Talk:Stephen V of Hungary

Untitled
Please don't data dump eb 1911 stuff here. There is very little point of simple copy/paste jobs. Please at least wikify the text, chop the huge paragraph into smaller chunks, and modernize the Victorian prose. --mav

I'm planning to save the copy and paste stuff first then wikify, which I will be doing in a minute. -- User:kt2


 * Sweet! Sorry for bugging you then. :-) --mav


 * In case you, or some other writer hasn't seen it, check out 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for some hints on munging EB1911. Ortolan88


 * egad, I've learnt a new word! (and I thought "munging" was one of the gross internet rumours...) -- Tarquin 11:19 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Ancestry
Please stop reverting my edit. MLCC is not a completely reliable source, but is reliable enough when Cawley cites his sources, which he does in this case. If you think MLCC is not sufficiently reliable and don't have another source at hand, please use the appropriate tag in the template. If you have a more reliable source at hand, you're welcome to add it yourself.--Masque (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stephen V of Hungary is a GA. If we want to preserve this status we cannot use self-published sources. Stop edit warring and read WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, first and foremost, the link does not even lead to an ahnentafel of Stephen V. It does not include his maternal ancestry at all. Secondly, why do we need that chart anyway? No biography of Stephen includes it. No biography of Stephen mentions Manuel Laskaris or Agnes of Rochlitz. Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Stephens non-existent victory in battle on the Rábce river
In the middle of the part of this article with title: "Reign (1270 - 1272)" stays: "Stephen launched a plundering raid into Austria around 21 December.[52] King Ottokar invaded the lands north of the Danube in April 1271 and captured a number of fortresses, including Dévény (now Devín, Slovakia), Pressburg and Nagyszombat (present-day Trnava, Slovakia).[53][50] Ottokar routed Stephen at Pressburg on 9 May, and at Mosonmagyaróvár on 15 May..." that is right but I (and anyone who wants to interpret the history objectively) can´t say same thing about following part of sentense: ", but Stephen won the decisive battle on the Rábca River on 21 May." I have never read such a bullshit like that. Stephen didn´t won this battle (in fact Stephen didn´t won almost all battles that he took part, but back to the theme). As source there is listed this book: "Érszegi, Géza; Solymosi, László (1981). "Az Árpádok királysága, 1000–1301 [The Monarchy of the Árpáds, 1000–1301]". In Solymosi, László (ed.). Magyarország történeti kronológiája, I: a kezdetektől 1526-ig [Historical Chronology of Hungary, Volume I: From the Beginning to 1526] (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 79–187. ISBN 963-05-2661-1.". The writer of the article probably doesn´t have very much competence when he accepts book from year 1981 (too old) as relevant and draws informations only from sources of one side (hungarian sources) and doesn´t look the sources of the second side (czech sources). If he did it, he would realise that it probably isn´t true that Stephen V won the battle on Rabca river, but on the contrary he probably lost. My first source is wikipedia again, concretely side with title: "Ottokar II of Bohemia" his opponent in this battle. citation from the part with title: "Building an empire" : "In 1272 he (Ottokar II) also acquired Friuli. His rule was once again contested by the Hungarians on the field of battle. After another victory, Ottokar became the most powerful king within the Empire. " Why wikipedia tells on the one side information that it denies on the second side? And to the end of my article citation from czech source, book "The century of last Přemyslids" from czech historian Prof. PhDr. Josef Žemlička, DrSc. (1946), he interests himself in the age of last Přemyslids for almost whole life and knows very much informations about this age. The citation is of course from second overworked edition from year 1998, here you can find objective informations (I will try to translate it from Czech): "The hungarian Stephen was preparing himself for the insidious attack. In the time when his opponent (Ottokar - my note) was on the south (in Carinthia - my note) he raided into Austraia and Styria. (despite the treaty of truce from the October 1270, dishonest behavior - Stephen´s right face - my note) He sent strong hungarian deposit to the places where czech king was supposed to return. Fortunately warning came in time. In the crule winter Ottokar´s escort went along dangerous way through steep and hardly ever used alpine crossings. Disoppointed Arpád (Stephen - my note) ''at least poured out his anger on the defenseless inhabitants of Austria. Ottokar didn´t delay with the answer for a long time. In spring 1271 he gathered numerous army and in the middle of the april he exceeded the hungarian border. Bratislava felt again to his hands. And campaign continued. Soon Jur and Pezinok felt to the czech power, Trnava and Nitra gave up, platoons of advancing army drove up to the Hron river. Ottokar controled the large part of Slovakia. Meanwhile king Stephen was preparing decisive battle on the right bank of Danube. Soon Ottokar again turned his army towards Bratislava, bridged Danube and transferred the army to the right bank of the river. Corps of Cumans and Hungarians were repeled. Now from both sides attacks took turns, under which czech army occupied another fortified places. Stephen offered the peace negotations, Ottokar refused. Finally there was a opened battle. (on Rábce river - my note) Also this time heavy cavalary secured victory for czech king. (that is important part of citation - my note) Shortly after that at the begining of the may, Ottokar´s army board the return march, despite the opponent still tenaciously resisted. On the Austrian soil army was dissolved. Shortly after that Austria and Moravia became target for swift raid of Cumans and Hungarians, castles which Ottokar conquered were overthrewing the czech domination. Ottokar´s old rival, bavarian duke Henry, took adventage from Ottokar´s oppresive situation, when his troops penetrated to the western Austria. Despite these unpleasant reverberations, campaign to the Hungary did intended purpose. In peace negotiations in July 1271 under Bratislava (still in Ottokar´s hands - my note) Stephen openly renounced not noly Philip of Spanheim, but expressly acknowledged Ottokar´s rights for Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Windic march.''" End of the citation. I hope that it is clear that Stephen definitely didn´t win the Battle on Rábca river and in any case didn´t achieve his goals to gain control over alpine lands (Styria, Carinthia etc.).79.141.251.240 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240
 * 1. In the article, we cannot refer to a work which states that Stephen defeated Ottokar in order to verify that Ottokar defeated Stephen. 2. Stephen raided Ottokar's territory, because Ottokar had denied to return the Hungarian royal treasury (robbed by Stephen's sister) and supported Stephen's Hungarian opponents, seizing their fortresses in Transdanubia. 3. Further sources writing of Stephen's victory are the following: a. b.  (Both works state that Ottokar had to renounce his conquests in Hungary in the subsequent peace treaty). 4. A Czech historian, Josef Žemlička, summarizes the events, without mentioning Ottokar's victories: "[Ottokar] frequently appointed trusted people from Bohemia and Moravia as governors [of Styria, Austria and Carinthia]. This apporach provoked disagreement and resistance beyond the Czech borders. More serious however was renewal of war with Hungary after the death of Béla IV in 1270, and the forces engaged for the most part in what is now Slovakia." ( Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Borsoka (talk)I´m sorry for your very limited view of this part of history. From your answer I can see that debate with you is waist of time...79.141.251.240 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240
 * Yes, my knowledge is extremly limited: I always have to refer to historians when editing an article or discussing it. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I too, where is problem? Maybe it is that you refer as I can see only to hungarian sources (is it your home country?) in this concrete case. Of course if I don´t caunt one citation from Josef Žemlička which is out of context and don´t refers to third czech-hungarian war. 79.141.251.240 (talkThis post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240
 * Yes, I referred to Hungarian historians' works and I am Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bingo! I was right and there is the reason. In Czech sources you can find, that Ottokar won this battle, in Hungarian that Stephen won. So what will happen. I would edit it to Ottokar´s victory, then You would edit it to Stephen´s victory, then I would edit it back and like that again and again and again and again. So what is your proposal to resolve our dispute? I would like to hear something constructive. My meaning is that we should write (edit) to the article that czech and hungarian sources have different meaning about the victor of this battle. What about your opinion?79.141.251.240 (talk)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240
 * We cannot write anything which is not based on reliable sources. So we cannot write that Czech historians write this and Hungarian historians write that. We can write that the outcome of the battle is uncertain. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I agree with this solution, so can you edit the uncertain result of the battle to the article please? (and don´t forget to edit it also in initial part of the article.)79.141.251.240 (talk)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240
 * Borsoka (talk) I edited to section "Reign" what we agreed on, why you edited it back?79.141.251.240 (talk)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240 —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP is edited in accordance with rules, including WP:NOR, so editorial consensus, in itself, is not a bases for editing. None of the sources cited in the article substantiates your edit. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK and what if I would give here some source that substaniates me and edit it? 79.141.251.240 (talk)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240 —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a good approach. Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Borsoka (talk)What was wrong now?... 79.141.251.240 (talk)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240
 * We cannot present a scholarly point of view as a fact, if there are concurring point of views. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Borsoka (talk)I could say exactly same thing, but in my point of view are "scholarly" and "concuring" point of view swapped. According to your statement: I cannot present as fact that Ottokar won, if here is concuring point of view, that Ottokar lost. But then also you cannot present as fact that Ottokar lost, if there is concuring point o view that Ottokar won. Do you understand what I´m trying to say? Have you got another argument(érv)?79.141.251.240 (talk)This post was posted by Martin Bohuňovský, Jihlava, Czech Republic, IP adress: 79.141.251.240