Talk:Lists of political office-holders in Transylvania

Michael the Brave
While there has always been some controversy over the actual recognition of Michael the Brave's title of Prince of Transylvania the list seems to deal with the problem in superficial way labeling him as "governor". The list is probably based on pre-Rezachevici historiography and does not take into consideration his latest arguments. I will make a short overview of the latter.

De facto prince. Michael conquered and effectively administered Transylvania between Oct.22nd / Nov.1st 1599 and Aug.23/Sept.2 1600. He used the style Prince of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania in different variants and on several occasions. He had the armories of the three countries on his seal. Wallachian chronicles reffer to him with the title "crai" previously used to designate Hungarian Kings and Transylvanian Princes.

De jure prince. Szamosközy (who is an eye witness of the events) writes that two days before the Diat met on Oct 18/20th Transylvanian nobles chose Michael as their Prince. As the Diet met Michael had the estates swear loyalty to the emperor first, to himself and to his son. On Febr.28/March 9th Michael receives from Ottoman envoys the insignia of power and the Sultan's recognition of him being Prince of Transylvania. Note that transylvanian overlordship (Ottoman/Hapsburg) at the time is a controversial matter. Further more Michael negotiates with the Hapsburgs (who have indeed proposed him the governorship) and the emperror finally sends Michael on Sept 2/12th a letter recognizing him as Prince of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia and granting Michael's son the right of succession to the Transylvanian throne. Of course by the time the letter had reached him Michael was no longger in power in Trnsylvania but the argument is still valid to the "de jure" title.

I will include all this information in a more organized manner in the Michael the Brave article but I honestly think (given all info above) that Michael should be included in the list as Prince. Plinul cel tanar 09:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If what you write is true, I probably read an earlier work of historiography.
 * Nonetheless, Michael should be succeeded by Rudolf, with Basta as governor. Str1977 (smile back) 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, you are right, mea culpa. Plinul cel tanar 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Bathory
It is also said that Andrew Bathory was removed by Michael the Brave and Giorgio Basta. This is not accurate. Andrew was killed after the Battle of Selimbar won by a joint Wallachian and Szekely army, no Imperial troops actually took part in the campaign, Basta was still in his camp in Cassovia and the Hapsburgs were busy repelling an Ottoman attack in Royal Hungary. Plinul cel tanar 09:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if that is so, Basta should be removed.

early princes
the list starts with some fictional figures from the gesta hungarorum from Anonymus. this work is from the late 12 th century. sources from the 10-11 century could clarify this better. Transsylvania was under the rule of the second leader of the hungarian tribes. the last one was called Gyula who was the father or brother of king stephen's mother Sarolt. the ruler of the banat area was called Ajtony and he was not bulgarian.

Not Gyula ,but Iuliu or Geula. And Transilvania was not under the rule of hunagrian tribes but valachians. the hungarian tribes were based in the Panonian planes at that time.check your history books before writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I also removed Michael the brave who was not officially elected as a prince he had just the székely's support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.46.160 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning Michael the Brave: read the discussion above. Transylvanian nobles elected him as prince and the estates swore fealty the next day. Further more he was imidiatly recognized as such by the Otoman overlord and later (or rather too late) by the Hapsburgs. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A while back I started redlinking and in some cases trying to disambiguate some of these since if they are legit they need articles. It would be great if we could source every one of them right here as is done with say, dates for livestock domestication at Livestock.  I kind of ran out of steam on the redlinking though.  Good to find out some of these were fictional, I presume you removed those.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anonymus talks clearly about blaks, not vlachs!!! You have to simply read it. That's why I corrigated that world.--185.10.126.27 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dubious phrase
I find the following But the proclamation of Transylvania as a Grand Principality was a mere formality[1] [2], and Transylvania became again the part of the Kingdom of Hungary at the end of the 17th century [3] [4] extremely dubious. First of all the statement lacks a logical chronology. Transylvania was proclaimed a Grand Principality in the second half of the 18th century how is that consistent with it supposedly becoming once again part of the Kingdom of Hungary at the end of the 17th century? Moreover, Transylvania's legislative assembly the Diet continued to exist and governors continued to rule in the emperor's name as they had before. Finally none of the sources provided as reference qualifies as reliable under Wikipedia policies and I will remove the statement unless it is reworded and stronger references are added. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Material checks out
Checked it myself- it is OK207.63.134.98 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the same hoax that 47+ socks have tried to put on Wikipedia for the last 2 years? Edward321 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gelou
There have been some controversial edits recently on this topic. My advice is to keep it short in this article: the controversy is presented in detail in the Gelou article. Someone has suggested removing him altogether: there is no reason in doing so, even if he is fictional. The List of High Kings of Ireland goes back to the House of the Hundred Battles, the List of Emperors of Japan goes all the way back to Jimmu grandson of the Sun Goddess. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I recomemneded deletion is only if we can not distinguish between proved facts ( Gabriel bethlen or Mihai Viteazu were historic person) and the 7 Hun, 7 Hungarian, 7 Cuman chieftains of Anonymus together with their opponents. Historic legennds in the national tradition is not to be presented as reliable assetions. I agree with you on the Irish paralel, but legend or tradition must not be presented as a matter of fact. Rokarudi 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some compromise has to be reached between the editors and this article should not be subject to edit-waring. All views should be presented in detail in the Gelou article. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the logic? And what are the sources?
Borsoka (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the years between 1003 and 1038 the Hungarians monarch (Stephen I) is listed, for the period from around 1110 to 1556 the monarchs' deputies (the voivodes) are shown, and there is again a change in the period between 1690 and 1867 when the monarchs' are listed but a reference is also made to their deputies (the governors). Who should be listed - the monarchs or their deputies or both??
 * Were the voivodes rulers of Transylvania? The Székely Land, the Saxon districts and the towns were free of their authority, therefore they only administered parts of the province. Should we list the bans of Oltenia among the rulers of Wallachia, because the former administered a significant part of the Romanian principality?
 * Is there any reliable source throwing Gelou, St Stephen, Ladislaus Kán and Franz Joseph together?