Talk:Menumorut

Untitled

 * Like most of the persons mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum, Menomorout is a pure invention. - says who ?
 * I have studied these things. The text I have written is basic history knowledge in Slovakia and Hungary as it is presented to university students and by texts of Academies of Sciences (in Hungary it is esp. Györffy - by far the best Hungarian medieval expert) and therefore that is the version that should be presented in a general encyclopaedia. This has been the case for decades now. There is no serious source that believes these things (although I know that some authors are claiming the opposite - but that is always the case). Menomorut did never exist, there are many arguments for this.  The whole GH question is rather complicated. If you analyse other Hungarian, and Frankish, Czech etc. chronicles etc., you will find out that there is almost nothing correct in the GH as for this period at least. What I have written is just the result of such analyses.


 * well, isn't it normal to ask for reference/evidence supporting the affirmation that Menumorout is a pure invention ? -- Criztu 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * and Morot [Morot eius nomine maior est] was a distortion of the word Moravian.  - any reference to where this "distortion" is demonstrated ?
 * Again this is the standard explanation now. Morot is called Moravec (which is a special form of "Moravian" - hard to explain to a foreigner) in all Czech and Slovak texts. The point is that it is more probable that he did not exist as well, but if he existed then - as far as I remember - besides linguistic arguments the argument goes that Morot was the great (note the eius nomine maior est) ruler (namely Svätopluk) from which the "heroic" Arpad conquered the region of Bihar + Bihar was definitely Great Moravian territory at that time + Svätopluks name has been forgotten by Hungarians by 1200 and since Anonymus derives names in the GH from local names he also derived his names from the word Moravia. In addition, Hungarian chronicle writers themselves were confused by this error - e.g. Magister Akos basically wrote 1270 that he knows the person  was called Svätopluk but he cannot understand why the GH calls him Morot. Also, Simon of Keza presents a completely different story - derived from the GH - because the GH obviously contained absolute nonsense and because he used the lost Gesta Ungarorum veterum (which got lost today), which have not been used by Anonymus etc. etc. etc. (By the way I am not the author of the "Moravian" part.)


 * if the article presents the story of Menumorout as it was recorded in the GH, that wouldn't be POV, but if one is to present the "standard explanation in Slovakia and Hungary" about the veridicity of this story, i think reference/evidence to support the "standard explanation" should be offered. -- Criztu 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * the Magyar allies Kabars (gentes, qui dicuntur Cozar) - any reference to where Cozar is demonstrated as meaning Kabar and not Khazar ?
 * The most recent reference is Ján Steinhübel: Nitrianske kniežatsvo [Nitrian principality],2004, Slovak Academy of Sciences, a book revised by two best known Slovak medieval experts both of which are usually cited in German and English sources (Some 30 pages of the book are specifically dedicated to a (very complicated) analysis of Hungarian medieval chronicles with respect to the period here in question) Since the book counts 600 pages and since it is very detailed, I do not have the time now to check the whole arguments set out in the book before the part on Bihar. But as far I know, it is proven that Bihar was inhabited by the Kabars (which are mentioned by Porfyrogennetes as that part of the Khazars that accompanied the Magyars into the Carpathian Basin) and in GH one can read that the people that settled there were the Khazars - implying that the Khazars were the Kabars.


 * In reality, this "dukedom" existed after the conquest of the territory by the Magyars, but its existence before that time is highly improbable. - any reference to when did this "dukedom" "started to exist", or any evidence demonstrating the "high improbability" for the existence of a "dukedom" called Bihar in the area ? -- Criztu 21:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "Principality" is a more correct term. (1) It consisted of 4 comitatuses, of which it is known that they existed in the 11th century, (2) Together with the Nitrian principality (western and central Slovakia) it had a special status for some time during the 11th century (Tercia pars regni), when it joined the Nitrian principality in serving as an apanage principality for the Arpads. I do not know wheter there are other more precise years on the rise of the principality. The fact that it probably did not exist before the arrival of the Magyars again results from an analysis of the GH. The GH are trying to prove all the regional leaders of Hungary of his time are somehow derived from the "glorious" Arpads, so they simply extrapolated the major regions into the past and invented some persons. And since it is sure for some - don`t ask me which ones :-) - of the comitatuses, mentioned in the text, that they did not exist before the arrival of the Hungarians (no castle etc.), it is also probable that the same applies to Bihar. Maybe there are also other arguments, but again the generally accepted opinion is that one cannot trust anything in the GH. Juro 23:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * perhaps the existence of Biharia before the Magyar Arrival is not sufficently researched/documented or supported by historic/archaeologic evidence, and so it is unprovable at this time, but if there's any evidence that makes the existence of Biharia before the establishment of Kingdom of Hungary impossible, then pls provide link/reference (a link to Nitrian Principality, or to Great Moravia, etc.) to support the affirmation.
 * since there's pretty little evidence for this part of the world for that period of time, wouldn't this make any "standard explanation" about GH a theory/assumption in the end ? shouldn't the story of Menumorut be presented as it was recorded in the GH, and then state that the generally accepted opinion is that one cannot trust anything in the GH or Gh is a controversed chronicle, as the following medievalists conclude ? and leave the Menomorout is a pure invention for the reader's own judgement ? -- Criztu 18:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will stay at a general level. Let me put it this way: The proofs you are asking from me are so "fundamental" that it's equivalent to asking to proove say that 1+1 is not 3 (which is an exaggeration of course). There are some things even in history (like this one) that have been solved decades ago, that are generally undisputed and there is no reason to change the results of the analyses. You cannot expect to have the final primary proofs for every single statement in a general encyclopedia, especially not nowadays when there are millions of references for each topic. I have also tried to explain to you the complexity of the problem and that even if I would take this single book I would have to translate 30 pages only to make an introduction to the analysis of medieval Hungarian chronicles (and that is definitely not my specialization) and the above book itself uses one thousand references. Then there is the history of Great Moravia, the Magyars etc...I am not payed for my work in the wikipedia, and even if I was - I would hesitate to do that, because I am not interested in Morot, because I believe the experts that he is fiction...

The only thing you can reasonably do is to buy some Hungarian or Slovak (secondary) expert standard histories of the Academies of Sciences, possibly written by several authors or best known authors, in which you have the result of years of work. What do you think modern history science is supposed to do? Take primary sources and then present all possible intepretation that come to people's minds just from direct reading of the text? This had been done before the 19th century and can be hardly called history science.


 * "the existence of Biharia prior to 1000 is highly improbable" leaves a "probability" that such a kingdom could have existed. either "the existence of Biharia's prior to 1000 is impossible (because the region was part of Great Moravia or Bulgaria or whatever)", or if you lack information about that region in that period of time, and you have only theories/assumptions about the "probabilities" of what could have been in those times in those places, then provide reference to those theories. if you can't provide reference to studies/theories about GH, then simply present the POV of GH, or let the article a stub -- Criztu 23:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally let me make a comparison - To what conclusions would people come when reading Greek mythology (or say the Lord of the Rings) if they would not have been warned that (most of) the things just did not happen? How can you assume that people who usually do not even know where Hungary is situated can judge themselves without knowing the other chronicles, legends, the history of the territory whether the facts are true or not just from reading the GH? Juro 02:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * by saying "According to GH, Menumorout was ruler of Biharia" the reader would not have to question these words, but he may question the GH, which he can read. by saying "Menumorout was a pure invention of Gesta Hungarorum" the reader might question these words, asking for reference/links to expert studies/evidences, so you should be able to provide reference to studies supporting your affirmation about the "truthness" of GH. you could simply provide a link/reference at the end of the article to a study about GH, say, the Gyorgy Gyorfffy's study on GH and his theory about the "truthness" of GH -- Criztu 23:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * finally, i'd like you to take a look at the Achilles article, cand you point me to where is it stated in that article that "Like most of the persons in the Illiad, Achilles was a pure invention" ? :) -- Criztu 23:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course I will try to find all those things, unfortunately I do not have the time (for such an unimportant person). And as for the Achilles article, the article explicitely says in the first sentence "in Greek MYTHOLOGY" which implies - for me - that it is an invention. In addition, Achilles is one of the best known persons in the world, so that in his case such a remark is even superfluos. In our case a comment is necessary because nobody knows Menumorut and because the GH are some 80% mythology + 20 % reality, and it is impossible to find out just from reading the text of GH which one applies in this case... Juro 04:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What a mess this article has become! I've cleaned it up by removing a lot of material. Scott Moore 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation for "cozar"
I find an other interpretation more convincing.

Cozar means Bulgar, not Kabar.

1. Anonymus knew Nestor's chronicle and used it extensively. 2. Nestor wrote: "cozars namely bulgars" 3. This is why Anonymus named the people of Menumorout (who had Bulgar heart) cozars.

4. Kabars are rebel Khazars who joined to the Magyars and fought their side in the conquest not against them.

I am planning to change the text. Opinions?

Bye, Laszlo


 * I think it is most honest to use the words names etc exactly as Anonymous used them, and as a note, refer to sources demonstrating Anonymous meant bulgars by cozars. I understand Nestor chronicle was recopied, and that it is susceptible to later edits to the original text Criztu 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menumorut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721104716/http://www.erdelyert.hu/images/products/original/4936.jpeg to http://www.erdelyert.hu/images/products/original/4936.jpeg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Distinction between duke Morut and his grandson?
The text at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18975/1/18975.pdf says: "Duke Morout, whose grandson was called by the Hungarians Menumorout,46 because he had concubines, had taken possession of the land between the Tisza and Igfon wood, that lies towards Transylvania [ad Erdeuelu], from the Maros river up to the Szamos [Zomus], and the peoples that are called Cozar47 inhabited that land."

So there are two characters here, Duke Morout, and his grandson Menumorut.

Why is this not reflected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the text under the subtitle "Menumorut and his duchy". Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Article is padded, information on subject is minimal
This article appears to be cobbled together from information from several other articles. The subject is barely even mentioned in much of it, and the sections that do mention him are either excessively detailed retelings of the single historic record he's mentioned in, as well as a description of lengthy debates between historians - debates that seem to be based mostly on speculation. Overall, I'm getting the impression that this was intended to be a thesis rather than an encyclopedia article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your above remarks. You maybe right, but the article summarizes most available information about Menumorut, that is the single (and late) source about his life and the scholarly debates about its reliability. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a summary, more like an unabridged retelling of the entire chapter where he appears in. The same applies to the historiography section, which could do without a lot of the trivia. Considering that Gesta Hungarorum is but one historic document, and a heavily disputed one at that, writing a full synopsis that spans multiple articles that also overlap in their content is most WP:UNDUE. In addition, the background section contains information that is only tangentially related. Information on the hungarian conquest, and the relevant medieval history of geographic region are better suited in their respective articles, which are linked. The articles on the other two dukes mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum follow an identical pattern. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the three articles follow a similar pattern. A "Background" section summarizes the principal events of the Hungarian conquests of the Carpathian Basin, because I am not sure that an average reader knows what happened around 900 in Central Europe, or who are the Khazars and Kavars. The second part of the article summarizes the narration from the Gesta Hungarorum, because this is the only source of Menumorut's/Gelou's/Glad's life (if they lived at all). Finally, a "Historiography" section present the scholarly debates about the reliability of the source. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the average reader wouldn't know that, which is why there are links to other articles on the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, the Khazars, the Avars, or the Gesta Hungarorum. Please consider WP:COATRACK, and especially it's very end: Conversely, encyclopedias which were centered around biographies of prominent figures would embed social histories in their biographies; e.g. the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica presents all information on the post-Roman "Migrations Period" of European History under the biography of Attila the Hun. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I think the articles do not contradict this specific policy, either. Our average reader will hardly be surprised if they can read a summary of the relevant parts of the articles about Khazars, Kabars, etc. in the Background section of this article. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Historiography
Historiography means the study of history itself. The word should never be used for what historians happen to say on one topic.- Dejvid (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)