Talk:Stephen I of Hungary/Archive 1

Old Talk
-- Where have the writer of this article found the info on his children? I've only known about Imre and Ottó. As for Ágota being his daughter, I thought this was already dismissed as not proven. In the article of her daughter Saint Margaret of Scotland she is called "a kinswoman of Gisela". Alensha 22:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed outdated info on Stephen's children. Hopefully someone will write an article on Andras I, a leader of the anti-Istvan party. Ghirlandajo 10:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic encyclopedia gives baptismal date as 985 for both Geza and Stephen, and then accession in 997. A little medieval dictionary I have gives 975 for Geza's baptism and gives no date for Stephen's. It's a problem. Opinion seems to favour 985 or 986, or when Stephen was ten: perhaps the earlier date derives from an assumption that he was baptised as an infant.

I've mentioned this before, but genealogy =/= history. One good article is worth at least ten circular stubs.

All the accounts I have read state that Stephen was born a pagan (with the pagan name Vajk), and both Him and his father were baptized together at the same time, when Stephen was ten years old. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this event occured in the year 985.

I like the wikipedia experience. Stephen I was referenced from some places, I looked around, and created the nonexistant page. Later walking the other way around I found Stephen I of Hungary and quickly went to Stephen I to merge it. I was late, as Someone else have already merged it. :-) grin
 * Muahahaha! Now if we could find a nice picture of him or his crown.... -- Someone else 23:22 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * You know the problem: nearly impossible to tell the copyright status of the pictures. Like for the crown and  (Photo of a sculpture) or  (robe, National Museum). grin 23:46 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * The photo of the sculpture should be OK as fair use; the copyright in the sculpture has expired, and the photograph itself is not a creative work. Just be sure to fill in the fair use rationale if you decide to use it. Of course it would be far better if a Hungarian user could take an original photo of the sculpture an donate it under GFDL. Securiger 06:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mother's name is Sarolt and not Sarolta. grin 12:00 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

The article seemed to say the "Book of Wisdom" meant the Bible, but apparently it's the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom. Stephen's reference seems to be the passage "He pleased God, and was beloved, and living among sinners, he was translated. He was taken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul." (4:10–11) &mdash;JerryFriedman 00:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about the Hand? Next to the relic in Budapest there is an iscription stating that the hand was found intact on a battlefield 40 years after the battle. There is no mention about the rest of the body.

Vajk meaning Hero - or something completely different?

 * Vajk(meaning hero) - please provide reference to the meaning of Vajk -- Criztu 15:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * actually I've always heard that it means "rich" or "lord", not "hero"... it is said to be a name of Turkish origin. On some websites they say the name in Romanian is Voicu. Does it have a meaning in Romanian? Alensha 2 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)
 * I don't know its meaning, but in Romanian, Voicu is an old and rather common name. bogdan 12:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Vajk is generally considered to be derived from the Turkic "bay" meaning hero or lord (rich is probably supposed to be the same). I have never heard of another ethymology and this is the standard explanation in Western and Central Europe at least. Juro 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
 * Hm. You mean "Bey"? I'd be interested on how /voik/ was derived from /bey/. They don't look very similar... bogdan 12:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * V can be evolved from B, if it could happen in Hebrew, then it could happen in other languages too. Although his mother was from Transylvania, and she might have known the name Voicu, I don't think there was any reason to give him a Romanian name. On the other hand, Hungarian language has been influenced by Turkish, and even on the Holy Crown the ruler of Hungary is referred to as "King of Turkia". I tend to believe his name was of Turkish origin. But, of course I'm no linguist and no historian, just a wikipedian :) – Alensha 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If fact both Hungarian Vajk and Romanian Voicu is a name with Turk origin. So St. Stephen did not bore a Romanian name and the father of John Hunyadi did not bore a Hungarian name. According to the official (legally accepted) Hungarian Given Names Register (see http://www.origo.hu/utonevtar/index.html?id=1095 in Hungarian for details), the origin of the name "Vajk" (enlisted as "the pagan name of king St. Stephen") can be explained in different ways. Originally "Vajk" means "fats" or "grease" [? possible compare with contemporary Hungarian noun "vaj" (="butter) which is related to the Finnish "voi" of the same meaning]. Another explanation can be a diminutive form of the Turkish name "Bay" (which means "rich", "having plenty of"): maybe Bay-k(a) > B/V change: Vajka > shortened: Vajk, thus meaning "small rich". Note: B/V transvolution, mostly in loanwords, is a known phenomenon in Hungarian, see the Roman Latin name of Savaria/Szombathely for example.
 * Actually "Vayk" is more likely to come from Romanian or Slavic "Voicu". The Turkic name "Bay" seems to be very different. The Romanian or Slavic (Bulgarian) connection is explained by Gesta Hungarorum - that describes King Stephen's genealogy. He is the grand-grand son of prince Menumorout that rulled over the North-Western Transylvania and whose daughter married with Arpad's son - Zolta. Zolta -> Tocsun/Taksony -> Geza -> Vayk (Stephen).

The correct spelling of Vajk is Voicu. it is a romanian given name still used today. Stephen the 1st was romanian and converted to catholicism from eastern orthodox in order to become king of hungary. PS this Vajk name is just the hungarian version of "voicu" sounds like "VOIK" an invention actually it doesn`t mean anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC) The form of the word means nothing you are not linguists, every word has a history, and if two group or more of the same peoples depart their vocabulary is starting to differentiate, and I am not just talking about loan words, even those words what were the core of their vocabulary. If two words look like the same that doesn't mean they have a common origin, in most cases it even means that they aren't related. For example a lot people believe that the German Haus and Hungarian Ház words are related, because of similar spelling and meaning, just like the Chinese Nü and Hungarian Nő, this is nonsense, we do not compare languages by words, but by much deeper properties, for example sound matches (like Finnish kunta, lintu, anta Hungarian had, lúd, ad), and grammar (like the type of the language bothy Finnish and Hungarian are agglutinating languages, the direction of three hol-honnan-hová). Also if the most ancient, basic vocabulary, which are almost the same in every language (like live, die, hand, moon) doesn't show some sort of resemblance (not just style) the linguistic affinity is unlikely, but not impossible. So before you think you know everything about two or three languages, don't say this kind of nonsense: "The two words seems very different.". We doesn't need your speculations, this is wikipedia if you don't have any source, just propagandist myths (such as claiming that every Hungarian king was Romanian), then don't edit. Example A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai from Bereczki Gábor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.240.219 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hont, Pázmány, Nyitra
The ethnicity of Hont and Pázmány is not relevant here: according to any reliable sources, they were German, according to Slovak POV-pusher user Juro, they were Slovaks (I guess Jesus was a Slovak as well). Calling Nitra a Slovak christian center is anachronism: Slovaks have a national identity since the 19th century. Since Hont and Pázmány are figures of Hungarian history, they should be called as Hont and Pázmány. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.93.165 (talk • contribs). I am not the original author of that part. The rest of this comment stems from one of those typical Hungarian fashists (probably even organised) vandalising the wikipedia since several months. To any reader: just ignore any recent statements of Hungarian users in the wikipedia regarding anything concerning Romanians, Slovaks and related topics. Juro 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? – Alensha 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if someone came up with an exact proof of whether these two noblemen were truly of Slavic ancestry and not just having property in a territory (of highly diverse ethnic composition) that was later to become Slovakia? As for Nitra, it was indeed an ancient Slavic Christian center in the Moravian Empire but I fail to see its relevance in an article about St. Stephen. The questions of Slovak ethnogenesis (national identity) is a bit complicated, with conflicting theories about that would go beyond the scope of this article. WiseGentleman 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

...
"He often disguised himself as a peasant whenever he traveled and freely gave money to any poor people he met (in one account, Stephen was beaten and robbed by a group of beggars to whom he was giving alms, but he forgave them and spared their lives)." -- is it some kind of folk tale? does it belong in the article? Alensha 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Adding Princes of Nitra Principality succesion box, Saint Stephen´s name in Slovak (He was a prince of recent Slovak Nitra) and paragraph about distinguishing historic Kingdom of Hungary from Hungarian/Magyar kingdom and republic in 20th century. Thanks for not deleting the whole thing, you are welcome to edit it though. The purported "distinction" between the Hungarian Kingdom and Hungary is clearly out of place here, what is true that the whole Hungarian history is characterized by the continuity of the Holy Crown. Overemphasizing any Slovak connection of St. Stephen is clearly POV, especially if no direct proof is offered. The fact that Magyars were "less civilized" also needs some further clarification and proof in order to survive deletion.

Crown
I'm pretty sure the crown is NOT in the Parliament Building. I saw it last year (2005) in Matthias Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.108.185 (talk) It is in the Parliament Building (it's never been taken anywhere else since 2000, not even for a few days' display). You must have seen something else. KissL 09:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The year 1000 is wrong.
It's 1001. Saint Stephen was crowned on August 20, 1001.
 * Not exatly, he was crowned in the first day of the new millenia. According to medieval customs this could be December 25th 1000 or January 1st 1001. August 20th is the day of elevation of his body during the canonization process.

I agree, it's definately 1000. I have a book called A Concise History of Hungary (copyright 2005) that states "Stephen was crowned on the first day of the new millennium (25 December 1000 or 1 January 1001)." I also heard about it while living in Hungary. (Sorry, I sounded like a jerk when I first wrote this comment; that's why it is rewritten.) Christmas Day, 1000. I don't know what lies you're reading. There's a copy of the Holy Crown in the Matthias Church, you must have seen that.

Grateful Dead?
is this the st. stephen referred to in the grateful dead song st. stephen?

Ruling prince of Nitra?
Stephen was not a ruling prince, but a duke of Nitra. Without doubt there was a continuation between the principality of Nitra and the Hungarian Duchy of Nitra, but confusing the two is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Ruling Prince or Duke of Nyitra?
Since I am no historian only a keen reader of history, I am not the appropriate person to answer this question. My actual knowledge however is reflected by the modification I made: "dukátus" is an institution that was in use since Árpád to divide territorial powers among the family members. I am also aware of the conflicting opinion, saying that it was instituded only later, after the death of St. Stephen. The theory of a functional Nitrian principality in the life of Stephen is advocated by Slovakian historians but denied by Hungarian ones. In my opinion, both views might be true or might be wrong, but I think the correct procedure (and in line with wikipedia's standard) is not to name one opinion as "authentic" but to show all prevailing points of view. User from IP 195.168.244.56, however, insists on his truth as an absolute one, instead of discussing it.

I ask you 195.168.244.56 and everyone else to discuss this matter and forge a text that is acceptable for everyone (maybe showing both versions). Setting "national pride" aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Nitrian principality was a duchy according to OLDER (Slovak or Hungarian) literature since 1048 and it is now unanimously considered a principality - not duchy - even after 1048 in Slovakia. But that's not the topic of this particular article. Iow, you can say it was a principality or duchy after 1048, but before 1000 - i.e. for Stephen - the title was simply the general "title" prince (which doesnt imply that it was an independent state and nobody claims that, if that's your problem). 195.168.244.56 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 195.168.244.56! Could you name any Hungarian source that admits the existence of the Nitrian principality 100 years after the so called Honfoglalás (the arrival in the Carpathian basin)? I think you can't. This theory was simply made up by Slovakian historians to provide for something "slavic" to fill the medieval history books after cc. 900, and if you would read your referred source, you would find that there are no actual proofs in that book, only unproven hypotheses. Vajk could not be "ruling prince", neither in Nitra nor elsewhere, since Géza (his father) had that title until his death in 997, and there could be only one ruling prince (nagyfejedelem in Hungarian) in the whole country. (Note that the Hungarians had a quasi tribal society that time made up of 7 tribes and the ruling prince was an elected-inherited ruler ABOVE the tribal coalition, i.e. he ruled both his tribe and the remaining 6 tribes). It was exactly the succession of "ruling prince" title that caused the pagan revolt of Koppány. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.41.26 (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have only corrected the quotes, I have no time (and do not see why I should) to discuss these issues not directly related to this article. As far as I remember, the fact that Stephen ruled Nitra results from a Hungarian or German chronicle. Its definitely no invention (maybe you do not realize what kind of source you have in this article, its THE modern source on Slovak medieval history, written and reviewed by the best current experts on medieval history, nothing in the book is an invention and 1/2 of it are references, mostly Hungarian ones)....Btw, "prince" does not mean "supreme" prince. It was normal at that time that both the "main" ruler was the prince and his "subordinate" rulers were princes. As an example, a chronicle says on Svätopluk (Great Moravia)  that he, the prince, consulted his princes. That's just playing with words. Maybe you are confused by the adjective "ruling" but thats just a necessity in English to distinguish a "prince" in the old meaning from a modern "prince" (royal son). 195.168.244.56 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way, and I don't mind if someone who has been blocked indef twice returns as an anon as long as he's constructive. However: please name that chronicle, and please save us the pain of having to read about what you do or do not have time to do. KissL 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know who "has been blocked twice", what you are talking about, who you are (probably 84.206.41.26?) and do not understand your tone. The source is in the article. The article contains 0.00 sources and you want primary research for the only source in the article??? And in this tone?? Where are the sources of the rest of the article? And pleace save "us" the pain of having to check each sentence in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.244.56 (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is no good saying you don't know what I am talking about (since I linked it from my comment) or who I am (since it is linked from my signature) or whether I am 84... (since I have said expressly that I do not have a solid opinion on the matter at hand while he visibly does have one). And I do understand (and know) this tone quite enough: if by some miraculous coincidence you are not Juro, you are his twin. But as I said, I don't mind as long as you are constructive, so let us not talk about this.

I have not asked for research; I simply asked you to name the Hungarian or German chronicle that supports the fact that Stephen was the ruling prince of Nitra but not a duke, as you have asserted above. Statements like "as far as I remember" or "maybe you do not realize that [...] is THE source" are useless as arguments, since they are inherently subjective (and this is entirely independent from the fact that the article as a whole would need a lot more sources, as you correctly point out). KissL 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are 8.... or not? I am still sorry, I do not understand neither this, nor the rest of what you are talking about and still do not understand the reason for your aggresive tone. What do you mean by "twin" - is that supposed to be an insult? For the the rest: Obviously, the source is not a useless argument, if you think that, you are obviously no historian and have no idea of Slovak history, in particular, otherwise you would know the book. "As far as I remember" means, "I am giving you this information, although I actually do not have to, because it is not relevant because you have the source in the article, but I try my best to remember." Next, you are asking for primary research (chronicles are primary research), which I am not ready to perform, since I dont have the time for that (whether you like that or not), there is a perfect scientific secondary source in the text, other sentences in the article have not even secondary sources and since you are approaching me with sentences like ("and save us the pain of"). Finally, you are confusing two things, the prince/duke issue has been answered already both here and in edit summaries (the source is in the article), your(?) new question question was whether he was the ruler of Nitra at all. Since I am not ready to conduct the primary research, I can give you some references of the  respective section in the book, and you can do the reaserch yourself: Gyorffy, Gy: István király és müve; Gyorffy, Gy.: König Stephan der Heilige; Gyorffy, Gy: Der Aufstand von Koppany; Legenda maior S. Stephani regis 5, SRH II; Legenda minor S. Stephani regis 3, SRH II; Legenda S. Stephani regis ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta 4, SRH II; Chron. Hung. comp. saec. XIV. II 63. SRH I; Simonis de Keza Gesta Hungarorum II 43; Vajay, Sz.: Grossfürst Geysa. Good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.244.56 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 195.168.244.56! I am happy that we can discuss matters in civilized manner and not by vandalizing each other's work. I think that my draft text compromise, detailing both opinions but deleted by István later on, was a good basis. You can check the text in the article's history. Actually, if you refer (or your secondary, terciary source refers) the works Győrffy you have to know that - contrary to the theory of late professor Kristó - Győrffy stated that the institution of dukátus was already practicized in times of Honfoglalás (895), and not only after cc 1050 (as Kristó states). As you do, the majority of Hungarian historians also supports Kristó's view, who, however, has hardly any reference to Nitra in his (otherwise detailed) works read by me. But, if your source refers to Győrffy (I cannot sheck it since I don't speak Slavik languages) I cannot imagine that Győrffy had any other opinion than Stephen was the _duke_ of Nitra. I dont actually know, how you translate the ruling prince terminology, but the Hungarian equivalent is clearly _nagyfejedelem_, of that it could be only one in pre-kingdom Hungary. As I know, the period 995-997 is minuscule considering the later deeds of Stephen, please explain me, what is the reason (besides the proof of legal continuity between the Moravian empire and the current Slovak state) to mention this thing in this article. I am looking forward to your answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are looking for things which are simply not there. Nobody is trying to prove any continuity and even if it was the case the long reflections you have added are unsourcable POVs and above all there is absolutely no reason why such reflections should be in an encyclopaedia. On the contrary, I do not understand what is wrong in mentioning the simple fact that Stephen was the ruler of Nitria before 997 (whether he was it for 1 month, 2 years, 5 years or whenever); I see from your comments and from your edits that you have some kind of nationalist or similar problem with this fact, but I simply do not understand how this is can "hurt" anybody. Secondly, no, as I have explained, not "nagyfejedelem" but "fejedelem" (knieža in Slovak, Fürst in German), that's the point. Nagyfejedelem would be a "grand prince" or something like that in English. Another possibility would be to call him chieftain (because I suppose that's what he de-facto was in a tribal system), would you prefer this term? I'm sure you wouldn't. I see no third possibility. Of course Nitria was a kind of appanage of Geza, but "duke" (Herzog) is a formal title and as such it is not attested for that period (you cannot be a Herzog "automatically"). Thirdly, I am sure you have quick access to Gyorffy's books, so why dont you just cite from them? I have no problem with that. That does not mean that you delete the Slovak source at the same time (after all Nitra is in Slovakia and is primarily Slovak history as of 2007). And why do you expect me to justify what is written in whatever book? I am not the author of those books. I can only repeat that is nowadays usual in Slovakia to define Nitria as a principality even after 1048, not to mention in 995, on the grounds that it was more "autonomous" than thought previously. This was not the case say 20 years ago, but on the other hand 20 years ago there was the problem that the topic Nitra was virtually prohibited in Czechoslovakia as a symbol of Slovak attempts to separate from Czechoslovakia (due to some events before WWII) - the popular historian Dvořák decribes this in one of his last books. 195.168.244.56 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You will be shocked, but I have nothing against the word chieftain (törzsfő) in this context since it WAS a quasi tribal society (even for some decades after 1000). It is a part of our history, my only question is: are you sure that he was the chieftain? There were 7 tribes, but his tribe was ruled by Géza. I don't think he had such a position. I agree therefore that Nyitra was rather a form of appanage, and I suggest to explicitly write this fact instead of using the highly misleading expression of "ruling prince". I have nothing against it if you put it in this form. As you can read from my previous post if you read it carefully, Györffy's theory on the institution of appanage (dukátus) is not accepted by the larger part of Hungarian historians (who accepts Kristó's theory instead, this theory is the one you mentioned), but it is highly possible that Győrffy lists several appanages (by his word: duchies) given to family members since Árpád. If you insist, I will check it for you, but I think it's not worth it, if we can agree on using "appanage" instead of "ruling prince". Reading your words I think we all mean the same, we discuss only the actual words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What sleeping does: a possible solution. What about using the expression "lord of ..." (meaning "... ura" in Hungarian, which was actually the contemporary use - with some spelling differences of course)? For example, "Stephen was the lord of Nitra between...". It's just like "Koppány, the lord of Somogy" (Koppány, Somogy ura) or "Gyula, the lord of Transsylvania". Correct me but I think that the reign of Stephen in Nitra is of same nature as the rule of Koppány in Somogy. I suggest again to avoid the expression "ruling prince" because it's highly misleading IMO.

Look here: Koppány. Do you see the "prince" title there? You do. So, Somogy can have a prince but Nitria not? Or do we have a kind of "prince-lovers" conspiracy here? Secondly, if you have a source for "duke" for the 995, we can write prince (according to ...)/ duke (according to...). Do you have a source for "duke" or not? (you have not said if the source in the article directly says it or not). However, the prince alternative will not be deleted, because it is frequently used (even here, see Koppány) and well sourced (as the only sentence in this article). (Btw, I am "fascinated" how many "users" (Istvan, Lato..., Kissl) try to lie in this article in that they falsify a quote from a scientific text (and add aggressive comments). If this is how all articles have been written in this "encyclopedia" by them, they can be "proud" of their work. This is a shame.)195.168.244.56 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Provide a difflink where I "try to lie in this article [by] falsify[ing] a quote from a scientific text" or refrain from making such defamatory allegations. (But since all of my recent edits to this article were minor and changed nothing substantial, it will have to be the latter.) I wonder if your accuracy in checking your sources before forming an opinion is similar in scientific matters – if it is, well, that is a shame. KissL 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would help greatly if the involved IP users would register, colon-indent for legibility, and refrain from ad hominem. The point could then be much more effectively discussed. István 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont know which IPs I am talking to, but some of you guys have tried to change prince to duke in a sourced sentence. In other words, you have tried to falsify a scientific source. I call that a lie. A source says what it says, not what you think it should say. You should reconsider your contributions here (no offence), if you do not understand this point. 195.168.244.56 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have directly accused three users (self included) of writing lies and POV ("agressive comments") in this article. Please provide diffs to back up your claim.István 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nice reference for Koppány, but you also know that a prince who rules a territory and a ruling-prince are not the same. (Look for example at the article of Géza who was in fact a ruling-prince.) Responding your comment you made in the last edit: just look at that edit of this article where I first put in the reference. The reference was Gesta Hungarorum, and Kristó's book was also mentioned, but it was not a reference for the article! Kristó in his book (Kristó Gyula: Magyarország története) has a summary on the different theories on the institution dukátus, detailing his view (no duke in time of Stephen) and other views as well. The interesting fact is that he has no paragraph mentioning this Nitra period, neither as principality nor in any other way. My first time edit was based on this lacking reference: I concluded that your supplement must have been based on some Győrffy related literature (and I was right:) ) and was only ill-translated to ruling-prince instead of duke. Now I correct the reference to Gesta Hungarorum, and I consider this topic closed. Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one linguistic hint (once again): "Ruling prince" IS the same as "prince" in English (fejedelem), as far as I know. Nagyfejedelem is a "grand (ruling) prince" not just a ruling prince. If you use "ruling prince" for nagyfejedelem here in other articles, it should corrected.

Hi 195.168.244.56 and 86.101.111.129! I missed the best part of de debate:( First to react the last post: no-no 195.168.244.56. You are mistaken. 86.101.111.129 happened to have right in this linguistic question: a ruling prince is always a ruler, besides being a prince (as the name indicates). My short research in wikipedia shows the validity of this convention: look at for example István a király where you find the following: "Dramatis personae: István, Hungarian prince, later ruling prince of Hungary...". But you can look at other texts also: ruling prince and prince are different terms. You 86.101.111.129, however, overmistified and overcomplicated the question with the term "lord". A much simpler solution would be enough: use the term prince without "ruling", and forget about the polemy of duke or prince since it is off topic in this article. The reference for Gesta Hungarorum is also obsolete. My suggestion: "István, still being a prince, resided in Nitra between 995-997. reference: ref#2" Other parts of the paragraph should be deleted, along with the link to Nitrian principality, which, in turn, is also off topic, and highly debated also (that principality did not exist in his original form in 995 any more, therefore Nitra was no more than an appanage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.41.26 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, as I said above there two "princes" in English, the prince (Prinz in German) and the prince (Fürst in German). The second one is sometimes called "ruling prince" to prevent exactly the confusion, which your above contribution seems to exhibit (we are not talking about prince as a royal son). The rest has been discussed above and you have a source in the text. Also, I think the lord solution is a good idea. The prince/duke debate IS relevant in continental Europe and I remember having read articles above it in the past (I dont remember where anymore). It is also partly an issue of the translation of Latin terms like dux etc., because sometimes dux is a prince, not a duke...a very complicated issue. Regarding the link, it was an appanage principality and that is not disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.244.56 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the book History of Slovakia (Dejiny Slovenska) by Dusan Kovac (Hungarian language edition by Kalligram 2001., Bratislava):

"From the beginning the Hungarian state was divied into duchies administered by members of the Arpad dinasty. The part-principality of Nitra was such a duchy in the territory of modern Slovakia. Nitra was a significant governing centre before Great Moravia and remained an important state centre during the early Arpads. Duchies subsisted even after the centralisation efforts of prince Géza and the first Hungarian king Stephen I. These - eminently the part-principality of Nitra - could be seen as remnants of the Great Moravian era." 80.98.240.186 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It would be necessary to (a) verify the wording of the original Slovak text and (b) whether this is just a simplified statement (extending the after 1050 period to all periods for simplicity) or whether this is Kovacs opinion (then he should be quoted, but Kovac is a historian primarily dealing with modern history). The wording should be verified, because for example "part-principality" is supposed to be what is called údelné kniežatstvo ("appanage principality") in Slovak, but Teilfürstentum (part principality) in German and some other languages, although the content of those terms is not necessarily the sam. The translator decided to choose the latter term and thereby somewhat changed the whole meaning. 195.168.244.56 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

2. OK, I have found something. According to Kronika Slovenska 1 (ed. by Kovac,p. 117): "Nitria until 1108...was an appanage principality (not duchy) lead by a prince from the Arpad dynasty. Therefore the Latin designations dux and ducatus are translated as prince and principality in connection with the Nitrian principality." This text is from a box dedicated to the use of the terms prince and principality and when looking at the context, the above quote refers to the after-1048 period (implying that it should hold all the more for 995, I suppose). 195.168.244.56 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. What about the Duchy of Somogy, Bihar, Slavonia, Transylvania or even Styria? These all were appanages administered by members of the dinasty. The same system. Why should we translate Nitra as principality and all the others as duchies? I am not a historian, but this is strange. I personaly prefer the word "duchy" because it is closer to the original latin (ducatus). Even if their meaning is not completely the same. For examle the area of the Duchy of Slavonia consited Slavonia proper and the Kingdom of Croatia. It is clear that in English language duchy is usually a part of a Kingdom.


 * After all what is the precise difference in English between duchy and principality?


 * 2. part-principality: I have translated from Hungarian. The term was "részfejedelemség". I do not know the original Slovak.


 * 3. As far as I know the contemporary Hungarian term was "ország" or "úrság". The domninion of an "úr". The úrs were originally tribal chiefs, but later the title was used exclusively by royal princes.


 * 4. This dispute is theoretical. I am completely satisfied with the current expression: "lord".80.98.240.186 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, when Vajk ruled "Nitria" that Hungary was (officially) pre-Christian in the first millenium (e.g. in 995) but officially Christian in the second (e.g. in 1048). To settle the point of whether Nitria in 995 was a "duchy", "principality" or other, requires first verifying that the Árpáds at that time utilised these Christian-European references, and that historians aren't simply forcing the description to the (christian) readers' familiarity, e.g. as would describing a medieval Japanese Shogun as a "prince" (or "duke"); in such case it would be quite pointless to argue whether a Shogun was a "prince" or "duke".  Back to Hungary - the passages I have seen do not give clear indication, rather write around it, e.g. "Vajk ruled over Nitria" etc. but that is not evidence for forcing a specific title, e.g. "duke", "lord", "prince", "ruling prince" etc.  If there exists no such evidence then I'm afraid the point should be dropped, and simply "Lord" (from the Hungarian "úr") should stand. István 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. When I originally changed "the ruling-prince of Nitra" to "duke of Nitra" I changed it because a ruling prince is a sovereign prince and after the the Hungarian Conquest there was no such thing. Nitra continued to be a local power centre and it is logical that its lords used the remnant of the earlier administration structures, but its a different qulity. By the way I did not imagined that this will cause such a large dispute. 80.98.240.186 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hang around here long enough and you will see much bigger disputes erupt over far smaller points ;-)István 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

...His cousin, Vazul, whom he suspected following pagan customs and ordered him blinded...
Do you think that such a person deserves to be proclaimed a Saint? Really, I don't think so.. Val

That does not depend, if we (or you) think it or not. If you write such things, you either don't know about sacrifying or Hungarian history. Then who do you think a saint is? Sorry for the late answer. Please, don't feel obsessed, I just said what I thought and was curious. Ferike333 (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just love it when people today judge historical figures by the standards of 19th century English liberalism. Villy (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

King Stephen's origins
Gesta Hungarorum is showing exactly the genealogy of Stephen/Vyak: Menumorout's daughter married with Zolta and their son, Tocsun/Taksony followed as ruler of Magyars. Tocsun's son, Géza was father of King Stephan. Also Gesta Hungarorum says: ....The lands between the Tisa and the forest towards Transylvania and from the Mures river to the Somes river was occupied by Duke Morout, whose grandson was called Men-Marot by the Hungarians. The lands were inhabited by people called Khozar. The Hungarian leader Arpad, sends messengers to Bihar and asks Menumorout to cede the territory between the Somes river and Mezes mountains. Menumorout refuses, referring to his lord the Byzantium Emperor. After three days of siege at Sotmar (now Szatmar = Satu Mare) the castle is taken. The story is told once again, but this time Menumorut who had earlier declined "with a Bulgarian heart" now gives the lands and his daughter...

Much of the Balkans was under Bulgarian rule but had fallen to Byzantium before the Magyar tribes entered. Any Dukes met by the Hungarians were likely to be "Bulgarian", and the population might be expected to be a mix of Slavs and Romanised peoples, as found in other Bulgarians territories. Other sources record the presence of Avars (kingdom existed until 796), Slavs, Moravians (Slavic state until defeated by Hungarians in 906), Bulgarians (Empire extended to this area in 9th century) and Gepids (Germanic kingdom existing until 567). Gesta hungarorum and Russian Primay Chronicle also includes Vlachs.

I think the above prove that Geza had Romanian or Bulgarian origins. Moreover, Sarolt an Orthodox practician is more likely to be Vlach/Romanian or Slavic rather than Hungarian...


 * "You think..." What you do is original research. Show me a reliable source that claims Géza of Hungary had Bulgarian or Romanian origin, otherwise it won't be in the article.
 * Britannica, a reliable and accepted source clearly refers to him as the supreme Magyar chieftain Géza.
 * "More likely..." Not enough. First give a reliable source for her religion, then for her ethnicity. No more original research please. Squash Racket (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not argue that Geza was the "supreme chieftain of the Magyars" I propose another point of view regarding his parents and grand-parents ethnicity, as shown in Gesta Hungarorum: Menumorout -> Menumorout's daughter (Zolta's wife) -> Tocsun -> Geza -> Vayk (Stephen). This is not original research, is a clear cut conclusion based on facts.
 * Don't you think a Magyar chronicle (Gesta Hungarorum) is reliable enough?


 * No, Britannica says supreme Magyar chieftain Géza which is a clear reference to his ethnicity.
 * Your original research is still original research. So Stephen I's great-great-grandfather was probably Ménmarót whose ethnicity is debated. According to Ménmarót's article the Gesta Hungarorum talks about Cozars which to me sounds like Khazars. Now that would be understandable, but still original research as it is not proven.
 * Please provide a better source than Britannica talking about Géza's (not someone else's) ethnicity something new. Squash Racket (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum is certainly not reliable in the sense as a modern, scientific source. It recalls legends and fabricated genealogy for rulers as was usual with medieval chronicles. Zello (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are saying this because you and Hungarian historians do not agree with Gesta Hungarorum outcomes. You are trying to make a "selection" of the historical sources, in order to "fabricate" your history. Wikipedia is a free, not a Hungarian encyclopedia, all historical theories should be presented to the public, not only Hungarian point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.85.18 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a detail regarding the Stephen's mother confesion, who was Orthodox, it is clear cut presented in the History of Latin Christianity and other sources, I think everybody should agree with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpaticus (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My first question: is there a connection between newly created account Carpaticus and the above IP?
 * Second: does the IP have any connection to another user (probable block evasion)? Squash Racket (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the fact that Sarolt was baptized by Hierotheos Greek bishop. The family of Gyula belonged to the Eastern branch of Christianity. On the other hand I don't think we should call them "Orthodox". As you certainly know the great East-West Schism happened only in 1054, long after the birth of István. In his lifetime Christianity was still an undivided religion. Zello (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"much of the balkans was under Bulgarian rule?" you mean the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire ruled by Vlach Ioan Asan I and II. the Northen Balkans were Vlach and southern Vlach and Bulgarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Died in...
The article and the sidebar refer to two separate locations for his place of death. Arthurian Legend (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is still disputed, I added both cities to both places. Villy (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive duplication
I have just gone through a fairly major copyedit with this article. It was suffering badly from repetitive duplications of the same information over and over again. (Did we really need to mention that he had been crowned on Christmas day, 1000 three times?). I reduced the lede to only the main points. Although it did provide a greatly abbreviated version of the full article, the lede's purpose is to "provide a short, independent summary [to] ... establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points" (emphasis added) (see WP:LEDE). Essential to a good lede is brevity and as such I have removed details such as how many dioceses Stephen set up to preserve focus on the essential facts of importance (e.g. his enduring political, religious, and social roles in Hungary). Problems still remain with this article such as the largely irrelevant quote. I believe the quote still may have a place in the article, however it may need to be integrated more appropriately. At the very least the subsection header should be more descriptive than "Quote" as this is liable to be removed as trivia (see WP:TRIVIA). I will devote more attention to this if I have time, but in the meanwhile I encourage interested editors to help improve this article and to keep it clear of unneeded repetition. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD also says:"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Check out some featured articles for the proper length and format of the lead. Squash Racket (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It strikes me that the sections I removed from the lede were mainly concerned with the supporting details and would be inappropriate as part of a "concise overview." This article is on "Stephen I of Hungary" and I think that the number of dioceses he set up (for example) is more of a supporting detail. -Thibbs (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovak rendition
Is there any particular reason that the Slovak translation of Szent István is included in the lede? István I was not Slovak as far as I can see, and the Slovak ethnic minority in Hungary today is not even as great as the German minority (there is no German translation of Szent István in the lede). Unless there are historical reasons for this I vote to remove it. -Thibbs (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing no opposition, I am removing it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

István played an important role in the history of Slovaks as well. Present-day Slovakia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary which István established, so István was the ruler of this area also and of the Slavic ancestors of modern Slovaks. His policies (establishing counties, parish churches, bishoprics etc) were applied on the Slavic populated areas of Upper Hungary which are now Slovakia. Zello (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Zello, I was drunk at the time István (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though, in addition to Zello's points, Slovakia and Hungary are the only two (very) modern countries to lay completely within the Kingdom of Hungary, and the subject's historical influence on modern Slovakia is indisputably profound. I would not be opposed to reinstating his Slovak name in the article. István (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I disagree. This does not comport with common practice in other articles. Although it is true that István was the ruler of an area of land that now covers Slovakia, the same facts could be used to argue for a Romanian and possibly even Serbian translation, neither of which were previously considered useful to the article. I recognize that the Slovak region was completely a part of the Kingdom of Hungary, and this does lend the inclusion of the translation more support, however the majority of similar situations have been resolved such that only the English translation (if any has been included). Examples of similar situations include the articles on:
 * Julius Caesar - only rendered in English and Latin, and not Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian, Dutch, French, Greek, Italian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Portuguese, or Slovene (which were all completely a part of the Roman Empire)
 * Charlemagne - only rendered in English and Latin, and not Dutch, German, or Luxembourgish (which were all completely a part of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne)
 * Calvin Coolidge - only rendered in English, and not Blackfoot, Cherokee, Chiricahua, Choctaw, Hopi, Mohawk, Navajo, Ojibwe, Sioux (which were all made completely a part of the USA subsequent to the Snyder and Indian Removal Acts)
 * Vladimir Lenin - only rendered in English and Russian, and not Armenian, Azerbaijani, Belarusian, Estonian, Georgian, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Moldovan, Tajik, Turkmen, Ukranian, or Uzbek (which were all completely a part of the USSR)
 * There are exceptions to this rule. Notably, Franz Joseph I. However, I am inclined to believe that this is truly an exception and that the reason for this translation scheme derives from the relation of the name of the parent country to its constituent territories (i.e. Hungary is a named part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) (N.B.- Here I would argue against the inclusion of the translations of his name into Polish, Italian, French, etc.). In anticipation of the possible argument that the difference derives rather from the number of constituent territories, I offer the example of George VI whose name is only rendered in English and not in Indian (completely within the British Raj)
 * In general I believe it is clear that common use dictates that such a ruler as István should be given translations into English (as this is en.wikipedia) and the language of his heritage and not into the current language of lands his rule once extended over. The appropriate place for translations of the latter sort is at the end of the article in the language links. -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. Point conceded. István (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also venerated as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox
He is also venerated as a saint by the Russian Orthodox (and I assume all the other Eastern Orthodox too) so I am adding that in. Zaynaq (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is already mentioned in the article, it's OK to add this in the infobox. Squash Racket (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Name: Patron saint of Passau
I believe that if the introduction interpretes that former Vajk took his Christian name Stephen in order to personnally establish a doctrine of a Holy Crown (that undoubtedly exists today), this is quite speculative; the introduction does not mention any sources therefor anyway. Personnally I believe that the doctrine of the Holy Crown would be less doctrine and more ideology, and a quite unprobable ideology in mediaval times, if it were explicitly designed by a single monarch, and not by the passing of centuries as fits better to the Middle Ages. It has also been interpreted - it has indeed, though I don't have sources myself, and I personnally believe it is actually obvious -- that he chose the name of Passau's saint. The Cathedral of Passau bears the name of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, and as St. Altmann bishop of Passau was not yet born, possibly Stephen was patron saint of the diocese itself too. Passau played an important role in the christianisation of Hungary; not least, it was the origin of Giselle, Stephen of Hungary's wife. That would be quite a simpler reason, though for a medieval mind (which I don't mean contemptuosly) it was just fitting that the word "Stephen" itself meant also "crowned". --84.154.113.140 (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did he chose a heir or not?
Just sepparated by a fe lines, there are two contradictory statements in the sections "last years" and "His legacy":


 * Unable to choose an heir, King Stephen died...
 * Following Stephen's death, his nephew Peter Urseolo (his appointed heir)...

Anyone knows which one is right?--RR (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The possible Romanian ancestry of Stephen I of Hungary
"Some researchers suggest the Vlach descendance[16], an argument being that before the fifteenth century he appears in Hungarian chancellery documents under the name "Vaik Olachis" (Vajk the Vlach)"

I removed this edit made by User:Iaaasi. The source is not reliable. Also, this, and Dr. Mircea Dogaru works appear to be WP:FRINGE.-- B@xter 9 10:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these type of absurd edits do happen from time to time. Hobartimus (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You should probably make a reference to the hungarian documents that show the name "Vaik Olachis". they exist. also "Gyula László, Árpád népe. Helikon, 1988". PS. Mircea Dogaru is a well documented military historian. i don`t see anything absurd about that except the fact that most hungarians base their history on myths and propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that book does not show that. Did you even read it? You are either outright lying, or base your assumptions on unreliable sources. "They base their history on myth and propaganda" - anyone can say that to anybody, especially anonymously, sou you did not prove anything at all, except that you are not objective. --79.116.92.224 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget the main myth: "daco-roman" myth and religion :)))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Papal myth
This article has serious factual error, but i will only point out one: the Holy crown of Hungary was never given to St. Stephen by the pope, in fact it is composed of three separate parts, two crowns and and the cross which was removed from the orb. And originally the upper (Latin crown) was a prism shaped wafer holder, and its four sides were bended upwards to form the current dome like shape, that is why it is not rounded, but angular. Also it depict the 12 apostoles, the hoop of the Greek crown covers four of them so they are not visible, this supports that the parts were originally separate. The lower (Greek crown) shows some Byzantine influence, but it is not that sophisticated for the time (the enamels for instance, despite I think this is the most illustrious and beautiful crown in the world), so it is possibly of Hungarian origin, and has some unnecessary holes in it drilled for unknown reasons. The portrait of Michael VII Doukas and his name with red letters also support the the theory that the crown was built during the reign of Béla III. who was educated in the Byzantine court. For further information read some books about the matter, for example A magyar korona története (the history of the Hungarian crown) from Bertényi Iván. The 800 year old papal myth was already proven false so please take your time to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.240.219 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

... broadly established Christianity?
What he established was Roman Catholicism. Despite the efforts of the Catholic Church today it is - should be! - quite clear that Catholicism =/= Christianity. Catholicism = Judeo-Christianity. Please change the sentence from 'Christianity' to 'Roman Catholicism'. (Just on the side-line: Catholic means Universal. Since the Christians and Catholics are enemies [mainly because Catholicism is based on Judaism: Jews are the chosen people of God. Since God does not love all people equally, this is not a universal but a tribal religion. A Christian can not accept that.] the Catholic Church CAN NOT BE Universal thus the name is false. There is no need to go there in this article though ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.250.181 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, if you admit without pressure that Roman Catholicism is the Christianity based on the First Covenant, (and it is common knowledge that all of Christianity is based on the First Convenant, I invite you to conclude the syllogism) I thank you very much. Fast shall my Baptism bond always stand forth, to the Church's voice I will li-hi-sten, etc. Sorry, could not resist. --91.34.203.197 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that it is unhistorical to refer to him as a Roman Catholic as he was before the Great Schism of 1054. PatGallacher (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it WAS important that King Stephen not only "broadly established Christianity", but that he also had the political insight to ally with Rome not with Byzantium, even though his mother was baptised in the Orthodox fashion. This is why Hungary developed on the "Western track" and that's why even today a lot of Hungarian people prefer to label themselves as Central Europeans, not Eastern Europeans, as our country is exactly at the crossroads between Western and Northern Europe on the on side and the Mediterranean and the Balkan on the other. Countries that used to be part of the Habsburg Monarchy share quite distinct and recognisable cultural characterics, which even everyday tourists can experience if they walk the streets in Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Trieste - or even in Pécs, my hometown.

I suggest an extension of the first paragraph:

He greatly expanded Hungarian control over the Carpathian Basin during his lifetime, broadly established Christianity AND FEUDALISM in the region, ALLIED WITH ROME,  and is generally regarded as the founder of the Kingdom of Hungary.

I would edit the text myself but I registered on Wiki only today and have no time to find out how to do it. Scsilla12 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsilla12 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

request to extend the Quote section with references and further quotes
I was trying to find a good quality English translation of "Saint Stephen's admonitions to his son Emeric" (I already searched Hungarian sources on the net but had no time for a proper academic library search)and I was disappointed that the reference for the quote is not included. Is it a Wiki translation or has it been published? When I did a quick Google search I only got the same unreferenced quote in Catholic/inspirational websites:-( (which gave no source for the work itself or for its translation)

I would also like to include further quotes from this work in the article, which are very relevant to present-day Hungarian political discourse, especially :

Nam unius linguae uniusque moris regnum, imhecille et fragile est. "A kingdom with but one language and one custom is weak and fragile" (St. Stephen, first king of Hungary) in the original: VI. A VENDÉGEK BEFOGADÁSÁRÓL ÉS GYÁMOLÍTÁSÁRÓL A vendégek s a jövevények akkora hasznot hajtanak, hogy méltán állhatnak a királyi méltóság hatodik helyén. Hiszen kezdetben úgy növekedett a római birodalom, úgy magasztaltattak fel és lettek dicsőségessé a római királyok, hogy sok nemes és bölcs áradt hozzájuk különb-különb tájakról. Róma bizony még ma is szolga volna, ha Aeneas sarjai nem teszik szabaddá. Mert amiként különb-különb tájakról és tartományokból jönnek a vendégek, úgy különb-különb nyelvet és szokást, különb-különb példát és fegyvert hoznak magukkal, s mindez az országot díszíti, az udvar fényét emeli, s a külföldieket a pöffeszkedéstől elrettenti. Mert az egynyelvű és egyszokású ország gyenge és esendő. Ennélfogva megparancsolom neked, fiam, hogy a jövevényeket jóakaratúan gyámolítsad és becsben tartsad, hogy nálad szívesebben tartózkodjanak, mintsem másutt lakjanak. Ha pedig le akarnád rombolni, amit építettem, vagy szétszórni, amit összegyűjtöttem, kétségkívül igen nagy kárt szenvedne országod. (Szent István király intelmei Imre herceghez, 1027) Reference for the Hungarian text: http://mek.niif.hu/00400/00446/00446.htm Reference for the one-sentence English translation of the Latin original: http://www.consultorium.com/docs/Politics_of_National_Diversity.pdf

I am new to Wiki and have no time at the moment to learn how to edit the article myself but I would be willing to help out with the editing.Scsilla12 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsilla12 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)