians' lingering fear of the Pechenegs around 920); in 580, Emperor Tiberius II tried to make them lift the siege of Sirmium by spreading the (false) news that Cherson had been captured by the Turks. In the critical days during the winter of 566–67, emissaries of the Langobard King Alboin met with Bayan somewhere between the Elbe and Oder rivers; Sigebert, Alboin's brother-in-law, had probably acted as mediator between the two powers. The envoys proposed a joint, two-front assault on the Gepids, as well as an 'eternal alliance' ('foedus perpetuum', which in Langobard usage signified a military alliance).[14]14. Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum I, p. 27. They accepted Bayan's demand that, in the event of victory, the Gepids' land, population, and riches be given to the Avars; they even evoked the tempting prospect that the Avars, if they captured Pannonia Sirmiensis, might easily cross the Sava River and realize their dream of occupying Scythia Minor and Thrace, or indeed press onall the way to Byzantium. '' --fz22 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a text copied from here: http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/41.html. I searched the bibliographical notes but I found no archaeological studies to back up the claims of the author. I've found no archaeological report (I have browsed some Romanian archaeological magazines or databases) to support his claims of extremely (as in uninhabitable) dense and wide forests. At the same time along the Carpathians there are settlements and traces of habitation for the period in question (5th-6th centuries). There are settlements but also other artefacts such as ceramic or late Roman/early Byzantine coins (especially along the southern branch of Carpathians on Mures and Olt valleys). Moreover, there are settlements dated in 5-6th century in the area between Tisza and lower Somes (that would be in the counties of Satu Mare, Maramures and perhaps a bit in Salaj). One easy way to find some of them is this: http://www.cultura.ro/Documents.aspx?ID=89
 * However it is quite interesting why the Avars were not able to find passage over Carpathians ... as the Magyars, Cumans, Pechenegs, Mongols did ... "In that period, a people intent on migrating would be limited to a few more or less accessible passes in the Southern Carpathians"
 * I don't think the routes of the Avars are very clearly shaped or their intenions are well known so we can't speak about them being able or unable to pass through a certain region. Daizus 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What I have remarked in that work is the large usage of obsolete sources (many of the scholar references being more than 50 years old) and incomplete bibiliographical coverage for the claims being made. Daizus 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, the book was written in the 1980s, and was promoted even by Ceausescu's historians ;). Being obsolate or not: easy to say hard to prove--fz22 09:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Being obsolete mean being not recent, which in a field like archaeology matters very much. And when the author says in the bibliographical notes: "The essential archaeological studies regarding the Visigoths include B. PÓSTA, A marosszentannai sírmező: Emlékkönyv az Erdélyi Múzeum-Egylet Vándorgyűlésére (Marosvásárhely, 19O6) as well as two works by I. KOVÁCS, 'A marosszentannai népvándorláskori temető' (Dolg. ENM 3: 1912) and 'A marosvásárhelyi ásatások' (Dolg. ENM 6: 1915). " for a book published in '86 it cannot be trustworthy as a scholarly source. As a non-scholarly material may be, we, the non-scholars, read what we have handy, not what we should. Coming to my previous reply, when the author says there was no habitation in certain area, he can be easily wrong if he doesn't have access to the most recent discoveries in the field (like I've said I couldn't find in the bibliography what were the archaelogical studies he consulted to conclude the inhabitation of those lands). Maybe it was not known any settlement in the '30s, in the '60s or when the archaeological literature he refers to was published, but not anymore now.
 * Also though I have not data at hand I doubt very much it was appreciated by "Ceausescu's historians". As the 2001 edition foreword says this book was a reply given to Romanian "official" historiography from those years. Daizus 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Transylvania - Corrections
"In 1293 AD King Endre of Hungary adopted a resolution in which universos olachos in possessionibus nobilium vel quoromlibet aliorum residenes ad predium nostrum regale Scekes vocatum ordinasemus revocari reduci et etiam compelli." I really don't understand the point of this untranslated quote. Some Romanians (Vlachs) are forced to return in their lands. Scekes is just a small territory, not Transylvania. What is the point, what is this quote supposed to prove? To me it seems just another Latin quote containing "universos olachos".

The next paragraph continues: "It should be mentioned that Partibus infidelium (Ungrovalachia) was under direct Hungarian rule (ut vos cum vestris mercimoniis et quibuslibet rebus inter Bozam (Bodza/Buzău) et Prahov a loco videlice ubi fluvius Ilontha (Ilonka/Ialomiţa) vocatus in Danubium usque locum ub fluvius Zereth (Szeret/Siret) nominatus similiter in ipsum Danubium cadunt transire possitis libere et secure) until 1330. " a) It reeks irredentism, there's absolutely no point in mentioning here the expansion of Hungarian kingdom anywhere outside Transylvania, if anything it should be mentioned in the article concerning the Medieval Hungarian kingdom b) It is false, the untranslated Latin quote simply says the king allows free transit in the aforementioned territories, it doesn't say anything more than that. However, when speculating on it, please consider there are also issues between the claims of Hungarian crown and the realities in the field - which is the lack of Hungarian administration in the mentioned territories, so talking of Hungarian rule is unproper lacking direct evidences for it c) IIRC, the dating it is also wrong, as the act belongs to Louis the Great which is post-1330 not before.

The paragraph continues with a unsourced speculation "These parts represented the basis for the so called Univeris Olachis." - it was not estabilished not in this article, nowhere else in the Wikipedia what was the ethnic map of 14th century Transylvania. To make it worse, even the aforementioned Scekes is outside "these parts". And this claim: "After Muntenia became an independent Principality under Woywode Basarab the Romanians lost their independent status and privileges; however, Ţara Oltului remained an estate of the Wallachian Prince." is useless and confusing. Independent? The first sentence in the next paragraph states the Romanians lost their priviledges in 1366. Any Wikipedia reader who checks the reign of Basarab and compares it with 1366 will be left in confusion: when were these privledges actually lost?

From all these reasons I consider these two paragraphs should be removed. It is a bothersome insertion (it was added on 30th March 2006 in one edit) in the text, full of errors and with dubious intentions. Daizus 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Look, the teritories between Ialonita, Siret, Buzau, down toward the Danube's havens were brought under the authority of the Szekelys of Orbai after 1250 (Teleajen/Szekely County). These lands were parts of the Transylvania.
 * Evidence? Beside this royal agreement on free transit, there's no document, no evidence on local administration subordinated to Szeklers or Hungarians whatsoever. If you want historical parallels, you can check even the Roman rule in Dacia and in Scythia Minor, and though they built fortresses in these lands (eastern Wallachia/southern Moldavia), even they traded and exploited resources in these lands, these lands were never part of the empire as the proper rule on them was never estabilished. Probably around 1250 these areas were under Mongol (whatever remnants they left) hegemony so I really doubt the Szeklers could have any claims of authority over these lands.
 * Beside Tuetonic castles in the region many Szekely-Hungarian toponym indicates a massive Hungarian presence in the former Szekely district: Buzău, Secuiu, Unguriu, Palanca, Panantau, Chiojdu, Lapos, Laposel, Urlati, etc ...--fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know of no Teutonic castles in the region, where are they? Secui (Szekeky) and Ungur (Hungarian) are natural since this place was a trade route between Transylvania and the Black Sea and as such many travelers and merchants took this route. Until 19th century there was even an administration district: Saac/Sacuieni so there's no wonder there are also few toponyms. Few of them seem created under the influence of Hungarian language (Chiojdu, Lapos, Laposel). But Palanca is also a Polish and a Turkish word (palanka), Buzau is possibly from the ancient Mousaios but there can be formulated several other hypotheses (inclusively from the Romanian "buza" which has a parallel in Albanian, so it is not a Hungarian borrowing). I never heard of Panantau (nor can I find it, are you sure the spelling is correct?) However, the most frequent toponyms are either Romanian or Slavic (it is one of the areas with dense Slavic toponymy, see especially the hydronymy - see Prahova, Ramnic, Slanic, Teleajen, Ialomita, Dambovita, etc.). Urlati sounds purely Romanian ("a urla" comes from Latin) but also there are several settlements in Romania having this name (for instance, one near Suceava in Moldavia). But the real problem is that many of these examples are not attested anywhere near the period in question, so they are not evidence for a Szekler administrative region in the mid 14th century. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * until 1845 existed even a separate district. http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude%C5%A3ul_S%C4%83cuieni district in Muntenia? Why? What is the Romanian POv relating this question?
 * This county was first attested in 17th century. Most of the historians I've read justify the toponymy from the trade and the traffic the Hungarians and the Szekely performed on this route. Stelian Brezeanu has a different opinion in his study upon 'Terra Zek' considering 'Saac' is derived from the Romanian/Vlach 'sac'/'sec' meaning 'deserted' because this is how the contemporary acts described this territory. For instance, we know from a Papal diploma the Teuton knights requested also the lands beyond Burzeland, which were deserted. The 'deserted' qualifier occurs often in this medieval space (the 'deserts' of the Avars, the 'deserts' of Bulgaria, the deserted lands of Transylvania, the deserts of Hungary itself) and refers mostly to an uncivilized, rural place. We know from the chronicles of Otto of Freising, most of Hungary (Pannonia and Transylvania together) was rural and the signs of urban habitation (not to tell the stone castles, which were common in those age in Western Europe from where we have most of the testimonies on these 'deserts') were scarce. Daizus 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Desertum desert = 'lakatlan puszta' = 'abandoned place'.
 * Really? Then how come the same territory, Tara Barsei/Burzenland was also called "terra deserta", "terra vacua", "terra deserta et inhabitata", but at the same time, a diploma to the Teutons mentions "homines, qui terram ipsam inhabitabant, quando dicta donatio facta fuit vobis et domui vestre". The land is either inhabited or uninhabited, according to how the author wants to see it. Lacking civilization/urbanism/Catholicism/etc. or a place good to raise taxes from. Brezeanu makes a fine case on these 'deserts'. Otto of Freising describes Hungary as a barbarian land, lacking walls, cities and most people living in tents and reed houses. And confirming his testimony we find the anonymous chronicle from 1308, Descriptio Europae Orientalis saying everything in Hungary seems to be desert (omnimo vaccum) because the relative small number of cities compared to the vastness of the land. Gervasius of Tilbury traveling to Constantinople in 1213 as he left Danube and went south he notes he enters 'desertum Bulgariae'. Everything in Eastern Europe seemed to be deserted in those days! But this word was not first time used this way in Middle Ages. Ammianus Marcellinus writes: "in immensum extentas Scythiae solitudines Halani inhabitant" (the deserts of Scythia were inhabited by Alans). He clarifies this in another passage: "omnes palantes per solitudines vastas, nec stivam aliquando nec sementem expentas", therefore the state of 'desert' here is related to the state of unworked land. Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the name Saac was used before 1645 then Sacuieni, Secuieni --fz22 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of any county/district before 1645 and the name Saac was in use until 19th century IIRC. I also want you to notice the unusual 'aa' which is uncommon both in Hungarian and Romanian. Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many hungarian names outside Transylvania. They are not explicable with trade routes ...
 * There are much more Latin, Slavic and perhaps even Turkic names outside Transylvania and in large parts of

Transylvania itself. We can fight with examples anytime you want. ;) Daizus 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many Hungarian names in the specified area ...--fz22 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ad nauseam. They are not at all 'too many'. Or maybe there are too many for someone who doesn't know too many toponyms from Romania. Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, you said the presence of Szekely and Hungarian population in the region is undocumented and those names are imprints of some trade roots on which the Hungariasn used to make contact with the ports of the Black See. The Slavic settlement names were given by slavic population, Turcik names by Pechenegs, Cumans, etc. This is unnatural that a romanian speaking population use hungarian words, for their settlements in a region (+ in hungarian style) just beacasuse tradespeople pass across ...--fz22 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't said that. I said there was no Hungarian/Szekler administration/district/county/etc.. I've said the remnants in toponymy (attesting temporary or permanent Hungarian/Szekler inhabitation) are rather due to the traffic between Transylvania and Black Sea on this route (a lot of people travelling both ways, some of them settled too). To continue with your examples, there is little probability the Pechenegs had any administration on this territory (though they might have controlled it in the manner the most steppe populations do), and the rule of the Cumans is again not-well documented (however infering from the Cuman origin of the Basarab name it seemed they settled and they contributed to local political elites). The only well-attested administration is Romanian and is late. So it's not a discussion of population, but a discussion of political control. This is how it started. Trying to make it look anyhow else is building a strawman. If you have no other arguments, I take it as a final concession. Daizus 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not assigned to put an end to a long lasting debate between the Romanian and Hungarian historiography. I'm just an outsider. According to you up to a specified year (X = ?) any deduction about the apartanence of the teritory is just a simple speculation. However those few documents we know about shows a ecclesiastical and political Hungarian-Teutonic(saxon) presence in southern part of the Carpathinas (before the well-attested Romanian administration) I think it is not irrelelvant what happened between 1000-X in those parts, don't you think? --fz22 11:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no debate lacking evidences. You haven't summoned any document to prove the control of any kind of Hungarian kingdom, of Teutonic Knights (who were campaigning against Cumans in the territories south of Carpathians as those documents say, but not more than that), of Szekler seats or any Transylvanian entity on these regions (in eastern Wallachia) somewhere during the 13th century, i.e. before the creation of the Wallachian state. Daizus 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, to have a scholar opinion on this issue one must be familiar (more or less) with Romanian geography, Romanian language, Romanian archaeological research (most of the sites are led by Romanian archaeologists, most of the reports are in Romanian, etc.), Romanian toponymical research, Romanian ethnography, etc. conditions which many (if not most) of the Hungarian scholars fail to meet. Maybe in future the opening and further development of Romanian scholarship but also joined efforts between Romanian and Hungarian scholars will bring other answers. But so far it's not clear to me what scholarship do you invoke to support your claims. What can Hungarian historiography say about the Romanian toponymy and their etymologies (for instance)? What is the specialization, the scholarly ground for their studies? A scholar is not a scholar in everything, only in certain domains he has expertise. I find very dubious the multitude of studies on/related to Vlachs/Romanians from Hungarian historians given the fact many of them don't even speak Romanian (any of its dialects) or perhaps some of them not even a Romance langauge (a somehow famous case is the case of Vasary who was sharply criticized by Curta in The Medieval Review). That not to question their knowledge of Romanian geography or the other things which I already talked about.
 * I'm sure the Romanian scholarship has its flaws, but I think we can agree the expertise of Romanian scholarship on Romanian issues is preferable to any other, similarily as Romanian scholarship expertise on Hungarian issues would be obviously eclipsed by Hungarian one. We need the opinions of others, they help us discard the bias, but I cannot agree with the equality in terms of balance between Romanian and Hungarian scholarship in issues where obviously the latter has not the proper specialization. Daizus 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is aplicable for far-away parts of the two country/historiography. But You must be kidding if you want to postulate the expertise of the Romanian historiaography over Transylvania, just beacause for some decades Transylvania belongs to Romania. There are several reputed scholars: Tiplic, Ota, Szekely, Paloczy, Binder, Rusu, Hasselbach, Kristo, etc, etc, let them fight their "war". Regards --fz22 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a postulate, is a provable fact. Let me quote you from Florin Curta's debate with Istvan Vasary in 'The Medieval Review' (started by a review on Cumans and Tatars. Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans (1185-1365) - which is a book regarding also the area and the epoch we were talkinga about):
 * << Vasary claims that instead of the Romanian names routinely mangled there are only "three misprints". Here is a complete list: "Jara Birsei" (instead of Tara Barsei) and "Jara Fagarasului" (instead of Tara Fagarasului) on page 28 and 168; "Moldoa" (instead of Moldova) on pages 134 and 143; "Moldva" (instead of Moldova) on pages 136, 143, 156, and 158; "Seret" (instead of Siret) on page 138; "Tratos" (instead of Trotus) on page 104. The entire title (translated into Romanian on page 142) that the Wallachian metropolitan used during the Middle Ages is misspelled: "archiepiscopu si metropolit Ungro-Vlachiei" (instead of "arhiepiscopul si mitropolitul Ungro-Vlahiei"). For someone who not only claims to be able to read Romanian, but also cites Uspenskii and Zlatarski in the original (albeit transliterated) language (e.g., on p. 32 with nn. 74 and 75), the pattern of "misprints" is quite surprising, given that it seems to concern almost exclusively Romanian names. In fact, in his own reply, Vasary manages to mangle even the name of the Communist dictator who ruled Romania for over twenty years ("Ceaucescu," instead of Ceausescu). I was ready to believe Vasary that he had read "every source used for the work in the original language". But misspellings (which should in any case have been corrected at the first page proof) and the listing of articles and chapters in the bibliography with either "f." or "ff." instead of actual page number do not inspire any confidence in his treatment of the Romanian sources. >>. In other words, this Hungarian scholar, though he claimed he can read Romanian scholarly literature, he can't get a couple of words right. You can find the entire debate here: a) the review - http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=tmr;cc=tmr;q1=2006;rgn=main;view=text;idno=baj9928.0601.002 b) the reply of Vasary - http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=tmr;cc=tmr;q1=2006;rgn=main;view=text;idno=baj9928.0603.016 c) the reply of Curta - http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=tmr;cc=tmr;q1=2006;rgn=main;view=text;idno=baj9928.0604.003
 * I am not saying all Hungarian scholars are like Istvan Vasary regarding such Romanian/Vlach issues, some are better, some are worst. But the knowledge of Romanian realities (like language, geography, ethnography, etc.) are fronteers hard to pass. It doesn't matter only recently Transylvania became part of Romania, what matters is a large part of the scholarly literature on Transylvanian history is in Romanian (though small parts of it are translated in other languages), a large part of the studies (not to mention field reports and other precious sources of information) are performed mostly by Romanian scholars. You cannot seriously attempt to talk about historical Transylvania (or Wallachia) ignoring this. And this is how it happens that many Hungarian historical works on Transylvania have outdated sources. This happens to Vasary, too, from the review of his book I quote again:
 * <<He reaches the same conclusion suggested nearly fifteen years earlier by Virgil Ciocaltan and Serban Papacostea: that it was the ascension of the maritime and commercial power of the Genoa in the Black Sea area following the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261) that caused the re-orientation of Golden Horde policies towards the sea and the trade routes opening in its ports now visited by Genoese merchants. Moreover, it was the economic re-orientation of the Golden Horde that created not only the conditions for a gradual withdrawal of Mongol forces from the Lower Danube region, but also the circumstances for the rise of the Romanian principalities.
 * ''Regrettably, Vasary's omission of relevant previous scholarship is not limited to a unique occurrence. Some of the many oversights include Andras Paloczi-Horvath and Svetlana A. Pletneva for the Cumans, Robert Lee Wolff and Nicolae Serban Tanasoca for the Second Bulgarian Empire, and Thomas T. Allsen for the Mongols. Vasary has apparently not encountered the studies of Alan Harvey on the Byzantine economy and has no knowledge of the most impressive Dumbarton Oaks Economic History of Byzantium. He still believes, together with Ostrogorski, that the "Byzantine manufacture underwent serious decay [in the 1100s], and Byzantium's economic power decreased in every respect" (p. 13). His use of such slogans as the "economic exploitation of the peasantry" and "feudal anarchy" raging in late thirteenth-century Bulgaria indicate residual Marxism, if anything (p. 80). At several points in his book, Vasary insists that "the Vlakhs, as is well known, were Romanised shepherds of the Balkans," although very little, if any, contemporary evidence exists for pastoralist Vlachs. In fact, it is not true that the word Vlach initially designated a "Balkanic shepherd" (pp. 19-20). Transhumant pastoralism was indeed an economic strategy associated with mountains, and old preconceptions about "primitive" or "backward" mountain communities of shepherds may be responsible for the Ottoman-era shift in the meaning of the word "Vlach" from an ethnic label to social designation ("shepherd"). Clearly, Vasary has a very shaky grasp of the abundant literature on transhumance in the Balkans and his book only perpetuates ethnic stereotypes of the worst kind. This may well be because of Vasary's inability to read Romanian, which prevented his access to some important studies. In the bibliography, most articles or chapters by Romanian authors (Ion Minea, Alexandru Sacerdoteanu, E. C. Lazarescu, etc.) are, unlike all others, listed not with complete pages but with "f." or "ff.," a detail that does not inspire confidence. Together with several factual errors mentioned below, this detail leads one to believe that the author did not consult these works directly, but simply cited them from other works. Some sources, especially Niketas Choniates, are paraphrased at lengths of a page or more at a time, even though the author warns that Choniates' account "may be regarded as naïve or one-sided" (p. 15). Vasary apparently ignores the existence of H. J. Magoulias's translation of Choniates (Detroit, 1984) and instead uses a rather outdated German translation by Franz Grabler (Vienna/Cologne, 1958).'' >>
 * Though you're not a scholar, your list strenghtens my impression on the incapacity of non-Romanians to create meaningful bibliographical lists on many of the issues we discussed here. We can debate it on smaller topics - like "ancient fortifications from Wallachia" or the "toponymy in eastern Wallachia" or "habitation in south-eastern Transylvania in 13th century".
 * And the issue of evidences is still open. There's no scholarship without evidences, just rhetoric. Daizus 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I must read the book :). However the fronteers are not so hard to pass ... scores of Hungarian scholars live in Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, etc. They are up to date in both country's historiagraphy. (eg. Palanca 3 other settlement in the former Kingdom of Hungary ) BTW Maybe Prof Curta did not read http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Istoria_%C5%A2%C4%83rii_Rum%C3%A2ne%C5%9Fti_de_c%C3%A2nd_au_desc%C4%83lecat_pravoslavnicii_cre%C5%9Ftini and he is not so expertised in Serbian, Bulgarian old documents ;). --fz22 14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know of no institution of Hungarian historical scholarship in Romania comparable to the Romanian ones (museums, institutes of research, universities, etc.) so what you call "scores" get rendered as "few" from the other side of the fence. I think it's undebateable most of the Hungarian historians are in Hungary or that most of Hungarian historians do not speak Romanian and other such obvious truths.
 * There are two things I don't understand: a) To which of the "Palanca"s you refer to? There are several settlements with such a name like those from the counties of Prahova, Bacau, Giurgiu or Valcea (i.e. throughout Romania; and I'm sure there are others as well). Not knowing what are you talking about or what do you mean by "kingdom of Hungary" I refrain from guessing.
 * b)I fail to see what is the point of mentioning that chronicle. It doesn't support (on a brief reading, I admit) any of the points Curta criticised (and therefore I don't understand your comment). And in case if such kind of arguments will further show up, I want you to notice it is a very late chronicle for the period we've been discussing. As for Curta's expertise he's primary an archaeologist and a medievist, but he certainly is familiar with a large part of the Romanian scholarly literature and he can read even Bulgarian. But based on that I won't claim Romanian historiography has a heavy word in Bulgarian issues and I'll give the Bulgarian scholars the credit they deserve. Daizus 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right teutonic castles, existed between Olt and Prahova, I was wrong.--fz22 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe many of the 'German' castles in the Carpathians were not build by Teuton knights but by Saxons in later ages. Tell me on which castles do you refer to and I'll help you with what I know. Daizus 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Teutonic_Knights built 'quinque castra fortia extruendo' [] --fz22 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The text clearly says this happens in 'terra Borza' (Tara Barsei/Burzenland), which is in Transylvania. There are indeed Teutonic castles (many are rather forts) there. In a twisted way, yes, this is between Olt and Prahova, but the common meaning suggests between their parallel valleys, meaning in Wallachia ;) Daizus 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ceatea Oratii (Rucar) in 'partem contulit Comaniae' + tha german speaking population sometimes was called 'quam Theutonici'. --fz22 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The archaeology of 'Cetatea Oratii' points to a 14th century dating, meaning it wasn't built by the Teuton Knights. The texts you invoked mention no castles or fortifications built by Teutons in Cumania, therefore your association is flawed. As for the Transylvanian control of this castle (rather a fortified tower) it is very possible as the border between Transylvania and Wallachia varied in time and this fortification is only few kilometers south of Bran. If you don't have basic knowledge of Romanian archaeological sites and geography I believe this discussion is pointless. Daizus 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a side note Transylvania is only inside the Carpathian arch. Daizus 11:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. The Romanians from Fagaras passed over the Carpathians and the voivodship of Havaselve (Terra Transalpina) was organised, around 1280. These lands were also integrant parts of Hungary until 1330 when Wallachia was formed (and eg Tara Oltului was included into this Voivodship). The Wallachian Romanian élite counted for Hungarian noble at the beginning and they were invited to the Transylvanian Diet as autonomous Universitas. So the ethnical supression of the Romanians in the Middle Age is a myth.--fz22 11:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true in the creation of Wallachian and Moldavian state the role of Transylvanians (Vlachs, but also Hungarians or Cumans - see the debate around the anthroponym 'Basarab') it is significant and worth mentioning but it is false to correlate (only) the creation of these new states and the worsening of situation of Vlachs in Transylvania. a) generally the situation of the peasants worsened (as the revolts from 1437 and 1514 prove) and the reasons are increasingly complex (as it didn't happen only in Hungary) b) the Vlachs were prepoderently in rural areas and low in the social hierarchy and that can be proven with documents since 13th century, so naturally they were affected greatly c) the Vlachs were not Christians (where by Christian, of course, it was ment Catholic Christian). Moreover, in 14th century the Hungarian kings attempted to Christianize even Wallachia. The religious differences would mark a gap between ethnic identities and would promote hatred and discrimination for many centuries in Transylvania. There are plenty of things to discuss. But this do not excuse the statements I have already showed false. Daizus 11:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In contrary: First was the creation of Wallachia, then the situation of the Vlachs inside the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania got worsened as an Estate. Seomthing similar happened with the Hungarians from Southern Transylvania after the 2nd Viena Award --fz22 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In contrary to what? You haven't replied to any of the arguments, so I take it you conceded on all points. Daizus 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the Romanian elite here, not the peasentry. --fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about both (see point c)). The syntagm "schismatic Vlachs" refers to both. And I'm talking general phenomena spanning in 14th-16th centuries, otherwise I could remind you the acts of the last arpadian kings, for instance at the beginning of his reign Andrew III consolidated the priviledges of the other Estates, while deprived the Vlachs from "Tara Fagarasului" of their previous autonomy. Such bits are part from another larger cumulative process which triggered the Vlachs' determination to create new political entities outside the Hungarian kingdom. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you continue to vandalize this article by adding irredentist claims about the dubious expansion of Hungarian kindgom elsewhere but Transylvania I'll be forced to ask for moderation to keep the topic inside some decent bounds. If you have good intentions about adding new information (there were not only two communities of Vlachs as you claim - we can discuss it) in this article please debate here first. I'm open to debate as long as you bring arguments. I can bring as well and I'm willing to, if any discussion gets started. Daizus 11:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said this? Me? two communities of Vlachs? I believe you must have misconceived me ...--fz22 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You were talking about two "parts" in the main article. I prefered to name them communities according to the Latin quote saying "universos olachos". Daizus 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right two parts of the Romanians from Kerc. --fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You were claimed these were the basis of the Romanian estate from Transylvnia which was false. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, the Terra Transalpina was the core territory of the Romanian Estate. --fz22 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you said something different in the edit I removed from the main article. Anyway, do you care to bring any evidence for this claim? Daizus 14:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I believe you're just copying the information from here (though I know little Hungarian, the wording seems very similar to me): http://www.cosys.ro/acta/cikkek/hu/binder.htm. Do you have any other sources to back up these or this is to be supposed to be your capital reference? Daizus 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * then read the romanian version of the same article: http://www.cosys.ro/acta/cikkek/ro/binder.htm.--fz22 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and related to the points you made here I notice two things:
 * a) The same baseless inference from a free trade route to a proper rule. Like I already argued, there's absolutely no evidence on a Hungarian subordinated administration or any title of possesion (feud) over those lands. If you prefer I can quote several names disagreeing with that and we'll have a "historians X, Y, Z belive this, Pal Binder believes that".
 * And what evidence show a Wallachian posession? That present day Romania lies there? At least we have one saying the King allow free trading routes on his property.--fz22 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We know from Hungarian records Basarab and his successors were voivods of Terra Transalpina (a term for the entire Wallachia. Nowhere it was said "except the valleys of Teleajen, Prahova, Ialomita and Buzau".). Also the royal act you invoked was followed (in a year or so) by an open conflict between the Wallachian voivod Nicolae Alexandru and the Hungarian crown, the former declaring himself "autocrator" and choosing the Byzantine Orthodoxy to Hungarian Catholicism. It is very reasonable to hypothesise Louis the Great giving priviledges to Transylvanian merchants conflicted with the Wallachian voivod, de facto ruler over those territories. Also during the reign of Vladislav I, after the wars with Louis the Great in the peace they signed beside giving Vladislav domains in Transylvania the Hungarian king asked for free passage of Transylvanian merchants on the aforementioned route. This rather hints the previous agreement the king had with the merchants it is not suggesting an act of real possession of those lands (as neither this one does). So at the best we have hints (though not in contemporary official acts) of Wallachian possesion of those territories in the mid 14th century but we have not even an insinuation the Hungarian crown ever ruled over those territories. Daizus 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * b) The only Transylvanian region discussed is Tara Oltului (Kyrch, Altland, Cherzerland), more specifically between Sibiu and Brasov (including of course Tara Fagarasului and Tara Barsei). The same region which is in discussion is stated to be inhabited by Vlachs (after all the title is about the premises of the genesis of Wallachia from southern Transylvania). There's absolutely no information about the rest of the Transylvania. If you like materials written in Romanian I recommend you David Prodan or Stefan Pascu, both giving rich statistics on the ethnical information of Transylvania (even in Late Medieval era).
 * c) Even if we pack the information from this brief and other historians to deliver a balanced less-biased content, as you can see the corresponding topic would be the formation of Wallachia (or the expansion of kingdom of Hungary if you like to discuss further the Hungarian claims up to Danube or even Black Sea), not the history of Transylvania. Daizus 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Transylvania - Corrections (part 2)
Having bumped into your debate (I see it’s already settled, thanks God), I’m taking the liberty to meddle with, since the paragraphs your debate began from were inserted on 30th March 2006 into a somewhat larger edit of mine. At that time, I welcomed the edit of fz22, since I interpreted it as marking the end of what could have degenerated into an editing war. One month before, I had found in both Transylvania and History of Transylvania what I considered to be unacceptable biased and/or false information on some aspects of Medieval History. Thus, I had to create two entries (Universitas Valachorum and Decree of Turda) in order to fill the information gap, before making the necessary changes in the Transylvania related articles. All that work was not without debate and I can remember the ignorant and arrogant behaviour of user Dahn and the good faith of user fz22, who, despite what I regard as an understandable Hungarian bias, proved to be a civil and open minded partner. Hence, I showed a cordial reaction to his/her last edit on that issue, which displayed a Latin text, of which I attempted a translation on this talk page, as a proof of Hungarian rule over the Ialomiţa – Buzău area. Now, there are important inaccuracies there – Dazius pointed them out – which make those paragraphs quite untenable (to mention but the two pieces of original research: 1. inferring political and administrative rule from a royal document which simply allows commercial privileges; 2. asserting that the only base of the Romanian community in Transylvania (Universitas Valachorum) was the Ţara Oltului). However, I wouldn’t qualify the fz22 interventions as bad intended. I rather think that, assuming an interpretation of Transylvanian Medieval history which blames the Hungarians for the bad fate of the Medieval Romanians, he/she tries to refine that interpretation with complementary elements. Thus, when I remembered the Decree issued 1366 by Louis the Great explicitly calling for the punishment of Romanians (being schismatic, they were criminal), fz22 recalled the devastations of Great Black Pest. When the loss of the Transylvanian Romanian Estate was mentioned, fz22 argued with the schismatic danger coming from Wallachia and Moldavia, which forced the Hungarian Crown to take measures against their own schismatic population. In fact, (historical) causality is circular: Catholic proselytism has driven a part of the Transylvanian Romanians over the Carpathians catalysing the formation of a Romanian state, which in turn pushed the Hungarian Crown to take tougher measures against schismatics…This being said, there is no such thing like historical guilt, especially in the study of history, especially for 500 years-old very complex events and contexts…--Vintila Barbu 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank's for your warm words :))

However I never said the only base of the Romanaian population in mid 14th century was Tara Oltului. And I still preserve my dissent on the Secuieni problem :), accepting the fact it mostly belongs to Wallachia article. The lack of sources are often amended with toponyms in historiograpghy. Eg. up to 1200s the Hungarian sources have only 27 references about Transylvania (mostly personal names), and nobody contested so far the authority of Hungarian Kings over this land ... Until the 14th century this number increase to 400, still incomparable slim considering the number of sources from the whole Kingdom. So we have a commercial privileges + an administrative untis preserved until the mid 19th century + many possible hungarian orogon place names in the region. ever so little still more then any Romanian document refering the region .. regards --fz22 10:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Fz22 is guilty of original research. As far as I noticed his opinions were backed up by historians or at least by some sites and/or books with history-related material.
 * And Fz22, to my knowledge the appartenence of Transylvania in the Hungarian kingdom has various evidences: archaeological, toponymical (i.e. the borders - gyepu, kapu or border guards - Szeklers, Bisseni), documentary (the contemporary attestations of titles and administrative functions). More than that, many scholars (K. Horedt, I. M. Tiplic, S. Brezeanu) even could rebuild the process of integration of Transylvania into the kingdom of Hungary roughly between 11th and 13th centuries, the borders of the kindgom moving approximatively from West to East throughout the Transylvania. For instance, Brezeanu gives the following attestation of comitates in Transylvania: Bihor (1111), Crasna, Dabaca (1164), Szolnok-Salaj (1166), Alba, Cluj (1177), Timis (1177), Cenad (1197), Caras (1200), Sibiu (1224), Bistrita (1274), Hunedoara (1276), Hateg (c. 1280), Fagaras (1303). I don't know where he got the information from (unfortunately no footnote), maybe on some he's wrong, certainly in some cases the comitates could have existed some years before the first attestation we know of, but anyway they give us both an evidence of Hungarian proper rule of Transylvania, but also suggest how the authority expanded towards the boundaries. And as we're with Brezeanu, he has plenty of studies on toponymy, but the difference is his toponyms are contemporary - he discusses the toponymical forms from those 13-14-15th century documents, not the name they have today. Daizus 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hungarian POV (provable from contemporany documents): County Alba/Feher, Csanad, Doboka is dated back from the early 11th century (time of St. Stephen). The Bishopric of Bihar (contrary to the hungarian tradition) is dated from the post Stephen period when the szekelys were moved to present day Sibiu county. --fz22 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know archaeological Hungarian settlements are attested in the middle of Transylvania and along Mures valley since 11th century, if not from 10th (that would count for all of your examples - Cenad/Csanad/urbs Morisena, Alba/Feher and Dabaca/Doboka), but I'm very curious about the documentary attestation of comitates. Please, can you present me the Latin fragments (quoted or links to pages containing them)? Thanks. Daizus 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember I read about this in a Hungarian learned journal (www.historia.hu) several years ago. I'll search the web if you want. --fz22 14:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know only few Hungarian words and for instance searching for Alba/Feher in the given historical context the best material I could get from there was this: http://www.historia.hu/archivum/2001/010506bona.htm. If it's not hard for you to find better materials, I'd appreciate it, otherwise perhaps I'll find it in another day. Daizus 15:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Secuieni
I've found several books about the former Secuieni county and its apartenence to Szekelyland in the Middle Age: --fz22 10:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Nicalae Iorga: România cum era înainte de 1918
 * 2) P.P. Panaitescunak: Patrunderea ungureasca dincolo de Carpati
 * Actually you've found this site: http://noborders.interfree.it/englishnew.htm. Nice try. Daizus 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, another one ... and I did not say that I've read them all. It takes me some time to procure them from somewhere ... I gave you as a reference, maybe you know those book better ... --fz22 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a Hungarian online material having roughly the same content: http://www.hunsor.se/dosszie/moldvaicsangokaromtorttukreben.pdf. Anyway my point is you actually don't know the content of the books, and your claim of apartenence is unsupported. I am not sure about N. Iorga's material (but from the context of the page it seems rather related to Csangos from Moldavia), but P. Panaitescu IIRC doesn't credit the Hungarians in Wallachia and Moldavia to come as a consequence of a proper (administrative) expansion of Szekelyland but purely to resettlement due to various reasons since the Cuman Bishopric of Milcov onwards (and with Hungarians, also Saxons and even Vlachs resettled). If you want to read Romanian historians on this topic, I'd rather recommend you more recent authors like S. Papacostea, St. Brezeanu or I. M. Tiplic, though I don't know if their work is available in other languages than Romanian. Daizus 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

About Banat
The issue of the Banat region, which I discussed on the Transylvania page, is even more easy to see here. While the history of Transylvania, goes on rightly, having little or nothing to do with that of the Banat (they had quite distinct historical paths), the story happily ends with a Transylvania bigger than it never was in 1.000 years of history. That because of an ethimological dispute and systematic misslead by the Cluj current of thought, ignoring what in fact is the major reason why Banat is not Transylvania: history. Please provide citation on the assertiot that the Banat is part of Transylvania! --Radufan 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because Banat has no real history on its own. It was just a frontier region (roman, hungarian, turkish or romanian) . Nothing important happened there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.1.180 (talk • contribs)

Historical population
Some things about the figures in the Historical population table: There are some small inaccuracies when we compare the data in the table with the one from Árpád Varga's book on Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995 and I'm going to correct them. The other thing I'd like to ask is where was the data for 1850 taken from? The most striking thing is that the total population for 1850 is 1,823,222, while after only 19 years it becomes 4,224,436. This is of course impossible, so probably the 1850 census only took into consideration Transylvania proper, which is inconsistent with the rest of the table. The percentages are also significantly different from those in Varga's book, or Rudolf Poledna's figures in his article from the book Interculturalitate. I think we should either correct the 1850 row, or simply remove it. Of course, correcting it is preferable. Alexrap 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody seemed to be interested in this particular issue. Anyway, I investigated it myself and I found that indeed the 1850 data refers only to Transylvania proper. There is no 1850 data available for Banat and Crişana. The data currently presented in the table is however slightly wrong, so I will correct it. I will also add a note explaining that the 1850 data refers to Transylvania proper only and will give 2 references for it. Alexrap 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Magyar tribal states
I can give you no referencies on this subject. this is an evidency among Hungarian scholars: - around 850 Khazar state system adopted - nomadic state - Hungariam conquest - tribal confederacy - Later the Magyar tribes in the Carpathian basin followed separate forign policy (the Horka clan conducted raids in Western Europe, the Gyula in the Balcan peninsula) and even their spiritual orientation wasn't uniform (Geza - Catholicism, Gyula - Orthodoxism) - then followed the second state formation. (on the ruines of the first) Based on Western European state system patterns, under Vajk/Stephen. --fz22 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "rulers of independent Magyar tribal states" covers a lot of assumptions (a Wiki reader browsing Wikipedia can easily find that Magyars had some sort of tribal organization, so it's no real problem with that):
 * that there were such things as "tribal states"
 * that Magyars had them
 * that these states were independent
 * that the rulers given for example were indeed rulers of those states. Actually some of them are problematic: on what grounds are Kean or Achtum such rulers?
 * As we're on Kean, are you sure it's in Chronicon Pictum? Is it said there that he is a duke of Bulgarians and Slavs? IIRC, this info is only in GH. And if you include info from GH, then we should include also the scary triad: Gelou, Glad, Menumorout. Daizus 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in the Legend of King Stephen --fz22 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I've found the reference. It is also in Keza's GHH. Daizus 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
Fz22, don't take it personally, but please provide some transparancy on your attempts of sourcing. I have searched a lot today to check those sources, and still I haven't found them all. If you get the information from some book, or some site, then let the other editors know: "Scholar X believes the source Y says Z". If you access the primary source directly, please provide chapter, paragraph, section, etc.. Thank you. Daizus 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on first visit of Magyars in Europe, I don't think you can back it up with a primary source, given there's no contemporary complete history of Europe. All the chronicles are rather localized. So we need a recent scholarly assessment. Daizus 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First visit of Magyars in the Frankish Empire (Pannonia): (they fought in the sub-Danube region even earlier in 838-839 against the Bulgars). "Hostes… qui Ungri vocantur, regnum… depopulantur” Annales Bertiniani: http://mek.oszk.hu/03900/03960/pdf/01fejezet.pdf (chapter 1.4, 3rd paragraph)--fz22 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Add the book (the pdf) as reference for that claim. Anyway, I was wrong about Annales Bertiniani, it covers a longer period than I knew. Thank you. Daizus 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hungarians include Magyars and Szeklers?
Hello, I have always found the relation between the 3 words obscure, and maybe this article clarifies it. The article states that both Magyars and Szeklers are Hungarians. Is this hierarchy widely accepted, or mainstream? For instance, does that mean that not all Hungarians are Magyars, just like not all Hungarians are Szeklers? Dpotop 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Careful with those terms--a "Hungarian" is technically just a citizen of Hungary, not necessarily an ethnic Magyar. So yes, not all "Hungarians" are "Magyars". ;-) (It's hair-splitting I know, but that's one of those tricky little linguistic oddities that always bugs me.)
 * As far as I know, most Szeklers do consider themselves to be Magyars. There is certainly the consciousness that they are a distinct group of Magyars with distinct history, tradition etc., but it's generally accepted that they are Magyars. I do believe, however, that there are some Szeklers who consider themselves to be an entirely separate ethnic group, related to the Magyars but not Magyars. According to the legends they are descendants of Attila's son Csaba...but whenever we go back far enough that our main sources are legends, it gets pretty murky.
 * Do we have any Szekler Wikipedians on here btw? A real Szekler could probably explain this situation much better than me... K. Lásztocska 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Székelys consider themselves Magyars, except for those who have double personality and also think they are descendants of Prince Csaba :-). They vote for their parties called Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség, or for Magyar Polgári Szövetség. Actually, if you compare Székely Land with Hungary, it is very surprising to see that Székelys have more "pure" Magyar traditions. Eg. unlike Hungary where the population is of a very much mixed origin, with a lot of Slav and German surnames still in use, in Székely Land you will find a lot more original Hungarian names.
 * Anyway, in the Hungarian language there is only one expression for Hungarian, this is: "magyar", so there is no distinction between ethnicity and citizenship, like in English. If you want to say somebody is Hungarian (citizen) the expression you can use instead of "magyar" is "magyarországi", or "magyar állampolgár". Consequently if you ask a Székely he/she will say he/she is "magyar". Now, if you translate this into English, the translation will usually be "Hungarian", because Hungarians, as a result of their native language, are not sensitive to this distinction in English. Also, because "Magyar" is less often used and known to English speakers. example 1: BBC Hungarian Language Serviceexample2: RMDSZ
 * Why are there two expresions used for Hungarian and one for Romanian? I think because the medieval name "Hungarian" is still used by foreigners, while Vlach/Wlach/Olahus was abandoned. --KIDB 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. I try to synthesize:
 * In the Hungarian language: Magyar=both nationality (citizenship) and ethnicity. In an ethnic context Szekler is a sub-set of Magyar.
 * In English: Hungarian= both nationality and ethnicity and in an ethnic context Szekler is a sub-set of Hungarian.
 * Is this correct?
 * If yes, then should we remove references to "Magyar" on Wikipedia, and replace them with "Hungarian". In fact this is why I asked this question, because someone used the 3 words with seamingly different meanings in a single phrase. Dpotop 07:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Magyar" and "Hungarian", the way I use them in English is "Magyar" to refer to ethnicity and "Hungarian" to refer to citizenship, regardless of ethnicity. So no, we should not replace all instances of the word "Magyar" with "Hungarian" because they do have different meanings, even though they are too often (and incorrectly) used interchangeably. The sentence with "Hungarian", "Magyar" and "Szekler" in it all at once was just an example of really confusing writing (probably by some well-meaning contributor who was nonetheless unclear on the concept...)K. Lásztocska 22:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue is difficult to solve, there was already a discussion here, the result was that there are no clear rules. --KIDB 08:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The migrations part of the lead
I will delete it, because it is not Ok for several reasons: Cheers, Dpotop 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The region was diverse not only starting in the 4th century AD, but even before. You can go as far as the indo-europeas, if you wish.
 * 2) The great migrations did not only come from central Asia. I understand the interest in that region, but the slavs were actually closer, as were goths, a.s.o. Arguably, it was the indo-european part that mostly affected the region.
 * 3) Given points 1 and 2, your conclusion (the ethnic and cultural diversity) cannot be a conclusion. It can be a statement, however, because it's true.

PS: Nobody answered my previous question on magyars, szeklers, and hungarians. Dpotop 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Romania 1600 02.gif
Image:Romania 1600 02.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael the Brave
Michael the Brave has ruled Transylvania for approx. 1 year. Compare that with the hundreds of years of Hungarian rule! His role in the Transylvanian history is exaggerated. The role of other rulers like Stephen Báthory is almost ignored because of their ethnicity. Only pictures of ethnic Romanian personalities are presented. Moreover, the picture representing Michael the Brave is a fake one. Please provide only authentic pictures. Also, on the maps are shown the actual borders of Romania, a country which did not exist in the 13th or 16th century. Those maps are home-made. Please provide historical maps from the relevant period. --Zmiklos 21:44, 15 June 2007

Ottoman rule?
I don't get it - did the Ottomans come to rule Transylvania in 1540 or 1541? --PaxEquilibrium 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does one have a reference for the ethnic composition of Transylvania in 1713?

 * question asked by Dc76\talk 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Dear User:Koppany, it is very unfortunate that you are starting again this kind of edits. We've already gone through these discussions some time ago. There is no reliable data for the 18th century and before, as unfortunately no Censuses were conducted at the time. Alexrap (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not mentioned Ceasusescu, just added data and sources: Nyárády R. Károly Erdély népesedéstörténete --Koppany (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what does Ceausescu have to do with it. But to address the issue here: the table contains information from official censuses. There were no censuses before 1850, so we can't mix things and put them in the same table. Is like comparing oranges with apples. There are indeed several estimations on the ethnical composition of Transylvania before the 19th century, but unfortunately there is no consensus over the accuracy of these estimations.
 * So what you're trying to do now is to impose one particular estimation (which I can't even find in your reference - by the way, could you please translate for the rest of us here on the English Wikipedia who don't speak Hungarian the fragment making reference to the 1713 data) and put it next to some census data. Well, we just cannot do that. Alexrap (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Koppany, I believe that you are wrong to remove the useful comment in the Historical population section that states where the figures in the table have been obtained. You may have a good argument that an official tax list is a kind of census; I would like to hear it, because I don't personally mind which population was in the majority in those times. But the figures should be seperated off in some way from the censuses table, with explaination about where they are derived and/or footnote references to works in English. Such a discussion requires *greater* detail in its presentation, not the blurring of details by mixing up figures that have different origins and meanings. Best wishes. Frankieparley (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tacit comment about the ethnic populations in the Middle Ages being ordered by size, as this has been disputed in recent discussions. I've added the Roma, who I'm sure must have been present in large numbers. This article was recently POV tagged by User:Nergaal. Was your concern the argument over population, Nergaal? Or was it something else? Please let us know what you recommend for the POV tag to be removed. Frankieparley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Frankieparley, thanks for your comment. I am sorry for my short explanations, but I have been very busy recently in real life and my main concern was to readd information that was removed by user Alexrap. That is true that before 1850 there was no official census per nomine in Transylvania but we have official tax lists that trace back to the 16th century. These lists iclude the number of all tax payers etc. Due to the fact that only serfs payed tax and with rare exceptions all ethnic Romanians were serfs, we can say that the percentage of Hungarians were even higher that these tax lists show, because among Hungarians the rate of nobility (and they did not pay tax) was relatively high, in some region 15-20%. At the momet I am too busy to translate the sources I added, but appreciate any help in this field. --Koppany (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Koppany, this is interesting history, and is worth presenting on Wikipedia, though I fear this argument never ends! I think you can introduce your pre-1850 statistics in the Historical Population section, but in a different table and with an explaination; then they can be discussed. We still have the POV tag; my revision was removed, but I am not an expert in these matters so I don't know what to do next. I'll wait a while to see what happens. Incidentally, I've been looking for a history book about Transylvania, but I have not yet found one published by an impartial author; though there's a new version coming out in 2010: . Cheers! --Frankieparley (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was me who reverted to the initial version (before the changes of Koppany). And I do agree with you (as I stated in the revert log): The current data in the table is consistent, coming only from official census (BTW, what is the correct plural form for census, there's none on m-w.com). Moreover, the paragraph of text clearly states what kind of data it's about. Of course, if you have data for the 1700's from reliable sources, you should put it here, but separately (not in the same table), and with an explanation of what it represents. If it's a tax list, then I presume it does not include lots of people (the ones that were too poor to be taxed, for instance). You should say something about it, too. I would have done it, but I can't read Hungarian. Dpotop (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dpotop, yes, I agree with all of what you say. These tax figures can be presented, but differently, and with explainations and warnings that they are not showing the same information as census figures. I can't read Hungarian either, and only some Romanian. --Frankieparley (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Transylvania proper" means nothing
Or, to be more precise, there is no clear definition of what it means. The only solution I think is to choose some historical reference and refer to the "Principality of Transylvania in year 1500", for instance. The current situation is not OK. Dpotop (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It means the properly so called Transylvania ... which was a geographic and less political unit...--fz22 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)