Talk:Great Moravia

Dark Ages?

I dont think, that this unitary slavic state would be a part of the Dark Ages, didnt they end with the coronation of Carl the Great in 800? Rather early middle ages then dark ages, didnt think so? Only my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molny9691 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Capital

I didnt think the capital is unknown, only debated. Not expressed. The most probably canidates to the capital are along the recent archeological knowledge Mikulcice or Nitra. in Mikulcice were found three christian churches and the bases of a prinicipal palace. In fact, the moravian monarchs were princes, not kings and when yes, we have no evidence about that, they were coronated.

Sources

And why not put into the sources some major slovak and czech authors too, heh? It looks to me in front of only magyar sources, that this article couldnt even end better. Serious author like Matúš Kučera; Postavy veľkomoravskej histórie or Pavel Dvořák; Odkryté dejiny. And what is wrong at it, when the article will be based on czech and slovak authors, means, that only therefore that they are Slovaks, the sources are disputed and wrong? And did you think, that now, when it is based on magyar authors, it is better? Because my opinion is, that like you say, czechoslovak historians wanted to misuse history to present great Moravia as a predecessor of Czechoslovakia, then I think, that magyar authors want rather to present Great Moravia as a little and backbencher state, present such alternative theories about its territory, that Great Moravia was based in Serbia (then I wonder, how could Mojmir defeat Pribina, when they were 600 km away from each other) or even doubt its existence, that no such state ever existed and that Old magyars were already long settled there and that Slovaks came to their presnt home only in the 12th century and other suchlike lies. This article looks for me exactly like a propaganda-lie topic written by Jobbik... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molny9691 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and add reliable Czech and Slovak sources. If you need, I can help you.--Yopie (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

GM disapeared without a trace

I am not sure, if i understand this well, what somebody can mean under the notion of trace. I did not read article of hungarian scientist from Hungarian Academy of Science.

But what about Slavonic settlement at Mikulčice and fact, that it is part of UNESCO heritage? Is it trace? If yes, then can be this dubious? http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5093/ jurajda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.80.176 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When Heraclius slew Phocas and became Emperor of the eastern Roman empire, Crosroes sent an army of a reputed 300,000 warriors and a 1000 ships to attack and besiege Constantinople.According to Oman, A very good and plausable historian states that they failed in the attempt and less than 5000 returned home and all the ships were lost in bad weather. Following this period we have the sassanians attacking Moesia and the Goths and a combined army of Odoacer that included Gepidie,Alani,Saxon,Abbotries,Rugians converging etc to attack the Italian peninsula.Sassanach obviously refers to Sassanians and and also,according to the Oxford dictionary describes them as Saxons.During Charlemagne reign,the unruly Saxons were described as having no towns or cities and living in groups in the forests along side the rivers, mainly the Danube and Elbe.These combined groups called ripuarians and remains of Attila,s army, would I believe contained the moravians. I believe the merovingian blood thirsty royalty emerged from these groups calling their groups Saxons, Franks and Bavarian.The language and the way of pronunciation of the Franks, and whole demeanor and customs were not of Germanic nature. This falls into line with the arrival and murderous conduct of the Saxons on the south coast and Thames estuary where according to Gildas they slaughtered every Briton South of the Thames from Sea (Dover) to sea ( Bristol channel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.165.153 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this article still a GA?

I have just re-read the article, and I think it does not meet the criteria of a GA. For example, there are several unsourced statement, moreover I have just realized that a map seemingly based on a reliable source does differ from the map presented by the cited source, and I think there are many weasel words in the article. Interestingly, in English language literature (for example Stanislav J. Kirschbaum: A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival; Anton Spiesz, Dusan Caplovic: Illustrated Slovak History: A Struggle for Sovereignty in Central Europe; P. M. Barford: The Early Slavs) the history of "Great" Moravia is described in a more neutral, less over-enthusiastic way (for example, Barford uses the expression 'Moravia', obviously because "Great Moravia" was described as a polity on the territories of modern Hungary and Romania east of the river Tisza by Constantine VII. Borsoka (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you think that Kirschbaum's introductory newspaper-like and desperately outdated text about the entire history of a country (basically intended for tourists) is a relevant source for this medieval issue speaks volumes. You would be immediately fired, if you were my student or employee. 58ER (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Template: Great Moravia

The template does not contain much information, but this little information contains highly debatable claims: 1) Languages: Old Church Slavonic - even the article refers to the fact that this language was elaborated by Sts Cyrill and Methodius in the 860s somewhere in modern Greece and their disciplines were expelled from "Great" Moravia by Svatopluk I sometime in the 880s. Therefore, it is highly dubious that this language can be qualified as the language of "Great" Moravia. Moreover, this claim is not based on reliable sources.

2) Hereditary monarchy: the article describes that Moimir was expelled by his successor, and his successor was expelled by the Eastern Franks - how can a monarchy be qualified as hereditary, if there was only one precedent (after the death of Svatopluk I) that the ruler ascended the throne in accordance with the hereditary principle.

3) The establishment of "Great" Moravia - when Moimir expelled Pribina from the latter's possession Nitrava, he must have been the ruler of Moravia, therefore the date 833 is highly questionable. Borsoka (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1) do not revert back until the dispute has been resolved

2) Cyril and Methodius brought glagolitic script, not the language

3) The year is referenced now

4) Hereditary monarchy is a technical term and the fact, that the rule was usurped by force at times does not change the substance of the system

Wladthemlat (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Sorry, but a template containing highly disputable claims can anytime be reverted.

2) Please, read, for example, Florin Curta (2006): Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250; Cambridge University Press, p. 125. "Old Church Slavonic, a literary language most likely based on the Macedonian dialect allegedly used in the hinterland of their /that is Constantine's and Methodius's/ hometown, Thesalonica". So how could Old Church Slavonic be mentioned as language of "Great" Moravia if it was based on a South Slavic dialect, and if it could only be in use in "Great" Moravia for 22 years.

3) P. M. Barford clearly refers to the existence of a Moravian state in 811 (P. M. Barford (2001): The Early Slavs; Cornell University Press, p. 109.). Therefore the 833 date is clearly surprising - maybe the state was founded only after it had appeared in sources.

4) So, the state the throne of which was "usurped" (in fact acquired by force) three times and only once was inherited can be qualified as a "hereditary monarchy", because "hereditary monarchy" is a technical term?

Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hereditary monarchy is technical term, in the article is: "Under a hereditary monarchy, all the monarchs come from the same family, and the crown is passed down from one member to another member of the family." In Great Moravia were all monarchs from same family, thus monarchy was hereditary.--Yopie (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand: "killing or dethroning one's predecessor" results in "the crown passing down fom one member to another member of the family". Fascinating theory, although it is not the most orthodox one. Maybe you are searching for the expression "patrimonial monarchy"? Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrimonial monarchy is a subset of hereditary monarchy. Great Moravia was definitely a hereditary monarchy, all the rulers belonged to the same lineage, there was no vote when a new got to the power and their right to it was determined by the fact that they belonged to the proper family. Don't see what you're disputing. Moreover, in principle, had not one ruler been ousted, it would have been his children that would assume the throne, which actually did happen after Svatopluk's death. The year 833 is what the majority of sources use, please stop introducing false information based solely on your OR or personal opinions. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article more carefully: there was not any vote, because the predecessor was expelled by the successor (with the one exception you also refer to). Would you please clarify why do you think that statements based on properly cited reliable sources (Curta and Barford) qualify original reasearch? The majority of sources which contains the 833 date are Czechoslovak (or Czech and Slovak) sources. Just one remark, patrimonial monarchy is not a subset of hereditary monarchy: for example, the Kievan Rus', and the Romanian principalities in the 14th-15th centuries were patrimonial monarchies (all the princes belonged to the same family), but they were not hereditary monarchies (it was never clear who would follow the monarch when he died). Hereditary monarchy means that everybody knows, at any moment, who will follow the monarch in case he/she dies. Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly the case of Great Moravia. It was clear who was to be the king, that the fight for power resulted in someone else getting to the throne does not change the principle. After Svatopluk it was his son who assumed the throne it was ergo a hereditary monarchy. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And it's simply not true, that the year 833 is used by czechoslovak sources predominantly, even the one I have put into the template was an english one, at least do not mislead deliberately. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if my understanding is correct, it was always clear who was to be the king (???, I think you wanted to write 'prince', because the monarchs were styled prince), but we do not have any information of him/her, because he/she did not follow his predecessor, since his/her predecessor was followed by someone else by force. Therefore, the fact that the monarchs in "Great" Moravia were expelled proves that "Great" Moravia was a hereditary monarchy, because otherwise the monarch should not have been expelled. Revolutionary thoughts: could we speak of "hereditary republics" as well? - those republics could be labelled as hereditary republics where the heads of the state are usually expelled during a coup d'etat Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I still refer to Badford's work. How can we explain the existence of Moravia in 811 if Moravia was only established in 833? Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

For GA, the Lead should be a maximum of four paragraphs according to WP:LEAD. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi Borsoka! I see that you have deleted some of mine recent edits.

• Regarding the map - if you think that a map is contradicting to maps presented by reliable sources (Kirschbaum (1995), can you put that correct map.
• Regarding the 833 - I thought that Great Moravia became in 833 after Mojmír I joined the Moravian and Nitrian Principalities into one state. Is this false?

Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot make maps, but the map reverted clearly differs from the maps presented in the sources I referred to. Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Barford on p. 109 writes: "The area became of considerable importance and legates from the Moravian leaders were met by the Carolingian emperors at Aachen (811), Paderborn (815), and Frankfurt (822)." On the same page, later he continues: "After Mojmir's death about 846 Prince Rostislav continued the policy of expansion. This was the beginnings of the process of the creation of a state which was known to Constantine VII writing his DAI a century later as 'Great' Moravia." Therefore, Moravia may have been established sometime before 811 (the first mention of the Moravians) or sometime after 846 (when it began to expand), but the 833 date is solely repeated by Czechoslovak (and Czech and Slovak) sources and in popular historical books based on Czechoslovak sources. The 833 date was important in the 1920s in order to strengthen the historical roots of the Czechoslovak state: the Principality of Moravia ('Old Czechia') occupies the Principality (?) of Nitra ('Old Slovakia') thus forming 'Great' Moravia ('Old Czechoslovakia'). Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that map - maybe it can be made by somebody else? Kebeta (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The map can be found here: [1] (p. xiii, after the 'Table of Contents' section.Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I found your map, but I have put another one in the Infobox. In image caption I wrote that the "green line" is questionable by many historians. I think this is NPOV (smaller 'Great' Moravia in green). Is this o.k. with you? Kebeta (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was not 'my' map. It was a map based on two reliable sources (and I could also refer to a third one). As 'your' map is not based on a reliable source, it should be removed. Borsoka (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The map is based on information described in Štefanovičová, Tatiana (1989). Osudy starých Slovanov, Bratislava: Osveta. Well, at least now there is a link on this talk page for "more correct map". Kebeta (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is, in itself, remarkable that even Slovakian historians refrain from presenting that map in their books written for readers at international level. I think we should follow their example: if the map prepared for internal purposes cannot be presented in an English language book, it should not be presented in an English language article either. Borsoka (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Moravia existed before 833. The question is when 'Great' Moravia was established. If everybody agrees that in 846 'Great' Moravia existed, maybe that year should be in Infobox (until some better agreement - like year 833 or...). Kebeta (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have put the year 846 and the note to 833. Is this o.k. with you? Kebeta (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is an accaptable solution. (Although 'Great' Moravia is only mentioned by Constantine VII who locates it somewhere east of the river Tisa, therefore his - an therefore the sole - 'Great Moravia' could not have been established by uniting two principalities north of the Danube river, but it is an other question.) Borsoka (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you have accapted this solution. Kebeta (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Language(s)

Can we put languages in Infobox Former Country? The used both Latin and Old Church Slavonic for sure at some point in thear history. Kebeta (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What does 'Languages' mean in the infobox? Official language or languages spoken? I think based on the reliable sources no one could state that either Latin or Old Church Slavonic was the official language of the state or whether there was any official language at all. It is probable that both Old Church Slavonic and Latin were used for liturgical purposes for about 20-20 years (c. 864 - c. 885, c. 885 - c. 906). But I think languages used for ecclesiastical purposes should not be inserted into the infobox - for example, I think that inserting the Latin language into the infobox of Caliphate of Cordoba (if there is such an infobox) would be surprising even if the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the Caliphate used Latin as a liturgical language. Therefore, I think neither Latin, nor Old Church Slavonic should be inserted. I would suggest Slavic, because the only fact substantiated by the reliable sources of the article is that Moravia was a Slavic polity. Borsoka (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I will put Slavic languages in the infobox. I was thinking of a "note" by Slavic. Something like this: Old Church Slavonic and Latin were used for liturgical purposes at some point. - like a note I have put for year 846. Is this o.k. with you? Kebeta (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is funny that you take advices from someone who obviously has absolutely no idea of the topic and you do not hesitate for a second. 58ER (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Kebeta (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What (the hell) is this?

I do not know and do not care who the primary author of this article is, but the content is absolutely laughable in many parts. Not only does the article fail to use all the basic scholarly literature on the topic, but it is also full of what I would call "deliberately wrong individual - very obviously biased - interpretation of selected medieval texts" without elementary knowledge of the issue, of the literature, of the archaelogical finds and without knowledge of the many other texts and sources that exist. Regardless of whether this is someоne's absolute ignorance or a sort of (probably Hungarian) political propaganda, I do not understand how it is possible that such an article is allowed to exist in something calling itself an "encyclopaedia". 58ER (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ...And the two external links are even "better". One of them is completely worthless (a website of some children) and the other one is well-known for its bias and it even explicitly insists on its bias. I suppose not removing them is better, because than the worth of this "article" should be even more obvious. 58ER (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear 58ER, would you be more specific? What are the parts of the article what could be call "deliberately wrong individual - very obviously biased - interpretation of selected medieval texts"? Please feel free to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the history of the article (which reveals that correct information and academic maps was not only not included, it was even removed), let me explain the problem in a very simple way: Are you at least able to list basic standard secondary academic (i.e. Czech or Slovak) historical and archaeological literature specifically on the topic or on medieval settlement structure of Slovakia and surroundingds? You are obviously not and if you assert that you are, then why has the literature not been used in the article? I think the answer should be clear to everybody. This is a deliberate non-academic propaganda article, there is no better designation for this. 58ER (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) The "basic standard secondary academic Czech or Slovak" (in fact, Czechoslovak) "historical and archaeological literature" based on which the highly dubious maps were elaborated had been written in the late 1980s. (2) Those maps' claims contradict to maps presented in books written, in the last decade, for English-speaking community on the same subject (see (a) Spiesz, Anton; Caplovic, Dusan; Bolchazy, Ladislaus J. (2006). Illustrated Slovak History: A Struggle for Sovereignty in Central Europe. Bolczhazy-Carducci Publishers. ISBN 978-0-86516-426-0 p. 23. (b) Kirschbaum, Stanislav J. (1995). A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 1-40396929-9 p. xi.) (3) P. M. Barford writes that "There is little clear archaeological or written evidence however of a permanent extension of Moravian centralization of power in Malopolska or to the west in Silesia, or - as has been claimed by some historians - into Pannonia. Indeed modern historiography has tended to question the former claims of huge neighbouring territories permanently annexed by the Moravian state. The Moravians however were able to annex Bohemia and unite the area to Moravia in the 880s." Barford, P. M. (2001). The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3977-9. p. 110.) (4) Actually, I fully agree with you that Great Moravia, at its present state, is a non-academic propaganda article ("30 strongholds in the Principality of Nitra", "healthier teeth", "appanage system"...). It should be significantly improved. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing/Quality of the Page

I just concur with Borsoka, this article might need a clean up and big revision because (among other things) its neutrality is more than disputed. It contains a lot of unreliable sources (even if the language of the source is English) and the article is not consequent. It should be improved. As opposed to opinion of other editors, Gyula Kristo's book is not an 'unverifiable fringe book'. That book is reliable and sophisticated from an academic historian. The language of the treatise is Hungarian, of course, I hope it will be translated in the future (Maybe it is existed just I do not know).I just added reference to the article to verify a statement. This article has a few contradict. We do not know the exact dates, accurate borders,places, too much speculation without facts and great old wives' tale ("Svatopluk II probably died in the battle of Bratislava" I had to fix it up that fact, of course) For example, We do not know where was the exact place of Brezalauspurc, just speculations. Moreover this article contains unjustified and wretched references, but If somebody said Gyula Kristo is unreliable or 'unverifiable' I disagreed.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)