Talk:Great Moravia

Titel of the Mojmirids

I think it is really important to use constitent titel for all rulers of the Moravian realm. In my opinion the best solution for this is the titel Knez. While the latin sources mention Moravian rulers by diffent titels (dux, comes and rex), the old church slavonic sources use without exception the term kъnędzь (Knez), like for example Boris I of Bulgaria. However, the different intepretations of this titel should be explained in a note, because some historians translate this titel as "King" (f.a. Goldberg, Havlík), others as "Prince" and others as "Duke". --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should follow the usage in reliable sources written in English, according to WP:NOR. Do the majority of reliable sources written in English follows the above approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is that historians are discortand about the correct titulation, for example Goldberg and Havlík, two of the most important historians about this time, mention all moravian rulers as "Kings". Some others just refer to Svatopluk as King, while others mention all rulers as "princes", "grand princes" or "dukes". I think thats something we can not ignore. The Czech historian František Graus (Rex-dux Moraviae, 1960) and the Slovak historian Miroslav Lysý (Titul mojmírovských panovníkov, 2013) wrote articles about that. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually only the index to Goldberg's book mention all Moravian rulers as kings. For instance, Moimir I's title in the main text is "prince" or "supreme ruler" even if Goldberg adds that Moimir was "in essence a king" (page 138); Rastislav is titled as "client ruler (dux)" (page 140, 244). We should avoid to introduce a title (kъnędzь / Knez) which has never been used in connection with Moravian rulers in the relevant literature (WP:NOR). I suggest that we should use a neutral title (ruler, monarch ....) if the exact title is not important, and apply the title which was used by the primary source if it is relevant (for instance, many historians think that the title "rex" used in connection with Svatopluk I by the pope is relevant, because it suggests that the Moravian ruler had been crowned king). Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, how about the changes I have made in the article Mojmir I, is this acceptable for you? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an excellent summary. My main concern is that it has almost nothing to do with Mojmir I (for instance, he was never titled as comes by any source and Old Church Slavonic sources make no mention of him). I suggest that the text should be copied into this article (for instance under the title "4.2 Monarch"). Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Remark:

"We should avoid to introduce a title (kъnędzь / Knez) which has never been used in connection with Moravian rulers in the relevant literature".

The title "kъnędzь" is correct for Great Moravian rulers. Not only theoretically, but it is also used in old Slavonic texts. See e.g. Pannonian Legend here [1], p. 12, the last paragraph, the 4th line, the 1st word. In the Cyrillic alphabet, it looks like КНѦӠЮ. The text describes how Cyril was sent to Moravia because Moravian "knez/knyaz" requested philosopher from Emperor Michael.Ditinili (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Püspöki-Nagy's concept?

Püspöki-Nagy's concept? Should we put here all strange theories? (from Czech or Slovak r. - I think hungarians will not like it). Pls hold wiki in real (main) science's stream.

Tomas

Please read WP:civility before distinguishing editors according to their nationality, and WP:NPOV. Püspöki-Nagy's concept of two Moravias is shared by other scholars as well (they are cited in the article - interestingly, only one of them is Hungarian). Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nitrava

Ditinili, I understand that you want to prove "how ridiculous" Boba's view is ([2]). Even if this approach is quite unusual in our community, you are more than welcome when making edits in order to prove it. However, you should remember that we are building an encyclopedia here. (1) If there are articles dedicated to Nitra and the Principality of Nitrava, we should mention all relevant debates in connection with that town and polity in those articles. (2) The identification of Pribina's Nitrava with Nitra, and especially the development of the name is quite marginal in the argumentiation presented by Boba: he dedicate about 10 sentences to this issue in his long book. We should present his views fairly, without emphasizing points that he did not emphasize in connection with Great Moravia (I repeat that the same issue can be relevant in connection with the Nitra or Principality of Nitra articles). Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is probably not so "marginal" part of his theory, because some editors tried to use it as a serious (?!) argument against an identification of Nitra. It seems that some people really believe these pseudo-arguments, so it's better to describe this problem into more details. It's very important to make it clear, because we are talking about formation of the empire (Great Moravian empire, that's why it is here) and identification of one of its main centers. We all probably know that Boba is not an etymologist, Boba did not know (more or less) anything about archeology, Boba is not even a reliable source. But if somebody (not me) decided to cite him, we should explain it correctly.--Ditinili (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read my above remark: there are more than 100 pages in his work, and there are 10 sentences dedicated to this issue. As I have mentioned several times, his views of Nitra can be mentioned in the articles about Nitra and Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Nitra article is about a real town, not about Boba's hypothetical location in "Hunnia-Avaria". Boba's theory is described here and this is a part of his theory, so it belongs here. Let's keep it on one place. Once upon a time, there were two editors, who cited and defended his opinon. Now, when it is clear how weak it is, one of them changed opinion a strated to believe that this is only a small unimportant part of his work.Ditinili (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Would you refer to my (or other editor's) remark stating that it is an important part of his theory? I do not remember that I have whenever made such a statement. Would you refer to my (or other editor's) statement when I "defended" Boba's opinion? If you refer to the above debate, please read it more carefully: I tried to understand the quite strange argumentation about secondary and primary forms which were or were not adopted by the Hungarians or/and the Slovaks, etc. Sincerely, I am still convinced that you do not understand the Slovak scholars' view, but I do not (and did not) want to continue that debate, because I did not want to delete it from this article. On the contrary, I do not say that it should be hidden: I say it should be emphasized in the proper article (Nitra or Principality of Nitra). Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you are a rational human being and you did not waste so much time by unimportant statement. Or.. am I wrong? However, it does not matter. If not only wikipedia editors here, but for example Czech historian Dušan Třeštík considers topic important enough to analyse this Boba's argumentation in details (like also others historian) it obviously has some importance.

"I am still convinced that you do not understand the Slovak scholar's view". LOL. You who do not speak the language can understand it better? OK. :-) --Ditinili (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty sure that you cannot understand the core of their argumentation although I do not understand the language. However, I have read many scholarly works written in languages I can understand. If my understanding is correct, you say that Boba's view of the development of the name of Nitra should be mentioned here even if he did not emphasize it, because his opponents dedicated many pages to prove that he is wrong in this respect. Interesting approach. All the same, the whole argumentation could properly be presented in the article about the Principality of Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty sure that you cannot understand the core of their argumentation although I do not understand the language. LOL. OK. Sorry, I cannot take such statements based on your belief seriously. If you do not trust me, you can consult whatever I wrote here with the Czech editors, who speak the language on native speaker level (or to 98%). More, half of works referenced by me are from Czechs like Trestik, Havlik, Merinsky, etc.

"...because his opponents dedicated many pages.". I can disagree with your opinion that it is not important or emphasized part in Boba's work. But my opinion is not so important, because that's exactly the interest of respected scholars (respected ulike Imre Boba) which made it relevant from an encyclopedic point of view.Ditinili (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, read how 21st-century scholars refer to the debate: "healthy debate" (McCormick); the core problem which was adressed (the Franks seems to have been marching to the south from Pannonia when invading Moravia, according to the sources) by Boba "will have to be explained" (I refer to their works cited in the article). Do you think that such statements refer to a fringe theory? Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you speak about McCormic, you speak about general publication about an evolution of the European economy from an author who has never ever published a single work about Great Moravia and never (as far as I know) participated on any archaelogical research related to GM. I have no doubts that he is a qualified expert in his area of interest, but this is not the area where is not an recognized expert. Thus, he can hardly be some authority and "judge". "Healthy debate" and "growing number of scholars" literally means that in 1971 he was one (Boba) :-), and later other four historians (some Japanese, Puspoky-Nagy, Bowlus and Eggers) published similar works during 45 (forty-five) years. That's the team which can meet on a smaller archeological site or write one peer-reviewed collective work. Have you an idea about progress in archaeology since Boba work (outdated already in 1971)? Ditinili (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And Kristó (a leading Hungarian historian), and Miklós Szőke (a leading archaeologist), and .... Of course, you can be convinced that McCormic's and Machácek's remarks are not relevant. However, they were published in peer-rewied works. Consequently, their views are more relevant for WP purposes than yours or mine. Borsoka (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

machacek says that nitra is not nitra? Wow? Where and when?Ditinili (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Machacek does not say it and I did not state that he whenever made such a statement. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

so, which machacek remarks are allegedly "not relevant"?Ditinili (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The core problem which was adressed (the Franks seems to have been marching to the south from Pannonia when invading Moravia, according to the sources) by Boba "will have to be explained" (the whole text is quoted in the article). Interestingly, you cited his work in the article to prove that Boba is the representative of a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me cite Machacek properly, especially the part which you have left:

"No power centre has so far been found in those regions of the Carpathian Basin where Bowlus and Eggers placed the core of Great Moravia. Hungarian archaeologists have clearly shown that during the ninth century there was a conspicuous shrinking of the settlement network in the southern parts of the region between the Danube and the Tisza, with no new sites being established by immigrants from the south, as Eggers maintained. While some Avar-age sites may have continued into the 800s, so far no cemetery or settlement in the area has produced any evidence of a migration from the Balkans or from anywhere else. (...) The core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what is now the Czech republic." This is according to Machacek "unambiguous conclusion". In other words he explicitely confirmed that Boba's, Bowlus' or Egger's views are completely wrong, but he very tolerantly and rationally respects such trials (Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moravia else where within the Carpathian Basin.). It does not mean that we will cite such controversial works as something more than an alternative. --Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

...and "The serious problems of geo-graphical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east), which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained..." Borsoka (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are contradictions in written sources, all of historians known about them. That's why Boba's and company theories do not work - the written sources cannot be overestimated, the archaeology cannot be ignored and the sources cannot be used selectively (as you also do). Nevertheless, Machacek very clearly rejected existing southern theories.Ditinili (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Consequently, there are academic works which suggest or explicitly say that Boba, Bowlus and other scholars representing a similar view do not represent a fringe theory. Nobody stated that archaeology should be ignored. However, we should address all relevant contradictions between written sources and archaeological research (in accordance, for instance, with Machácek's approach). Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, that such works exists. You can cite them and we can evaluate them exactly as we did for McCormic. Ditinili (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. With whom did you evaluate McCormick? Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

With you - according to rules of wikipedia, for example "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." While e.g. Marsina is recognized expert in the area, McCormic never published any specialized publication about Great Moravia and is focused in other, more general topics.Ditinili (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)