This is an archive of past discussions about History of Transylvania. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Avars are a long time part of the article. There are many info about other people through the history of Transylvania in the topic. Could you tell me why do you like to remove the Avars from the history of Transylvania? The Avar presence in Transylvania is indisputable by academics.
Do you think the "Pannonian" name is the misleading? For example Roman Empire ruled half of Europe, not only city of Rome, and this name does not mean that the Romans was only in Rome. For example Hungarians use the name "Carpathian Basin" including the area of Transylvania, while English term is "Pannonian Basin" for the similar region, however original Pannonia was only in Transdanubia, a much smaller region (today's west-Hungary, east-Austria).
Some examples:
International maps about the Avars, we can see Transylvania as Avar territory in all maps:
"Hungarians use the name "Carpathian Basin" including the area of Transylvania, while English term is "Pannonian Basin" - no, it is not. As per Britanica "Within the arc formed by the Carpathians are found the depressed Pannonian Basin, composed of the Little and the Great Alfolds of Hungary, and also the relatively lower mountain-and-hill zone of Transdanubia, which separates these two plains." . This is confirmed on the relevant Wikipedia page Pannonian Basin. I'm not "removing the Avars from the history of Transylvania", your synthesis is about the Avar-Hungarian connection not Avar presence in Transylvania and the sources you cite do not speak of Avars' survival in Transylvania. In fact all sources stop speaking about the Avars in the regions after the Bulgarian expansion in the first part of the 9th century. Therefore the paragraph can be used in the Pannonia Avars or history of Hungarians but not with the history of a Transylvania. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not know all the English documents on the Avar topic. The topic is researched mostly by Hungarian scholars, I could provide you with a lot of documents, but you need to translate. But English Wikipedia does not need that all sources should be written in English, the topics have sources from all countries from all languages, even though there are many Romanian sources in the Transylvania topic.
Indeed the article about the Pannonian Basin is confusing because the Hungarian term is different than the English term. I think that article should be split. I can confirm, Carpathian Basin means in Hungary this geographical location:
When Hungarians talk about Carpathian Basin as a geographical term, Transylvania is included in this. Even many Hungarian TV weather forecast shows a similar map and they are talking about always the weather of the Carpathian Basin. I think this came from the historical term because Carpathian Basin means the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary without the Kingdom of Croatia.
You can see in the Pannonian Basin article the Hungarian term is presented:
"In Hungarian geographical literature various subdivisions of the Carpathian Mountains (Inner Western Carpathians, Inner Eastern Carpathians, Southern Carpathians, Western Carpathians and Transylvanian Plateau) are also considered parts of the Carpathian Basin on the basis of traditional geopolitical divisions."
This is the reason why the Avars got the "Pannonian" name to distinguish them from the Avars of the Caucasus. But they ruled not only in the Pannonian Basin as we can see the historical maps and archeology:
"They established the Avar Khaganate, which spanned the Pannonian Basin and considerable areas of Central and Eastern Europe from the late 6th to the early 9th century."
Most of the articles and historians write general only "Avars". Hungarian historiography name them also simple "Avars" or "Carpathian Basin Avars" which means the Transylvanian region is included.
The article also mention surviving Avars with sources:
"Whatever was left of Avar power was effectively ended when the Bulgars expanded their territory into the central and eastern portions of traditional Avar lands around 829" "According to Pohl, an Avar presence in Pannonia is certain in 871" "Although Regino wrote about them in 889." "The growing amount of archaeological evidence in Transdanubia also presumes an Avar population in the Carpathian Basin in the late 9th century." "The preliminary results of the new excavations also imply that the known and largely accepted theory of the destruction of the Avar settlement area is outdated; a disastrous depopulation of the Avar Khaganate never happened" "Byzantine records, including the "Notitia episcopatuumî", the "Additio patriarchicorum thronorumî" by Neilos Doxapatres, the "Chronica" by Petrus Alexandrinus and the "Notitia patriarchatuum" mention the 9th century Avars as an existing Christian population." "Fine presumes that Avar descendants who survived the Hungarian Conquest in the 890s were likely absorbed by the Hungarian population."
I also know many contemporary sources which clearly say the Avars were present in the 9-10th century, and many of them clearly write Avar=Hungarian.
Recent most modern genetic studies proved this connection, that a significant part of the Hungarian conqueror elite completely lacked the "proto-Ugric" heritage, instead showing themselves to be of Hun or Avar descent, with varying degrees of Iranian (Alan) and local admixture.
The sholars explain the genetic results with archeologists, they also say according to the genetic evidence, there is a genetic continuity from the Bronze Age, a continuous migration of the Steppe folks from east to the Carpathian Basin which related each other. There are many Avar family graves with more generations, where the last generations were buried with Hungarian style clothes.
When the Hungarian histography writes about the Carpathian Basin Avars this term always include Transylvania.
Do you think the Avars disappeared without any spot after 830 from Transylvania when the Bulgarians occupied the region? By the way, there are many reports from Hungarian warriors in Western Europe after 860, 880... and many Hungarian historians assume some Hungarian presence in the Carpathian Basin before 895 and more transition, and Transylvania was on the way. Do you think after the Avars, when some decades later Árpád's Hungarians arrived, then it was no Avars in Transylvania anymore just in the other part of the Carpathian Basin? This is the mainstream scholar view that the Avars survived the Hungarian conquest and assimilated into Hungarians, and archeology and recent genetic studies confirmed this. There are found 65 000 Avars graves, 25 000 Hungarian conqueror graves in the Carpathian Basin.
The Avars ruled the Carpathian Basin for 250 years, then the Hungarians ruled the Carpathian Basin including Transylvania until the Treaty of Trianon 1920. If we mention some historical things regarding the Avars, and Hungarians, who had a very long history in the region why do these things would be irrelevant to the topic? Or do you think the Avars or Hungarians in Transylvania were not the same Avars or Hungarians who lived in the near outside Transylvania? I see you are a supporter of the Daco-Roman theory, which is presented in the article. However, there are no contemporary sources about the Daco-Roman population in the 9-10th century in Transylvania, but this theory assumes a large Daco-Roman population at that time. Why do you have a problem presenting the Avar-Hungarian continuity here which was supported by recent genetic science? Why do you have a problem presenting the Avar-Hungarian continuity in that region which was part of the Avar Khaganate and the Hungarian country? Between the Avars and Hungarians, the difference is only some decades and they have very rich archeology from that time, while the difference between Dacians, Romans, and medieval Vlachs is about 1000 years, and this theory is presented in the article because this is the Romanian viewpoint, however the Hungarian viewpoint is different. I do not think it would be a problem to present more viewpoint. The area of the Daco-Roman theory does not include only Transylvania, or the territory of the Hungarian conquest or the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary is not only Transylvania, but the article writes about these things. There are many historical things mentioned in the article which was influenced the history of Transylvania and not happened exactly or only in Translyvania, I think these things help to understand the situation.
Some Hungarian source about surviving Avars and Avar-Hungarian countinuty:
As you said the extension of Pannonian Basin to other areas is not common in English language. If we can cite this wider definition with a reputable, non-controversial source, and emphasize the distinction to the use in English I see no problem to keep the paragraph in this section. Otherwise, "Do you think the Avars disappeared without any (...)?" is against the WP:Original and I urge you to follow this directive as well. We should only be promoting facts from published authors so when one says "Avars were absorbed by the Hungarians in Transylvania" I would expect to be able to go the cited book and read something like "Over the entire former khaganate, including Transylvania, Avar population survived and was later absorbed in the Hungarian population." If this is not met we shouldn't push our own conclusion or interpretation. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not know why so important this word play, as I showed above (maps, archeology, wiki page) "Pannonian" does not mean the Avars were only in Pannonia or in the Pannonian Basin.
The Hungarian historians in that sources write about all Avars in general in all region of the Avar Khaganate, and the term Carpathian Basin Avars include Transylvania too in Hungarian histography (as archeology proved the Avars sites there), and the Hungarians made a state in the Carpathian Basin incuding Transylvania some decades after the Avars, and it ruled a long time until 1920, why do you want cut this region from the general Avar and Hungarian histography? Avar cemeteries, old Hungarian cemeteries are fact in Transylvania. As you can see this wiki article clearly does not says or ephasizes that the Avars survived/absorbed in Transylvania, but it mentions the Avar-Hungarian situation in general, why do you have a problem to mention this? The connection which was claimed by several historian works and it was finally proved by the recent science, the archeogenetic. The article also mention many historical things in general which is not related only in Transylvania.
This is Hungarian, easy explanation video about the Avars made by Institute of Hungarian Research, government website: https://mki.gov.hu/en/ who made the recent archeogenetic researches, here working many historians, archeologist, genetics, etc.. they did not distinguish Transylvania from the whole. These most modern mainstream researches also say that the Hungarian county system of King Saint Stephen I (which include Transylvania) may be largely based on the power centers formed during the Avar period.
I cannot subscribe to your opinion. Explanations are important because readers do not share the same definition of the phrase. My suggestion for editing is simple enough, but Wikipedia cannot self-reference in this article. We need an independent source. Until then I maintain my position. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
don't flood § Roman or romanized population with arguments in favor of a remaining of Romance people, especially not into the middle of the sayings of Pop. How would you react if I would start filling the whole section with Immigrationist scholars? Hogyan kerültek a románok többségbe jelenlegi államuk területén? [How did the Romanians become majority in their current state's territory?]. contains enough proof why the romanized population that established Wallachia came from south of the Danube. I still don't do that. I'm okay with describing the life and story of the Proto-Romanians from the eyes of Daco-Romanist writers, just don't try to prove that theory to anyone (as we also don't try to prove - let's say - the existence of Dacians after the death of Attila in the section that is dedicated to tell the short story of the them). That means I'm okay with the new Opreanu part as well, just relocate it. And one more thing: I have cropped the map you've inserted. Maybe this is a better one?
don't mark that map as dubious in § Demographics and historical research. It was created by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and of course it shows many lands as uninhabited, but is this really your only problem? That mountainous and forested places are marked as largely not inhabited by Hungarians, Romanians, or Germans? Pop's interpretation in Vrancic's letter is that it says Romanians equal all other nations in Transylvania. Other historians (truly, as qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant can't mean "all the others") state that it doesn't. So should we mark Pop as dubious too? Should we tag everyone from Sedlar to Hóman because they are not completely accepted sources? The statistics were counted by an academy, please, they know what they are doing and all the other reputed historians do!
The paragraph discusses Roman and/or Romanized population, therefore the information I added belongs there. Notice I do not draw personal conclusion, I simply follow the sources. If they are the ancestors of Romanians or disappeared in the following centuries it's not for me to say, but we cannot just brush of the history of that population because it might be politically charged.
The entire debate continuity/immigration is politically colored but to say Romans equal Romanians, even in this context, is original research. For editing purposes if the authors say Romans the editor needs to say Romans, Romans are not Romanians unless the authors cited explicitly and states it. So if one was to add a reference to Hungarians in that paragraph or Romanians I would move it to its section, but, again, my text cites Romans or Romanized population, therefore it belongs there not with the continuity theory which refers to Romanians.
I don't mind cropping that 4th century map, but I still need clarification on the demographic map. "Ab auctoritate" only goes so far. A cited source, accessible to public would help clarify the issue. For future conversations, I would appreciate if the assumption of good faith is employed: I genuinely find it dubious that a 15th century institution could know the amount population in such areas, mostly mountainous and therefore hard to access, and in general I find any statement that an area was unpopulated, if not supported by modern technology in accessing and viewing the area such as satellites, dubious. That's why I wonder why it's empty and what ethnicity should be presented. Again, good faith and neutrality needs to govern this discussion.
I repeat the example I gave previously, but please answer it now: How would you react if I would start filling the whole section with Immigrationist scholars?... if arguments about the Romanian origins (clearly that's what it's about, as those who believe in a long-lasting Romance population there after the Aurelian retreat believe that those are Proto-Romanians; there's no transition between Daco-Romanism) completely fit? § Roman or romanized population is not the place for arguments in favor of their existence. As I said How did the Romanians become majority in their current state's territory? contains enough proof, however I only wrote down (from obviously the source and not from original research which I never accused you of doing, however we can't write down everything from a source because another part is relevant) the conclusion and not their arguments why something could or couldn't have happened. We shouldn't head to the way of Origin of the Romanians, which talks about the Geto-Dacians and post-Aurelian Romance in Dacia, i.e. everyone who we can originate the Vlachs from. Also please move Opreanu because as I see you didn't find anything objectionable with what I wrote of him.
It was made by an academy!Here's an English article by Kocsis explaining the map. They obviously know their job better than you do, and "because others don't agree" isn't a valid argument why they drew the map that way. You see, the main problem with what you say is still the many double standards. I again come up with an earlier example, as these are my deciding arguments and you're ignoring them: Pop translated quamlibet as "all". This is clearly an intended mistranslation, but he's an accepted historian, so argumentum ab auctoritate is a essential argument to not mark him dubious for the same reason you marked the map. An older edit of mine was reverted because the source, Kosztin wasn't known enough and that's why his works couldn't be trusted enough.
1. The editing rules of Wikipedia encourage us to be bold but not to use the site articles for debates: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" which is exactly what the Origin of Romanians article is in my opinion. The entire page does not contain any paragraph explicitly discussing the Romans in the region, implying they are either ancestors or not of the Romanians, when they should be threated just as neutrally as if we speak of the Roman population of North Africa, for example. I do not feel your arguments as anything else but part of that debate. The cited sources are explicitly speaking of the Roman or Romanised population without referencing anything to Romanians. Interpreting the implications of their statements is POV. If you feel this is unbalanced I would appreciate to point me or add yourself relevant information on the Roman population in the area, post Aurelian retreat, that balance the other cited authors opinions. I will not accept, however, sources that explicitly use the Hungarians, Dacians, Romanians, proto-Romanians or any other endonym other than the ones used in the title of the paragraph. Since this is turning into a debate I will stop editing the paragraph, but I will not move the cited material. I need more explanations on how is this merely a sub-category of Daco-Roman continuity debate.
2.Since you can provide a source for the map, I suggest to add that to the description with the relevant research paper cited as per WP:BURDEN. Doing that will cancel the need for flagging it. "Cite, cite, cite" the manual says, a very good rule in my opinion.
3.Using "do", "do not", and "they know better than you do", along with "double standards" is not my favorite cup of tea in dialogue. In the interest of etiquette may I suggest refraining from using this terms while speaking directly to each other? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I am very distressed by your recent actions. Could you please point at what part made you feel it's ok to delete of my editing in the "Romans ..." paragraph? Also, removing the flag at the same time? All this without providing arguments in the talk page but referencing this conversation as if some consensus has been achieved, which it has not. May I remind you this is not an owned article, therefore you cannot dictate what should be in it or not or remove cited content without the other editor's notification, at least. Should you make no further attempts to converse on this topic, I will restore my edits within a day or two. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Articles can't contain original research, they have to be sourced. There are no sources claiming a long-lasting remaining of a Roman population in Transylvania without saying them to be the ancestors of the Romanians. Not even Pop who you cite. What you wrote from his work is an argument in favor of the Daco-Roman theory, relevant in a sense that this article is about a hypothetical romanized population, but that is not an acceptable reason for creating a battlefield there between arguments. Honestly, I don't see a reason why you want to save that one sentence so much, I only criticize this edit of yours now, as we've came to a conclusion about the ethnic map and Opreanu's paragraph was never a problem. That it's cited and doesn't yet call that people Romanians, only later doesn't support why it should remain.
"Double standard" is a rule or standard of good behavior that, unfairly, some people are expected to follow or achieve but other people are not.[1] It is not an offense, it is an argument. However, I'll watch out not use "don't" or "do" although I have no idea how to say it in a way that sounds polite enough for you, but I'll try.
I have feedback regarding your new section. What do you think how can we fit this proper to the timeline? You mention the time of 1000 before the Gepids and Avars.
I do not understand this timeline:
"The baptism of Gyula II in Constantinople and his accompaniment by bishop Hierotheos lead to the deduction that the diocese was founded around 1018."
If you read below, Gyula II was mentioned, and he was baptized around 950 and not around 1018.
1. The history of Christianity in Transylvania starts in the 4th century and last for the rest of region's history. Perhaps we can put this at the top of the Middle Ages section? It's not like historical facts are a spoiler.
2.I can't find a free copy of Baán's study and the sources I have are laconic on the explanation. I think the reasonable assumption here is that it took some time to develop the community to a full diocese. For now I will change "founded" to "established".
I think given the chronology we can safely change "could be dated to the time of Géza" to "could be dated to the time of Stephen I".
The question that follows is: would Stephen I build an Eastern rite church or is this an attempt by the gyulas at building their own autocephalous church in the way Boris I did (and with it a separate kingdom). If the second is true, the building of the Eastern rite church in Gyulafehervar is part of that attempt during gyula Zombor and Gyula the Younger, prompting the young king to put a stop to it in 1002-1003. It would then make sense for Stephen I, who already established the Kalacsa diocese, to bring this flock of Christians to his side. Perhaps the delayed 1018 date that Baan gives for the diocese of Transylvania establishment as part of the archdiocese is the result of a period of transition (negotiation?, conversion?) between Eastern and Latin rites.
This would be a nice intro to the third and final part of the "Spread of Christianity" where we brief the Latin church's early history in the region. However I would really appreciate other opinions as we don't want to just throw non-factual elements in the text. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually many Hungarians were Christians already. We have reports the Avars who called Huns and Hungarians accepted the Christianity in the 9th century before the conquest. Most modern historian view: The Hungarians took possession of the Carpathian basin in a pre-planned manner, with a long move-in Between 862–895. And archeologists found Christian chest crosses in many Hungarian conqueror graves. And the Hungarian rulers in the 9th century or Stephen ruled both areas with western and eastern Christianity. The East–West Schism was in 1054, before Géza and Stephen. For example Bulcsú was the "friend of the Emperor" and was baptized also in Constantinople. Btw Hungarian kings in the future had much more royal family connections with Byzantine Empire and with eastern or central european countries than western European countries. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
"The chronicles of Bartholomew of Lucca, Johannes Longus von Ypern, Marino Sanuto Torsello and Simon of Kéza recorded that in the Mongol Invasion of 1241 the passes of the Carpathians were defended together by the Romanians (Olaci) and the Szeklers (Siculi)."
I know well the Kézai chronicle, he does not recorded that the Romanians and Székelys defended the Carpathians in the Mongol invasion of 1241 or 1285, even just the first invasion is recorded by him. Hungarian version: https://mek.oszk.hu/02200/02249/02249.htm
"sed siculi, olachi et Saxones omnesvias ipsorum cum indaginibus stipaverunt sive giraverunt et sic (de vita ipsorum omnino suntde) necessitate cogente ibidem castra eorum sunt metati"
"26,000 Tatars were killed in the Kingdom of Hungary, so the Tatars fled, trying to save themselves from the hands of the Hungarians, they reached Transylvania, but the Szekelys, Vlachs and Saxons occupied the roads with their scouts and surrounded them and thus..." OrionNimrod (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The marked source from Pál Binder also does not mention that Simon of Kéza, Bartholomew of Lucca would mention anything about Mongol invasion... but I can see the quote from Benedictus from 1285.
Martino Sanudo: "Post quorum recessum gentes Pannonie, qui prope dictas inhabitant Sylvas, Olaci videlicet et Siculi, passus clauserunt, ut amplius transire nequeant"
Johannes Longus von Ypern, in Chronicon S. Bertini (Chronica monasterii Sancti Bertini): "Post quorum recessum gentes Pannonie, Olaci et Siculi, qui prope illos Zipheos montes vei silvas Hungariae inhabitant, passus illos sic clauserunt, ut amplius Tartari per eos transire non possent."
Alexandru Madgearu writes "The chronicles of Tholomeus de Lucca, Iohannes Longus de Ypre and Marino Sanudo Torsello recorded that in March 1241 the passes of the Carpathians were defended together by the Romanians (Olaci) and the Szeklers (Siculi). The wooden barrages set at the gorges and on distant places (indagines) were destroyed. The indagines were widely used in the Hungarian kingdom since its foundation to protect the borders. They were linear fortifications made of wood and small stones, constructed in the successive advances of the conquest of the territory". ZZARZY223 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
You showed now 3 different quotes in your source from 3 different authors and your content in the wiki page say that 4 authors wrote the same "in the Mongol Invasion of 1241 the passes of the Carpathians were defended together by the Romanians and the Szeklers", which is not true, because those texts are total different, which means Kézai does not say at all that the Szekelys and Vlachs defended anything or would fight with the Mongols:
Simon Kézai: "Zakuli.. . cum Blackis in montibus confinii sortem habuerunt",
Martino Sanudo: "Post quorum recessum gentes Pannonie, qui prope dictas inhabitant Sylvas, Olaci videlicet et Siculi, passus clauserunt, ut amplius transire nequeant"
Kézai writes this, full text:
"Remanserant quoque de Hunis uirorum tria millia ex praelio Crimildino erepti per fugae interfugium, qui timentes occidentis naciones in campo Chigle usque Arpad ermanserunt, qui se ibi non Hunos sed Zaculos vocauerunt. Isti enim Zaculi Hunorum sunt residui, qui dum Hungaros in Pannoniam iterato cognouerunt remeasse, redeuntibus in Rutheniae finibus occurrerunt, insimulque Pannonia conquestata, partem in ea sunt adepti, non tamen in plano Pannonie, sed cum Blackis in montibus confinii sortem habuerunt. Unde Blackis commixti litteris ipsorum vti perhibentur."
“These Székelys were the remains of the Huns, who when they learned that the Hungarians had returned to Pannonia for the second time, went to the returnees on the border of Ruthenia and conquered Pannonia together, but not on the Pannonian plane, they were granted estates in the mountainous borderlands together with the Blackis, where mingling with the Blackis it is said they used their letters”
Actually the word "Blackis" is debated by historians, Hungarian historians say they are the Bulaqs, because the people of Blachs were mentioned by several authors in the Caucasus, and the Blacs came with the Huns, also on several old maps the Blach people located around the Caucasus in Scythia as you can see on the wiki page. Kézai says clearly the Székelys are using the letter of the Blackis, which is the old Hungarian script, another Hungarian chronicle mention this script as a Sycthian script. Could you show me any evidence that the Romanians used ever the old Hungarian script? The Romanians used Cyrillic alphabets, and according the Daco-Roman theory if the Dacians were romanized, then how possible that they would use a Turkic or Scythian letters in the 13th century?
The Chronica Hungarorum writes this about the Székelys regarding the same story:
“They were afraid of the Western nations which they harassed in Attila's life, and they marched to Transylvania, the frontier of the Pannonian landscape, and they did not call themselves Huns or Hungarians, but Siculus, in their own word Székelys, so that they would not know that they are the remnants of the Huns or Hungarians. In our time, no one doubts, that the Székelys are the remnants of the Huns who first came to Pannonia, and because their people do not seem to have been mixed with foreign blood since then, they are also more strict in their morals, they also differ from other Hungarians in the division of lands. They have not yet forgotten the Scythian letters, and these are not inked on paper, but engraved on sticks skillfully, in the way of the carving. They later grew into not insignificant people, and when the Hungarians came to Pannonia again from Scythia, they went to Ruthenia in front of them with great joy, as soon as the news of their coming came to them. When the Hungarians took possession of Pannonia again, at the division of the country, with the consent of the Hungarians, these Székelys were given the part of the country that they had already chosen as their place of residence.”
Morover only some sentence below Kézai writes this:
"Postquam autem filii Ethelae in praelio Crumhelt cum gente Scitica fere quasi deperissent, Pannonia exstitit X annis sine Rege, Sclavis tantummodo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Vlahis aduenis remanentibus in eadem, qui viuente Ethela populari seruitio sibi seruiebant."
“After almost all of Attila’s sons died, together with the Scythian people, in the Crumbelt war, Pannonia went on for a decade without any king: only Slavs, Greeks, Germans, Messianists, and Vlach newcomers remaining, who in the days of Attila, served him with public service.”
We can see clearly Kézai use the word "Blackis" and after some sentence below he uses the word "Vlahis", which means he made an obviosuly difference between them, thus the Blackis is not Vlahis in the text. I do not think that he forgot in the next sentence what he wrote in the previous one.
But this is irrevelant now, because the topic is about the Mongol invasion, and we can see Kézai does not write anything about this regarding Szekelys and Vlachs in the Mongol campaign.
Iohannes Longus de Ypre, that is the invasion of 1285 because Tatars were expelled in 1285 in the same way and they were unable to come back (the text say they "no longer crossed the Carpathians, first invasion 1241, second 1285), both text is same from the 14th century:
"However, the remnants of the Tatars returned to Cumania, after their retreat, the nations of Pannonia, the Vlachs and the Szekelys, who live in the Zipheos [Carpathian] mountains, which the Hungarians call forests [Transylvania], closed those passes in such a way that the Tatars could no longer cross them."
Marino Sanudo Torsello:
"after their retreat, the Pannonian nations living near the aforementioned Forests [Transylvania], namely the Vlachs and the Szekelys, closed the passes so that they could no longer pass through."
There are sources that the Vlachs were good warriors in the Balcan (Byzantine chronicles about the fights against the Vlachs), and when the Vlachs is missing from the Byzantine sources they appears in the Hungarian sources in the 13th century. As we can see the Vlachs with the Szekelys were used by the Hungarian kings for border defense, which means they both have the same privileges.
Conclusion:
I showed what wrote Benedictus in the invasion of 1285. Marino and Ypre wrote the same, but Kézai wrote nothing about this. I showed the link for Lucca book, he also did not write anything. Or could you show me the original text what he wrote? OrionNimrod (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
First of all, it's Pal Binder that claims that Simon of Keza cite the Vlachs and the whole "Kézai says clearly the Székelys are using the letter of the Blackis, which is the old Hungarian script, another Hungarian chronicle mention this script as a Sycthian script. Could you show me any evidence that the Romanians used ever the old Hungarian script?" doesn't have any purpose in this context. About the Bulaqs question, there's enough criticism that not even all Hungarian historians agree that Kezai references them instead of the Vlachs, as László Makkai claimed :"there has been some speculation that Anonymus' Blaks were the Turkic people who are mentioned in medieval sources as bearing the same name and living east of the Carpathians, but this hypothesis does not bear the test of scholarly scrutiny"
About Iohannes Longus de Ypre and Marino Sanudo Torsello, you're doing original research, as neither Pal Binder nor Alexandru Madgearu claim that those authors' writings have anything to do with the fact "There are sources that the Vlachs were good warriors in the Balcan (Byzantine chronicles about the fights against the Vlachs), and when the Vlachs is missing from the Byzantine sources they appears in the Hungarian sources in the 13th century. As we can see the Vlachs with the Szekelys were used by the Hungarian kings for border defense, which means they both have the same privileges." Also the Mongols were usually called Tatars by European sources.
Both Pal Binder and Alexandru Madgearu claim that those authors refer to both Vlachs and Szekelys defended Transylvania during the Mongol Invasion, and if there's a source of a historian that contradicts their claimings, please add it, but removing their claimings is inappropriate removal of cited material, as again, both historians clearly claim this.
Also, the sentence you cited at beggining ""The chronicles of Bartholomew of Lucca, Johannes Longus von Ypern, Marino Sanuto Torsello and Simon of Kéza recorded that in the Mongol Invasion of 1241 the passes of the Carpathians were defended together by the Romanians (Olaci) and the Szeklers (Siculi).", was then edited by me to "The chronicles of Bartholomew of Lucca, Johannes Longus von Ypern, Marino Sanuto Torsello and Simon of Kéza recorded that in this [the sentence before was about the 1285 invasion] Mongol Invasion the passes of the Carpathians were defended together by the Romanians (Olaci) and the Szeklers (Siculi)." ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Simon Kézai write this according to your source: "Zakuli.. . cum Blackis în montibus confinii sortem habuerunt."
I wrote the same, just I showed the full text. I cannot see any Mongol/Tatar event here, do you see?
You wrote: "that Kezai references them instead of the Vlachs"
Kézai says clearly the Székelys are using the letter of the Blackis, which is the old Hungarian script, another Hungarian chronicle mention this script as a Sycthian script. Could you show me any evidence that the Romanians used ever the old Hungarian script? According the Daco-Roman theory if the Dacians were romanized, then how possible that they would use a Turkic or Scythian letters in the 13th century? Do you say the Romanians used and teached the old Hungarian script?
Do you say the Blachi people in the maps here are Romanians in the Caucasus? Why do Kézai wrote "Blackis" then "Vlahis" some sentence below if these folks would be same?
Could you answer to these questions?
I showed what wrote Benedictus in the invasion of 1285. Marino and Ypre wrote the same as your source Binder and Madgearu say: "after their retreat, the Pannonian nations living near the aforementioned Forests [Transylvania], namely the Vlachs and the Szekelys, closed the passes so that they could no longer pass through.,"
"Kézai says clearly the Székelys are using the letter of the Blackis, which is the old Hungarian script, another Hungarian chronicle mention this script as a Sycthian script. Could you show me any evidence that the Romanians used ever the old Hungarian script? According the Daco-Roman theory if the Dacians were romanized, then how possible that they would use a Turkic or Scythian letters in the 13th century? Do you say the Romanians used and teached the old Hungarian script?" If Binder says that Kezai is referencing Vlachs in the phrase "Zakuli.. . cum Blackis în montibus confinii sortem habuerunt.", how is your question even relevant to this topic? As I said, if there's a historian that doesn't agree with Pal Binder about what Kezai wrote in this particular sentence, add that reference, but removing Pal Binder's statement just because you personally don't agree with it is not correct.
And about Do you say the Blachi people in the maps here are Romanians in the Caucasus? Why do Kézai wrote "Blackis" then "Vlahis" some sentence below if these folks would be same?, even if it is not relevant to the topic, there are recorded many names similar between them even if they don't have anything to do with each other, just like the case of Caucasian Albania and Albania. And the historians who claim that neither Anonymous nor Simon of Keza were referencing to the Turkic Bulaqs say that there's no archeological proof that the Turkic people with this name ever set foot in Transylvania. And the theory of Simon of Keza referencing Bulaqs instead of Vlachs is not even supported by all Hungarian historian, let alone foreigner historians that don't even consider it at all.
But returning to the topic, Pal Binder at page 35 clearly says that: "The written source report unanimously that in 1285, in the occasion of the invasion, the Romanians were those that blocked with fortifications in the mountaints, together with Saxons and Szekelys" then proceeds to cite Simon Kézai, Iohannes Longus de Ypre, Marino Sanudo. Alexandru Madgearu doesn't cite Simon Kézai, but cites the other two and Tholomeus of Lucca: "The chronicles of Tholomeus de Lucca, Iohannes Longus de Ypre and Marino Sanudo Torsello recorded that in March 1241 the passes of the Carpathians were defended together by the Romanians (Olaci) and the Szeklers (Siculi)".
About the reference of Tholomeus of Lucca, historian Victor Spinei wrote even a [book] about it.
If there's any historian that disagrees with Pal Binder and Alexandru Madgearu in regard to what those authors wrote, the said reference should be added (e.g. like in the case of Antun Vrančić's work, where two different positions are cited), but otherwise, just because you personally don't agree with them because of suppositions based on original research, not including their claimings is inappropriate removal of cited material. ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Btw Pal Binder say those events in 1285 as you can see, Marino and Ypre wrote the same, I do not doubt that text. Which means Madgearu and Binder contradict each other if Madgearu say "March of 1241". There is not this kind of date in the original Latin text.
"Pal Binder clearly says that Kezai is refering to Vlachs defending with Szekelys"
Pal Binder wrote: "Zakuli.. . cum Blackis în montibus confinii sortem habuerunt." which means "Székelys... in the mountainous borderlands together with the Blackis"
Where do you see any Mongols/Tatars or any defending in this text? I provided above the full text, not this fragment. If Binder wrote this, then this is wrong in this case.
"if there's a historian that doesn't agree with Pal Binder about what Kezai wrote in this particular sentence, add that reference, but removing Pal Binder's statement just because you personally don't agree with it is not correct."
This is not my personal, you can read yourself the book of Kézai. Kézai does not wrote at all that "the Szekelys and Vlachs defend anything against the Mongols"
I know well these text. Please read yourself! If you find anything please show me.
"just because you personally don't agree with them because of suppositions based on original research"
Well, this is not my original research if they refer somebody and when I check the reference I cannot read that things... which means that they made a mistake by a good or bad faith I do not know. So please read the Kézai book and show me if you find anything. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thats right, this is a good extension what I showed you when I found the similar text from Benedictus. (However reading the full original text I see those authors 100 years after the events confused things, dates and popes...) But I think this is a good thing to mention the documented coorperation of Szekelys and Vlachs defending Transylvania from the Mongols. Just my point was that Kézai did not write this. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
On the necessity #Roman or a romanized population
I find the #Roman or romanized population chapter an abnormally long (compared to the other sections about Migration Period peoples) list of scholarly hypothesizes and nothing tangible or concrete. Many important history books on the subject, like Georgescu's The Romanians, don't say much about the Daco-Romans, sensibly, because of the lack of written primary sources (so that nothing can be declared in secondary sources) it wouldn't add anything to the history (of Transylvania in this article, ...of the Romanians in the example).
In short, the chapter is too long and irrelevant, so I propose its removal. I write this comment mainly for Borsoka and OrionNimrod, as I'm looking for their opinions to discuss the matter. Gyalu22 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I checked that section, indeed I see many issues. The section mention the Biertan Donarium and Roman coins as proof to surviving big Roman population there after the Roman withdrawal, however ten thousands of Roman coins were found many places outside the Roman empire and in the Biertan Donarium article, I can see Romanian historians/arcehologists say that this item is a Gothic looting and no more Christian things where the items was found.
I think talking about Pannonia is off topic also, because it was a big steppe gap between Dacia and Pannonia province where the horse archers folks, Sarmatians, Yazyges...lived and Rome was unable to conquer them.
"This succession of migratory tribes diminished the number of romance-speaking people in the region of Pannonia, especially the Hungarian conquest between 895 and 896 in Eastern Pannonia between the Danube and Tisza rivers, that will lead to the elimination or assimilation of non-Hungarian elements."
What is the proof that is was romance speaking population in Pannonia in the 9th century? What is the source for that? But we have many sources about Germans, Slavs and Avars. Between the Danube and Tisza is not Eastern Pannonia, because Pannonia's border is the Danube itself. Elimination of non-Hungarian elements? What is this nonsense? Where is the source for that? There are many recent DNA test and studies about the age of the conquest, there are no mass graves, even in the Avar graves the last members were buried in Hungarian style clothes which means the peoples are assimilated. Many Hungarians are making personal DNA test, where I can see many Avar, Sarmatian, Pannonia...etc heriatage, which means all previous people in the same place assimilated and became Hungarians together.
"A Daco-Roman cemetery is situated on the bank of the Târnava Mare river, and is estimated to date to between 380 - 454 AD. Of the 351 settlements discovered in Romanian Banat area and dated between the 2nd century and the beginning of the 5th century AD the largest group is composed of the sites beginning in the 3rd century AD, continuing throughout the 4th century, in some cases up to the 5th century AD. The sites from the lowland area of the Banat are overwhelmingly ascribed as Daco-Roman or Dacian, defined as a rural, sedentary population, with uniform, unchanging features throughout 400 years"
"According to M. Mare there is an urban and a rural area in the Banat, both belonging to the Daco-Roman culture.140 The sites from the lowland area of the Banat are overwhelmingly ascribed as Daco-Roman or Dacian, defined as a rural, sedentary population, with uniform, unchanging features throughout 400 years."
The marked source by Lavinia from where she got this info:
Lavinia takes a sentence from Mircea's paper one by one without correcting it, while Mircea later corrects it. Here we can already read that the Temesvár-Freidorf site contains, on the one hand, Eneolithic (between the Neolithic and Copper Age) finds belonging to the Baden culture, and on the other hand, post-Roman finds (III-IV century AD), which are covered with Sarmatian graves. Returning to the alleged 351 Daco-Roman settlements, which Lavinia says Mircea allegedly described in 25-29. page. Well, Mircea describes the Timișoara-Freiburg site starting on page 15. Describes house sites, warehouses, kitchen waste pits, etc. This lasts until page 29. He then describes the 5th century cemetery. You can read the conclusion from page 95. Here he only deals with the Daco-Roman period. Which is the point: end of 2nd century AD and the beginning of 3rd century AD is the beginning of the first level. The second level is the end of the 3rd century and the middle of the 4th century. The first level is characterized by the use of terra sigillata and Roman fibulae. (I think it could have been a Roman settlement) The second level was created through the population movement caused by the Markomann wars. The Marcomanni drove out the Sarmatians, and the Sarmatians drove out the Dacians, who fled to Roman territory. Then finally the Romans destroyed everything in Banat in 358-359, although there are no signs of arson in this settlement, but it was also depopulated. Then this is overlaid with a 5th century cemetery in which various Germanic and Iranian people are buried. Conclusion: Lavinia wrote a false info and cited a paper, where we can read total different things, which means this is an incorrect sentence in the topic. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
So it even contains incorrect data... Thanks for your addition. Information about archaeological finds in this period won't suffer a reduction. They are collected in #Spread of Christianity in a way that they aren't directed to prove a productive Roman or Romanized presence in the area, i.e. presented as a proof of that and not debated.
Please be mindful that "Lavinia wrote a false info" is a very disturbing sentence to read on wiki - WP:NPOVHOW and even more disturbing to see others agree with it. We are talking about an archaeologist with PhD and multiple published research papers, hence your opinion on the validity of her studies is moot, no disrespect, and cannot be the basis of deleting even the quoted paragraph, let alone the entire section - supported by other cited authors - WP:PRESERVEWP:HANDLEWP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Aristeus01, and your actions fall under WP:3RR. Please undo your revert so we can discuss the matter here.
And again, the whole chapter was problematic. Read my arguments, I opened this section for that not for reverting back and forth in the article. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
There are multiple cited sources in the paragraph, all newer than the book you cited in the talk page therefore we cannot consider this a review or an argument against. Since this is the core of your argument and it does not meet WP:AGE MATTERS. I'm happy to discuss other concerns if you do not mind presenting them one by one. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Please take it into account that you've broke a rule. According to WP:EW, in this case the reverter shouldn't force their change. Please restore the article as it was before, then I'll enter into an argument to reach a consensus. Gyalu22 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand your opinion but I also like you to understand that deletion is violation of policy if not done correctly: WP:INTROTODELETE
WP:UCR - "Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted". There are numerous other solutions and proposals that did not get mentioned or done in the process such as tagging or WP:ATD-M. Happy to discuss changes on the paragraph with you (no desire for WP:EW from my side), but we need the paragraph on to have something to discuss. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:EW considers a revert a revert. You think it is promptly or not, it is a revert and should be undone. WP:EW also doesn't exempt your reasons from edit war, and you were definitely familiar with the 3RR.
So please undo your revert because if you do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution and not cease edit warring behavior the discussion will continue at the Administrators' Noticeboard, for rule breaking. A consensus can only be made if we have a proper argument. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I checked the provided sources and I wrote what I found there, you can check yourself. This is just the talk page, and I did'nt wrote any personal opinion about the mentioned historian in the article. I talked my opinion about only one source in the talk page about the mentioned source after I checked, which disturbs you, but I remember you said that the full Hungarian national library (ten thousand of books, all Hungarian authors, historians, etc) are unreliable for sourcing them regarding the Hungarian history... is this not disturbing?
By the way, did you see the other strange part of the chapter? About Pannonia what I mentioned above? This:
"This succession of migratory tribes diminished the number of romance-speaking people in the region of Pannonia, especially the Hungarian conquest between 895 and 896 in Eastern Pannonia between the Danube and Tisza rivers, that will lead to the elimination or assimilation of non-Hungarian elements."
That text says that the romance speaking population in Pannonia existed until the Hungarian conquest and in Eastern Pannonia between the Danube and Tisza (in fact which is not Pannonia, because Tisza river is not Pannonia, but Pannonia end at the Danube), the text says that this romance speaking population and every non-Hungarians were eliminated after the Hungarian conquest. By the way what is the evidence about any romance speaking population in 800-900 in that region? Eliminated? Lot of Hungarians are made DNA tests, me too, and I can see vast amount of local Stone Age, Bronze Age genetic samples from the Carpathian Basin in my genetic, even the today's Hungarians has about 10% Hungarian conqueror genetic (if everybody was eliminated then how just 10%?) which is quite normal, because it would be impossible to remain the same people after 1200 years. These things mean that the locals were not eliminated, recent genetic studies confirmed that the locals admixed with all immigrant steppe groups and not eliminated:
Btw are there any historical sources about eliminataion of locals?
By the way Pannonia is off-topic, I remember you deleted the Pannonian Avar content because you said "Pannonia" is not Transylvania, however "Pannonian" Avar is just a nickname to distinguish from the "Caucasian" Avars. So why did you restored Pannonian things in this case? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
"I remember you said that the full Hungarian national library (ten thousand of books, all Hungarian authors, historians, etc) are unreliable for sourcing them regarding the Hungarian history... is this not disturbing?" - fair point. However the sources I say are not reliable are still widely used on the wiki and the same should be done for the Romanian research paper (including Grumeza, Lavinia is her first name).
The part cited from A. Pop: the phrase is cited with book page. I don't have a copy at hand to verify but I will try to get one asap. Meanwhile, if this is a minority view may I suggest adding the opposite views to balance the opinion?
Reading trough the documents you sent : "The genetic profile of the Avar and Conqueror leader groups seems considerably different" so I don't really see your point here.
"The contemporary local population is descended from previous peoples of the Carpathian Basin, and it has indeed been shown that a large number of people survived to the 10th century from the previous Avar period [40,41]. The Avars also brought along a package of east Eurasian Hgs, and a significant fraction of east Eurasian Hgs which are found in ConqC and are not shared with ConqE (such as B5b4, C4a1b, C5b1a, D4b1, D4e4, D4l2, D4m2a and D5a3a1, as shown in Table S3c). These Hgs are potential candidates for Avar heritage."
Well according to the genetic studies the Avar, Hungarian tribes were very heterogeneous groups. According to the genetic studies the Avar elite were Asiatic, while the Avar commoners, Huns, Hungarians were mostly Europids.
"In addition, we detected shared Hun-related ancestry in numerous Avar and Hungarian conquest period genetic outliers, indicating a genetic link between these successive nomadic groups"
"These Avar period people could have represented Hun remnants that joined the Avars but isolated in separate communities."
Anyway why do you have not problem to write Pannonia in the Transylvanian topic in this case? You deleted the Pannonian Avar section earlier, for the reason because it is not Transylvania... what is this double standard? OrionNimrod (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
That was borsoka, not me. I only flagged it for geographical accuracy.
You "The entire paragraph is not specified to refer to Transylvania but to Pannonian area, the least we can do if we want to mention this is provide relevant facts, not theories"
Well, what Borsoka did later it is unconnected, you deleted several times and you gave the above reason. I see in this case the same reason is not good for you, that Pannonia is offtopic, and you like to maintain that content which have a lot of false info regarding Pannonia. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Against: I seriously doubt that 4 paragraphs is "abnormally long". There are tangible or concrete things, based on those the hypothesies are made. I believe it adds fairly important information, talking about the possibility of a Roman or romanized population remaining in Transylvania. Which as you may know it's a hot source of debate between Hungarian nationalists and Romanian nationalists. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Unreliable source?
@Vladdy Daddy Silly: If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN, but I can already predict you will lose that dispute.
I'm not saying it is the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth. It is just that you cannot delete a source because it is Hungarian (and other shoddy reasons).
E.g. we don't delete Pop from the article merely because he is a Romanian historian, mainly working and publishing in Romania. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
By the same standard that this source is biased, all works written by Pop are biased, too. We all know that Pop is a Romanian nationalist, both in his free time and in his scholarship. So, if it is that this source should be deleted because of bias, Pop should be equally well deleted from the article. But you don't want that, do you? Pop has grown with the fear that if Romanian historians don't do enough national propaganda, Hungarians will take over Transylvania. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you show me the parts that use Pop as a source? I have not time to look up right now. But my point still stands, what i removed is not backed up by anything international and accademic. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Vladdy Daddy Silly: Did your read the summary from [1]? As the ABBA song says, "one of us is lying." Both summaries from that page cannot be true at the same time.
Here's a link to a web page that provides description about the maps: http://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/kiadv/etnika/ethnicMAP/001_session_e.html. Academic works are underlined on Wikipedia as they are made by the top experts on the given topic from the given country. The Geographic Institute didn't draw this map for fun and by its imagination. Compare the two other maps to each other: the Hungarian work fits the contemporary (Austrian) data.
Your other argument is also weak. Indeed it was made by Hungarian scholars not by Romanians or others. What is the problem with that? Opposing views exist on the topic (both having their own reasonings) represented by the chapter. Neutrality isn't deleting the interpretations that are not sympathetic to you. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with @Rvgis on this. There is no consensus in the Academic world about it - WP:RS/AC - as far as I know. I suggest that until the information is reviewed by other scholars and international researcher, "alleged" or "according to Hungarian Academy", should be kept in the description. The research of the Hungarian Academy needs to be peer-reviewed in such topics by Romanian Academy and Slovak Academy of Sciences, at least. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The only point of divergence (the point where there is no consensus, if you like) in this matter is the extend of the ethnic territory of the Romanians. There are non-Hungarian scholars who stand with the view of the Hungarian Academy, and there are non-Romanian scholars who stand with the view of the Romanian Academy. Also the historical demography of Transylvania has been discussed in multiple English books, as far as I know.
I would emphasize that the chapter is representing views, and its tone isn't factual (*this is stated by this historian from this nation, that is stated by that historian from that nation*). The history of Transylvania is debated and if we would exclude every information that is not agreed upon by everyone there would be no Romanians at all until modern times when census data is universally accepted.
Hi Rvgis, Aristeus01, could you explain what is your real problem with the maps? And which maps, 1495, 1784? We can see after the long centuries Hungarian-Ottoman-Habsburg wars the Hungarian population highly decimated and later people were migrated to the devastated lands. Could you show me exact regions where do you think the maps are not correct? Cities, settlements where do you know the population is not correct and you have evidence by contemporary documents? Are you historian to know this? Are you know old Hungarian state documents which was the base of that maps? Or you just do not like those maps? Please, could you answer?
It is not a secret that map was created by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as we can see in the link, I have no problem to mention this. Which is a reliable academic source, not a fringe theory.
Rvgis, this double standard is strange for me, you worry 12 about the neutrality "no statistical evidence" "only represent the point of view of those who created them" But it is not a problem for you to use the "plausible" word instead of the "alleged" word in that case which is an admittedly just "best guesswork" by the author and by only 1 historian. A "best guesswork" because we have just we have a very minimal sources about Vlach presence in the 13th century in Transylvania, and none from 11-12th century, but I see in this case it is not a problem for you that there are "no statistical evidence". However this data is just random estimate from 1 author whitout any base, because the authors says in the soure: "it cannot be ascertained from any extant documentary evidence how many Vlachs may have resided in Transylvania in the 11th century". What do you think Aristeus01, should it "peer-reviewed" also by others?
The Hungarian Academy of Sciences worked (by many academic authors) by old Hungarian state documents"The first two supplementary maps (1495, 1784) employ data from an early national tax summary and the census of Joseph II, while the subsequent maps (from 1880) are based on regular census data." This is not true that "only represent the point of view of those who created them", an academic work from most prestigious learned society of Hungary which based on medieval Hungarian state documents from the 15th century is just "no evidence" but a "best guesswork whitout any documents" is "plausible"? Could you explain why?
Btw the map is an ethnic map, how can be "alleged ethnic map", the purpose was to create an ethnic map, this is a pure ethnic map, not an economic, etc map.
Aristeus01, you said "The research of the Hungarian Academy needs to be peer-reviewed", basically you would like to decide which info allow to publish by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Hungarian related topics, right? Btw if you have modern reliable academic medieval map from Romanian Academy regarding Transylvania, feel free to publish, if any map exist, I think they should have real data from what they worked, like the Hungarian Academy of Sciences used sources to create those maps. Here, I see for you it was not a problem to remove modern academic Hungarian source which does not support your and the Romanian nationalist point of view "always majority Romanians". While in the same time you restored a strange non contemporary academic source from 1850 which support the Romanian nationalist point of view. Morover, you basically stated that the full Hungarian national library, all Hungarian sources and authors are unreliable and basically you suggested that only Romanian nationalist sources allowed for Hungarian history, which is a very hardcore chauvinism. English Wikipedia should presents reliable contemporary academic sources from all side, (example) which is a real content and not a fringe one, the edit 2.
It is well known, there are hundred of debate regarding Transylvanian history between Hungarian and Romanian historians, then should we use "alleged" word for every sentences of history documents of both side? There are also many topics in the world where there are many different theories, should put followers of theory A this "alleged" word for every sentence of the followers of theory B and inverse? Just because followers of theory A do not like the theory B and inverse?
This sentence in the page explains the main situation and present the opinion of both side:
"There is an ongoing scholarly debate between Hungarian and Romanian historians regarding the medieval population of Transylvania. While some Romanian historians claim continuous Romanian majority, Hungarian historians claim the continuous settlement of Romanians into the Kingdom of Hungary."OrionNimrod (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod: It is not a double standard, the contexts being totally different: the term "plausible" belongs to an American historian, unrelated to either of the two historiographies (Hungarian or Romanian), and this author was mentioned in the respective passage (WP:RS). On the other hand, those maps with the distribution of ethnic groups over time represent the position of the contemporary Hungarian historiography, and this must be stated very clearly. Moreover, until the first official censuses, all estimates are part of the "guesswork" category (regardless of the authors). @Gyalu22: In accordance with Wikipedia's policy, the content of this article must represent all relevant opinions in a balanced way (for now, this content, as a whole, is far from being balanced - see the proportion of the references inserted in the article during the last period of time). (Rgvis (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC))
I'm reacting to the part you wrote to me: not the whole history of this region is debated. There's no need for an additional non-Hungarian citation in every sentence for it to be "balanced". Hungarian sources aren't unreliable because they are Hungarian. Please don't write from this bad attitude. In debated topics both opinions are told, and in not debated topics Hungarian authors are perfectly fine to cite. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rgvis, I see you did not ask my question, I ask again: "Could you explain what is your real problem with the maps? And which maps, 1495, 1784? We can see after the long centuries Hungarian-Ottoman-Habsburg wars the Hungarian population highly decimated and later people were migrated to the devastated lands. Could you show me exact regions where do you think the maps are not correct? Cities, settlements where do you know the population is not correct and you have evidence by contemporary documents? Are you historian to know this? Are you know old Hungarian state documents which was the base of that maps? Or you just do not like those maps?"
Because Transylvania is important place, events regarding the Hungarian history and it was a Hungarian country before 1920 for more than 1000 years, that is why it is not so surprising that it has a lot of Hungarian historiography. Because it is part of Romania and it had Romanian population when it was part of Hungary, it is not so surprising that it has a lot of Romanian historiography. We cannot expect the same amount of American, Spanish, Chinese etc historians who deal with this. Perhaps we can find more German, Polish and British historians than others in the subject.
The double standard that is that you emphasize the "plausible" word for a source where the author admits "guesswork" "it cannot be ascertained from any extant documentary evidence how many Vlachs may have resided in Transylvania in the 11th century", so it is just a strange (no documented basement) estimate from 1 person (POV). While you removed map which was created by the Hungarian academy, by many scholars. That map does not represent only the contemporary Hungarian historiography, (btw this was the same statement in the past also), because it had real documents as base, which means the map represent the situation from the 15th century based on historical Hungarian state document, and not only just an estimate and many kind of people listed in the map. This is not a "guesswork".
For example the Regestrum Hungarorum de Ciuitate Cluswar from 1453, lists (tax collection) all inhabitant of the city Kolozsvár/Cluj. About 6000 people, 50-50 Hungarian-Saxon and 2 Romanian names in the list. This is also not a "guesswork". OrionNimrod (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rgvis, here in the talk page you can discuss about which added content was incorrect, (why, details, explanation). I see you do not like those historical ethnic maps which made by Hungarian academics regarding the history of Hungary, but you did not answer to my questions, so it is not clear what is your real problem with that content outside that you do not like it. I am open to discuss to make the article better. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01, could you tell me exactly what is disputed in that content, and by you? You added a template whitout any explanation. I added the full content from the Hungarian Ethnographic Lexicon, which is an academic source, and the Vlach law was introduced in Hungary, a law which is existed. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
" people were settled where the natural conditions were not favorable for farming"
"The first villages with Vlach law were established in Transylvania"
" they settled in the vicinity of existing villages, but from the middle of the 14th century, they also founded independent settlements." and so on.
The wording is exclusively pointing at a immigration to Transylvania of the those following the Vlach Law, hence sustaining immigrationist theory. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01 (talk) "So on"? We need to know what is incorrect and why with real arguments. What would be your counterarguments with academic sources regarding the content what you do not like? Or you just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Or what would be the vlach law according to that sources which are not disputed by you? I see basically you deny the knowledge of Hungarian historiography about their own law in the Kingdom of Hungary? Right?
"people were settled where the natural conditions were not favorable for farming" Perhaps, shepherds were sent in the farming agricultural fields or in the cities? I do not thinks so.
"The first villages with Vlach law were established in Transylvania" If you do not like this, then do you know where the first villages established with vlach law if not in Transylvania? Because the vlach law was introduced in Hungary, it should be inside Hungary, perhaps in west Hungary? Do you know? I think you should know the answer if it is disputed by you and you know better than the Hungarian Academy. Please tell us where.
"they settled in the vicinity of existing villages, but from the middle of the 14th century, they also founded independent settlements." How can you deny this? Why it is so surprising that many settlements formed during centuries, as everywhere in the world.
@OrionNimrod you are using verbs (settled, established,founded) that imply movement of people under Vlach Law into the Kingdom of Hungary. You are now trying to pretend it did not cross your mind and that I am being dishonest and malicious for pointing it out. Furthermore you accuse me of being superficial and naysayer. I do not care of your opinion of me but the Wiki rules give me the option to take this action of flagging and I will not go back on it until the problem is addressed.
On the first entry in the search you provided it says:
"the Vlach law, on which villages started to be established as early as the 14th century on the eastern frontiers of medieval Poland"
This is 14th century Poland:
The South-eastern limit is by middle of the river San, which is some 500 km away from Tisza, more than 800 from Cluj. Are you suggesting this is similar? Did Vlachs just teleport over to Poland and started settling in the same period in both places? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Those verbs was in the Hungarian academic source. I cannot do anything that you does not like verbs WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Check yourself by google translater, I know many user does not add links to the sources, but I usually add links for the reason that everybody could check. I cannot do anything if you do not like that certain settlements established by this law, which is recorded by Hungarian archives and historians usually know when settlements were established, because all settlements have history. Usually the shepherds were moving with their herds, I do not know why it is so surprising, also I added that many other ethnic groups were under this law, what is in the source also. The Vlachs did not teleport in the 14th century, because before the establishment of this law it was Vlachs in Hungary as you can see the text say: from 13th century: "Villages with Vlach law arose in the Kingdom of Hungary between the 13th and 16th centuries." You can see: "Villages with that law", of course villages established before the existence of that law.
Just you do not like the chapter and the Hungarian historiography about their own law, or do you have any academic sources which say different? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
You keep saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT as if you repeat the same thing it will make it true. "Those verbs was in the Hungarian academic source. I cannot do anything" find another source to balance the pov, that's what is required of you as an Wiki editor (Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight). You just confirmed that you are ok with pov and biased opinions. What more can I say? Aristeus01 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
According to you, according to the Hungarian source if today existing settlement established by this law in the former Kingom of Hungary it is "POV" and "biased", perhaps do you know better that certain settlements established in different way different time? Hungarian academic source say: "Villages with Vlach law arose in the Kingdom of Hungary between the 13th and 16th centuries.", sorry but I cannot do anything if I cannot find source which say "NO Villages with NO Vlach law NOT arose NOT in the Kingdom of Hungary NOT between the 13th and 16th centuries." This is also not my duty. If you think something is dubious you should know why do you say because I suppose you know what is the right content or what is the other academic opinion regarding the topic, but seem you dont know nothing regarding this, outside just you dont like it...simple torlling. Following your demand I would also add the "dubious" flag in all sentence of the wiki and say for example this is biased dubious pov sentences for me: "Queen Elizabeth II born in 1926", "WW2 broke out in 1939" and please find a balanced source for that.OrionNimrod (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod if you want to make an argument you can do that here on the talk page. Changing cited text because id does not fit you logic is not the way wiki should be edited. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
Yes, or rather you seem to be selectively reading it, as "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.". this means we do not give undue balance to the views of "some bloke on the internet" vs RS. So if someone comes here and says but I think this" our response is (and should be) "do RS support that?". It is then down to them to demonstrate they do, not down to us. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Slatersteven, Actually I cannot do anything. I had previously many discussion with Aristeus01 who is strongly promoting in Wiki exclusively the Romanian nationalist point of view: the Dacianism and the Daco-Roman theory (according to his activity). For example, he stated that the full Hungarian National Library = (all Hungarian sources and authors) (including Hungarian Academy of Science) are unreliable and basically he suggested that only Romanian sources from Romanian point of view allowed to use for Hungarian history. Here he wrote a very strange content something like: "Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken in Pannonia (today's Austria, West Hungary 2000 years long until today", and of course he was unable to show evidences, just spreading fringe thing which is part of the Dacianism which was used in the national-communist Romania which produced this kind of fake historical maps: Romania 8-13th century: [9][10][11] If you see international Europe maps, you will not find this "mystic Dacia or Romania" country in the map of Europe.[3][4][5] Because international and Hungarian historiography does not match with this theory, that is why he does not like any source from the mainstream Hungarian Academy. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
My argument here is that the source and language have been specifically selected when other sources exist and the editor knows it. I have no problem adding a new source, yet in this case "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" should apply. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Just did. I do not wish to edit war with the editors of this page. I usually get : " Aristeus01 who is strongly promoting in Wiki exclusively the Romanian nationalist point of view" replies from some like the above. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01 Why should I know about all sources? I started to find sources when an another user requested sources on that chapter same days ago. I am happy that you found a Romanian source, and I do not see any things there which deny the Hungarian source. You did not like first this content in the Hungarian source: "from the middle of the 14th century, they also founded independent settlements." in your linked Romanian source: "The first Romanian districts are mentioned in the fourteenth century".OrionNimrod (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01 (talk) I think most of the contents is same in the Hungarian historiography like "ius valachicum" so not need add to "according to Romanian/Hungarian historiography". Also this taxation way was the best (very favorable) among the other taxes, which is simple math comparing the other fedual taxes, "sheep tax/sheep fiftieth" "quinquagesima ovium": The tax required the delivery of one sheep and one lamb for every fifty sheep held. Since the mountain-dwelling Romanians practised but subsistence farming, they were not taxed on their agricultural output. I will update your source (author, chapter) and combine similar texts, you created many duplicats, sentences with the same content. Also you copy pasted complete long text from the source which are the violation of copyright, also many deep contents would be fit better to the main article of Vlach law. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01 (talk) you removed many useful edits, not only that what you do not like.
Step by step:
your source format[1] my source format is more proper: [2]
The term Vlachs or Wallachians has been used to refer to: 1. People speaking Eastern Romance languages or dialects 2. People living according to a particular lifestyle, mostly dealing with mountain pastoralism (sometimes specific features of the pastoral economy are mentioned, for example cheese-making) 3. People who in their historical past had a defined social status (the Vlachian/ Wallachian Right – Ius Valachicum) 4. People who in the Middle Ages established Romanian principalities
@OrionNimrod the or is about "transhumant", not the law type. By the very definition that you gave, it can be a law applied to more than one type of society or community. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Aristeus01 you added this: "The Romanian historian Ioan-Aurel Pop says that the customary law originates from Roman habit of land distribution were "sortes" (Romanian: sorți) were drawn, the land was divided in falces (Romanian: fălci), the neighbouring falces owner was a vicinus (Romanian: vecin). The uphold of the law was overseen by judes (Romanian juzi) a title that was replaced by the Slavic word knez."
Could you tell me those overcomplicated land related Roman legal words what is the bussiness with the Vlach law in medieval Hungary in medieval Transylvania? The source mentions Roman times, then that the Romanian medieval states (Wallachia, Moldavia) (Transylvania was not a medieval Romanian state) had Roman roots. Your sourced text says "in their core, all the institutions that were to preside over the creation of the actual state later on: a leadership made up of judges-knezis, dukes-voivodes, "good and old people ", organs of order and defense, courts that distributed justice according to the rigors of that ius valachicum, and church premises.". So I do not know what is the bussiness with the mediveal vlach law in Transylvania inside the kingdom of Hungary how was the lands divided in Roman times. Clearly the feudal Hungary not used that land divison. Vlach law article more appropriate for deep details.
This is the provided page:
Rezultă că nici în epoca daco-romană târzie (a doua jumătate a secolului IV) şi nici în epoca migraţiilor, populaţia locală din Dacia nu a revenit la forme strict egalitare, ancestrale de organizare, ci a perpetuat structuri sociale şi politice ale antichităţii din perioada imperiului, cum a făcut peste tot populaţia romanică. Astfel, omunităţile rurale străromaneşti nu-şi datorează organizarea lor modelului slav, ci celui din epoca romană târzie. Pământul arabil, în sistemul roman, se împărţea prin tragere la sorţi, iar loturile se umeau sortes, ca şi la români, mai târziu. Posesorii sorţilor purtau la romani umele de vicini, iar la români cel de vecini^. Pădurile şi păşunile erau olosite în condiviziune şi la romani, iar defrişările şi desţelenirile ăcute pe seama acestor locuri neîmpărţite se numeau curaturi, după un termen latin. Pământul se măsura în fălcii, cuvânt derivat din latinescul falces, iar loturile se mai chemau moşii (cuvânt dacic) sau bătrâni (din latinescul veterani)*'. Se vede cum formele de conducere a satelor şi organizarea vieţii economice şi cotidiene în aceste comunităţi au păstrat pecetea structurilor romane. Aceste structuri s-au transmis de la sat la stat. Prin urmare, toate instituţiile marcante ale statului medieval românesc - puterea centrală, administraţia, armata, justiţia, biserica - au rădăcini romane. Acest lucru nu era posibil dacă, după secolul III, nu se menţineau forme şi formule de organizare politică romană la strămoşii românilor. Unele din aceste forme au fost numite generic, cum s-a văzut, romanii sau romanii populare, deşi caracterul lor „egalitar" sau „democratic" nu trebuie exagerat. Ele erau formate din sate sau /sate (din latinescul fossatum), adică din aşezări întărite, conduse de juzi sau cnezi. La vreme de pericol, mai multe judecii-cnezate se uneau, având în frunte un conducător militar numit ducă sau, sub influenţa slavă, voievod. Cu timpul, ducatul-voievodat se menţine şi după trecerea primejdiei. Aceste formaţiuni, mai mari sau mai mici, aveau în cadrul lor, in nuce, toate instituţiile care urmau să prezideze la alcătuirea statului propriu-zis de mai târziu: o conducere formată de juzi-cnezi, duci-voievozi, „oameni buni şi bătrâni", organe de ordine şi de apărare, instanţe de judecată ce împărţeau dreptatea după rigorile acelui ius valachicum, şi locaşuri bisericeşti. înaintaşul unui asemenea conducător român pare să fi fost creştinul latinofon Ze?iovius, acela care, după anul 300, dăruia un candelabre ca ofrandă {votum) unei basilici din centrul Transilvaniei şi marca ofranda cu un chrismon (monograma numelui lui Hristos) şi cu o inscripţie în latineşte. Faptul mărturiseşte indubitabil existenţa în secolul IV, la Biertan, a unei comunităţi creştine de limbă latină. Exemple de acest gen există mai multe, referitoare la Transilvania, Oltenia şi Banat, dar mai ales la Dobrogea, unde viaţa oficială romană Şi romano-bizantină a continuat până târziu.
Fast google translation:
it follows that neither in the late Daco-Roman era (second half of the 4th century) nor in the era of migrations, the local population of Dacia did not return to strictly egalitarian, ancestral forms of organization, but perpetuated social and political structures of antiquity from the period empire, as the Roman population did everywhere. So, the early Romanian rural communities do not owe their organization to the Slavic model, but to the one from the late Roman era. The arable land, in the Roman system, was divided by drawing lots, and the lots were divided by lotes, as with the Romanians, later. The owners of lots wore the clothes of neighbors among the Romanians, and those of the neighbors among the Romanians^. The forests and pastures were shared among the Romans, and the deforestation and deforestation caused by these undivided places were called curates, after a Latin term. The land was measured in jaws, a word derived from the Latin falces, and the lots were also called estates (a Dacian word) or elders (from the Latin veterani)*'. It can be seen how the forms of village management and the organization of economic and daily life in these communities have preserved the stamp of Roman structures. These structures were transmitted from village to state. Therefore, all the significant institutions of the Romanian medieval state - the central power, the administration, the army, the judiciary, the church - have Roman roots. This was not possible if, after the 3rd century, the Romanians' ancestors did not maintain the forms and formulas of Roman political organization. Some of these forms were called generically, as we have seen, Romanians or popular Romanians, although their "egalitarian" or "democratic" character should not be exaggerated. They were formed by villages or /sates (from the Latin fossatum), i.e. by fortified settlements, led by judis or cnedis. In times of danger, several princely courts united, headed by a military leader called duke or, under Slavic influence, voivode. Over time, the duchy-voivodeship is maintained even after the danger has passed. These formations, larger or smaller, had within them, in their core, all the institutions that were to preside over the creation of the actual state later on: a leadership made up of judges-knezis, dukes-voivodes, "good and old people ", organs of order and defense, courts that distributed justice according to the rigors of that ius valachicum, and church premises. The forerunner of such a Romanian leader seems to have been the Latin-speaking Christian Ze?iovius, the one who, after the year 300, gave a candelabra as an offering {votum) to a basilica in the center of Transylvania and marked the offering with a chrismon (monogram of Christ's name) and an inscription in Latin. The fact undoubtedly testifies to the existence in the 4th century, in Biertan, of a Latin-speaking Christian community. Examples of there are several of this type, related to Transylvania, Oltenia and Banat, but especially to Dobrogea, where official Roman and Roman-Byzantine life continued until late.OrionNimrod (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not your business to judge the relation between Romans and Romanians. This is what the head of the Romanian Academy says, it is a more than reliable source for the paragraph. We are not truth finders. If you want to write your own opinion I suggest to do that on a blog. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01, I see what he wrote, just I do not know what is the bussiness with that content, the Roman land structure, with the current topic, with vlach law in Transylvania which appeared in documents since 14th century. Also he says that structure was transfered to medieval Romanian states, he does not talk about medieval Transylvania. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
A customary law is a law that developed from the customs and habits. Hence pretty much all your edits about it being "a law of the Kingdom" are wrong, or at least poorly phrased. In this sense the law comes from the Roman habit, not from Hungarian documents and kings. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01, ok, but what is the business the vlach law in medieval Transylvania with the land divisions in the Roman times? My academic sources talked about what was the vlach law in Hungary, and this is the topic. I did not write "law of the kingdom". From the Romanian source: "During the course of the fourteenth century, the expression appears in documents issued in Hungary, ius, lex or more valachicum or valachorum, referring to a type of law followed by the Romanian population in the kingdom. In the medieval Hungarian kingdom, unwritten law—custom or customary law (consuetudo)—coexisted with the written law (as communicated in royal decrees), had the same authority, and was accordingly applied in the courts.The classic exposition was given in Stephen Werbőczy’s Tripartitum, published in 1517. This systematised the legal customs of the kingdom."[6]OrionNimrod (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, still I do not know what is the bussiness with medieval vlach law in kingdom of Hungary with the "falces, sortes, vicinus" OrionNimrod (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hungarian Conquest Theories
It is claimed by some editors that the conquest was pre-planed and that is the mainstream theory. However, as seen on the ain page "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin" there are at least 3 main theories.
Even more, international scholars such as Martyn Rady say:
"The reality was quite different, for the sudden westward movement
of the Hungarians was an act forced upon them by a catastrophic defeat at the hands of their steppe rivals, the Pechenegs. The Pecheneg assault on the Hungarians’ lands split the Hungarians in two, forcing one section to flee southwards into the Caucasus. The remainder of about 400 000 people who retreated westwards and settled in Pannonia, were so deprived of nourishment as a consequence of their recent dislocation as to experience a collapse in their mortality." The other versions should be added to avoid POV. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aristeus01, I do not know why did you put the "dubious" tag there because as you can see I left the other theory as "other theory says", I do not think that it need duplicate "one theory + one theory", morover the first one is today the mainstream in Hungary regarding the Hungarian conquest as you can see to the marked sources, which means it cannot be "dubious". Please check it by Google translater, I provided many page numbers which say the conquest was between 862-895, and this is today's official Hungarian history schoolbook for primarly school students by the Hungarian Education Authority from 2020, which means it is very mainstream if studendts need to learn this in Hungary:[3] In the source:
"Our sources are not uniform in the dating of the Hungarian arrival. The year 895 became accepted in the public mind. But in 862 and In 881, Hungarians already attacked territories under Frankish rule. This is why it can be assumed that by the middle of the 9th century, the people of the Grand Duchy of Hungary had at least partially moved to the Carpathian Basin, because from here they could monitor the developments of the Frankish territories better than from Etelköz. Thus, the conquest of the country in 862–895 it is worth dating, and as a conscious, long-lasting process must be considered."
New international sources also use that dates:[4]"A few decades after the collapse of the Avar Khaganate (c. 822 AD), Álmos and his son Árpád conquered the Carpathian Basin (c. 862–895 AD)"
Well, the exact date of the conquest was never clear among historians, the 894-895 was just a circa guess number. (For example it also became 896 in 1896, because Hungary did not finish the great millenium construction works for 1895, so they shifted a year). However as many sourced content in this article and other articles clearly say that the Hungarians made battles against Germans since 862, which suggest that they did not cross mountains and make campaigns from very far from today's Ukraine to make wars in German and Bohemian lands, also there are archeolgical findings graves with combined Avar and Hungarian materials. Also there are records when combined Avar and Hungarian army attacked Franks, in that case the Avar army named "another army of the Magyars", and several contemporary sources claimed Huns=Avars, Avars=Hungarians. Because Hungarians made many documented interactions in the Carpathian Basin before 895 it means that they know the region, so the conquest was not accidentaly. And also there are record about when Hungarians allied many times with Bulgarians since 811: Hungarian invasions of Europe
Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin: You know if something is not in the Wiki, or not updated, which edit by simple users, it does not mean it is not exist. Actually if you read carefully, that article already suggest many times what I wrote.
"The date of the Hungarian invasion varies according to the source"
"Three main theories attempt to explain the reasons for the "Hungarian land-taking"...One argues that it was an intended military operation, prearranged following previous raids, with the express purpose of occupying a new homeland."
"They occasionally hired Hungarian horsemen as soldiers. Therefore, the Hungarians who dwelt on the Pontic steppes east of the Carpathian Mountains were familiar with what would become their homeland when their conquest started."
"the detailed description of the Magyars by western contemporary sources and the immediate Hungarian intervention in local wars suggest that the Hungarians had already lived on the eastern territories of the Carpathian Basin since the middle of the 9th century."
"Regarding the right location of early Hungarian settlements, the Arabic geographer al-Jayhani in the 870s placed the Hungarians between the Don and Danube rivers...al-Jayhani's Danube with the middle Danube region, as opposed to the previously assumed lower Danube region because, following al-Jayhani's description, the Christian Moravians were the western neighbors of the Magyars"
"A charter issued in 860 by King Louis the German for the Mattsee Abbey may well attest that the Onogurs were also present in the territory."
(Romanian historian) "Hungarian warriors intervened in a conflict between the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarians on the latter's behalf in the Lower Danube region in 836 or 837."[5]
(Romanian historian) "The first known Hungarian raid in Central Europe was recorded in the Annals of St. Bertin,"[6]
"Hungarians fought around Vienna, while the Kabars fought nearby at Culmite in 881."
(Romanian historian) "Madgearu proposes that Kavar groups were already settled in the Tisza plain within the Carpathian Basin around 881, which may have given rise to the anachronistic reference to Cumans in the Gesta Hungarorum at the time of the Hungarian conquest."[7]
"The Annals of Fulda narrated in 894 that the Hungarians crossed the Danube into Pannonia"
I see Martyn Rady say the Pecheneg theory, he wrote his works 23 years ago, and not this is the mean theory anymore as you can see, in Hungary in the communist times the Pecheneg theory was the main one. However I do not understand exactly the logic in the claim of Martyn Rady, he says that the Hungarians got catastrophic defeat and this forced the Hungarians to move. Why not north or south? Why to the hard mountains to cross to west to Pannonia? So according to Rady the very defeated Hungarians starved and demoralized, moved to Pannonia many hundred km in hard terrain. It would be good to know then this very defeated starving demoralized Hungarians how was able to conquest in that huge area: the full Carpathian Basin (The Ottomans was unable to conqueir the full region, only the Soviet red army in WW2 was able to conquer the full Carpathian Basin first time after the Hungarian conquerors). Also it would be good to know that the very defeated starving demoralized Hungarians how was able to defeat many strong European armies in every direction in the future years after? Battle of Brenta, (here 3 combined Frankish-German army attacked the Carpathian Basin, huge army at that time, this was a long war with many battles) Battle of Pressburg, and future catastrophic German defeats: Battle of Eisenach, Battle of Lechfeld, Battle of Rednitz, Battle of Achelous,Battle of Püchen...
This source provide both theories: https://dtk.tankonyvtar.hu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/7105/08_revesz_laszlo.pdf?sequence=1"According to documentary evidences, their nomadic groups turned up in the Carpathian Basin several times from 862 onwards, intervening in the conflicts of the Franks and Moravians invited by either of the two nations. In the course of these military campaigns, they became well-acquainted with the territory which would shortly become their homeland. In 895 it was the Pecheneg (a nomadic people living further East) attack on the Hungarian settlement area in Etelköz which was the direct cause of the Hungarian conquest. While some scholars regard the Hungarian conquest as a purposeful operation, planned by princes Árpád and Kurszán, which was only hastened and distracted by the Pecheneg attack, some attach great importance to the attack and describe the conquest as a panic-stricken flight. It most probably became clear to the Hungarian leaders that they could not keep their quarters any more in Etelköz, which was a wide open territory and the Carpathian Basin surrounded by high mountains would be safer for their people. Thanks to their former military campaigns, they also knew that the lowland territories of the basin most suitable for them were not controlled by any strong power. The story is confirmed by the archaeological findings. For in the course of excavations of 10th century Hungarian cemeteries, no bodies of widowers were found alongside perhaps recently wed Slav women. Next to the warriors, the graves of women, children and elderly people are located, who belonged to the same anthropological group, wore the same style of ornaments and were buried according to the same traditions. The events of the following years prove that it was not a weakened population without a significant military power that settled in the Carpathian Basin. The Hungarians found Avar groups in the central parts of the Carpathian Basin;"
Honestly I never understood the illogical migration domino theory: Allegedly, in 893, Samanid Empire attacked the Karluks, then the Karluks attacked the Oghuzes, the Oghuzes attacked the Kimaks, the Kimaks attacked the Pechenegs, the Pechenegs attacked the Hungarians, the Hungarians attacked Europe... so everybody chased each other :) Well, this chasing scene is a very illogical theory, that A nation defeats B nation, and B retreats and B is enough strong to defeat the C nation, then C nation retreats and C is enough strong to defeat and kick the D nation, then D nation retreats and D is enough strong to defeat and kick the E nation, then E nation retreats and E is enough strong to defeat and kick the F nation, then F nation retreats and F is enough strong to attack full Europe and defeat many European armies during a long time...Morover I think Europe never was weak, Byzatnine empire, Franks/Germans, Italy, etc but Hungarians ruled the battlefields many centuries long after they were allegedly “kicked” by Pechenegs. Between 899–970, according to contemporary sources, the researchers count 47 (38 to West and 9 to East) raids in different parts of Europe. From these campaigns only 8 were unsuccessful and the others ended with success. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You contradict Hungarian sources from the article "Three main theories attempt to explain the reasons for the "Hungarian land-taking". Perhaps you think you know better than Sándor László Tóth? Or better than Martyn Rady : "The reality was quite different, for the sudden westward movement of the Hungarians was an act forced upon them by a catastrophic defeat at the hands of their steppe rivals, the Pechenegs. The Pecheneg assault on the Hungarians’ lands split the Hungarians in two, forcing one section to flee southwards into the Caucasus. The remainder of about 400 000 people who retreated westwards and settled in Pannonia, were so deprived of nourishment as a consequence of their recent dislocation as to experience a collapse in their mortality." Are you saying Hungarians pre-planed to starve in the Pannonian plain? And as for fighting, desperation is a good motivator and raiding is not total war.
"in Hungary in the communist times the Pecheneg theory was the main one" I'm starting to think they were better at science than post-communist researchers of Hungary.
Bottom line is: does not matter how many Hungarian sources you quote in your theory defence, it will always be POV unless all (or at least the vast majority) international, impartial, and highly respected academic sources concur with it. Otherwise, I can also say that whatever Romanian sources say about Romanians is right, regardless of foreign historians. Does that seem right?
Also, genetic studies show there is no conclusive connection between HungC and pre-conquest population, so the least we should do is let a bit of room for other theories to be expanded before calling our favourite "mainstream". Aristeus01 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01 (talk) Contradict what? The main theory already mention the preplanned version from the same author who mention the Pecheneg theory also, did you miss? Sándor László Tóth: "it was an intended military operation, prearranged following previous raids, with the express purpose of occupying a new homeland". (If a wiki article contains not all acadmeic sources, it does not mean that are not exist) In the article I presented both theory, so I do not know what would be the contradiction. Btw Martyn Rady is from 2000 and Tóth is from 1998, while my sources are very modern. But I presented that view, because that exist of that view is fact.
"I'm starting to think they were better at science than post-communist researchers of Hungary." I am sure that are the follower of the Romanian national communist views. Good to them that you will supervise all modern Hungarian historians, please tell them your intention.
It is not my theory, it is the theory in the Hungarian mainstream academic source. Good to know that the academic Hungarian sources about Hungarians are not enough respected for you, which is your personal POV, please search and source also some Chinese or Egyptian historians regarding the Hungarian history. In wiki we need put the content from reliable academic sources and not our personal view. If there are more opinion, we present them. Anyway both theory is already on the page. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01, it is fringe that you put a 100 years old map where you claim that in the full Kingdom of Hungary (even not in Transylvania) but specially west Hungary, today’s Slovakia, (even east Bohemia, Croatia) are full with hundred of “Romanian settlements” from 800AD. However the original title of the Draganu map is: “Romanians in the 9-14th century based of place names” which means “Romanian settlements” word is your personal invention to falsify contents as you did several times in your wiki edit (I have many examples when the content and marked source did not match exactly, it was tweaked by your wished pov). It is fringe because nobody know, (include Hungarian historiography regarding his own kingdom) about allegedly hundred or any “Romanian settlements” in west Hungary or north Hungary. It is clearly abuse and falsify the Hungarian history, making fake map which targeting Hungary is not unfamiliar act from Romania, like in many other “academic” Romanian maps from nationalcommunist times, the half of Kingdom of Hungary belonged to a a very big Romania country between 800-1300, example [10] however international history and maps does not know about this country [1][11][12][13 (I see these international maps are this is pseudo sciene for you) following this logic you can put all old fake Romanian history maps to the English wiki in 2023 as “real history”. I asked you evidence for these allegedy “Romanian settlements” but of course (as I expected) you was unable to show me any proof that X settlement in for example in west Hungary was Romanian settlement (full with Romanian population or founded by Romanians, any historical evidence?). Your only evidence is that map, however Draganu wrote “based on place names” which is clearly just speculation morover almost most of the words on the map which marked “Romanian place names” are everyday Hungarian words (of course not found them in Romanian dictionary but in the Hungarian dictionary) “fekete erdő” (black forest) “sziget” (island) “alma” (apple) “aranyos” (cute or gold” … Hungarian linguist has list of Hungarian words with Romanian origin but almost all word in the map has different origin by Hungarian linguists. Sorry but probably they will not ask pardon for you that they have own pov based their own knowledge and they will not change it to satisfy your pov. This is a new info me that not only full Hungary had hundred of “Romanian settlements “ but the full Hungarian language is of course came from the Romanian according to your map… Anyway I do not know exactly how can we know the population by place names whitout sources about any Romanians in that huge area. Let me quote your favorite British historian Martyn Rady: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."
Which is true, Hungarian and other sources has nothing about Romanians before that time in Hungary, which means your hundred of “Romanian settlements” are just a fringe sourceless fiction.
Modern Romanian historian about this pehonmenon what you demonstrated:
Andrei Gandila, Romanian historian: (Andrei Gandila: Cultural encounters on Byzantine’s northern frontier. c. 500-700; Cambridge 2018)
"Although to some extent the manipulation of archaeological material was true of most Eastern European schools between 1945 and 1989, the Romanian case became the most conspicuous in its attempt to distort the past in order to serve the communist regime’s quest for legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s......the nationalistic discourse dominating the last communist decades in Eastern Europe distorted not only the interpretation of the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous chapter, but also views on the development of Christianity. Most studies shared a common agenda: to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Daco-Roman population across centuries of vicissitude when the descendants of the Roman colonists had to deal with numerous barbarian invasions, while struggling to maintain their connection to the Roman world and assimilate the newcomers into their superior culture...... such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day.”
Almost all you activity in English Wiki clearly show that your only purpose is to spread the Daco-Roman speculations for nationalistic purpose and many times supervising and removing academic Hungarian sourcess (which are in contradiction or rather nothing with this theory) regarding to the history of Hungarians and Hungary to serve this purpose. (before blame me with Hungarian nationalism, just consider that realizing and refusing Romanian nationalism which strongly abuse Hungarian history like your map it does not mean that the target will be nationalistic if do not agree with your nationalistic pov, not I was who put map which is unknow by mainstream like “Hungarian settlements” in Germany in 500-1000 when full of Germany is Hungarian or “Hungarian settlements” in Wallachia when full of old Romania is Hungarian, but you did this) The irony is that Draganu claim the Romanian name of Transylvania came from Hungarian but in this case you did not like to use him instead you wrote many fringe theory, the Hungarian and Romanian word for Transylvania is very similar, but of course it would be painful for you if something would be Hungarian and not Romanian origin as Draganu claimed. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aristeus01! I see you was sensible about if a sensible topic had only one sided POV. I see this section has only Romanian sources. Do you have any solution to solve this or rename it "loss of status by Romanian historography"?
This "loss of status" topic is unknow by Hungarian historiography. It was nothing to loss. Btw the Vlach law was a status. Also I have several examples when Hungarian Transylvanian princes helped to develop the Romanian culture, even the Romanian nationalist movement started from the Transylvanian school. Also the topic say that Catholic Romanians did not "loose" any status, which means it was not an ethnic thing, but only orthodox people lost status according to the text, like everywhere in medieval times it was many religious wars. Do you think the half-Romanian Nicolaus Olahus lost any statues who was primate of hungary in 1553-68? Or the allegedly Romanian John Hunyadi who became governor of Hungary and his son king of Hungary? I do not see any logic.
The situation reversed during the Angevine dynasty, in particular with the Decree of Turda that took an explicitly negative action against Romanians, and required that knezes were vested by the law of the kingdom rather than customary law.
I also see this: In Transylvania, after the establishment of the Union of Three Nations and the suppression of the Bobâlna Uprising in 1438, the Vlach law gradually disappeared while the Romanian masters and boyars
While other Romanians sources still speak the Vlach law was part of the kingdom in 1517 written in the Tripartium also using vlach law in the 17th century in Hungary:[7]OrionNimrod (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod then you should mention that as well. Just an observation, for once, it would be refreshing to see you pointing at a paragraph that needs balanced with Romanian sources...
Could you tell me why you kill usually full sourced academic contents? I see you have some issue with the content, you did not explain exactly what, also if you find problem why you do not try to change it instead of kill instantly the full content? This case is more strange for me than the previous one others, because you was happy to quote from the same author, from the same book, and you was happy to use contents from this book already. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT again? Use what you like and keep silent about what you do not like in the same book? OrionNimrod (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
You removed this line: "The sources before the 13th century do not contain references to Vlachs (Romanians) anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania or in Wallachia."
You always remove contents what is not match with your personal POV, even from those sources from where you like cherry picking only contents what you like.
"The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania. There can be little doubt, however, that a Romanian population dwelled in the region, although it is impossible to estimate either its size or its principal economic activity."
is the same to this:
"The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century,48 and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania. There can be little doubt, however, that a Romanian population dwelled in the region, although it is impossible to estimate either its size or its principal economic
activity. Linguistic evidence suggests a Romanian presence in Hunyad county from at least the eleventh century.49 Both Byzantine and papal sources were convinced, moreover, that the Vlachs were the direct descendants of the Romans."
@Aristeus01! If you think that some things was not there, it is still strange for me that you choose first to kill the complete content instead of extend it. I see you finally found what you denied and deleted 1 minute ago: "the thirteenth century,48 and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."OrionNimrod (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod My concern here with mining the source accurately. The rest is off topic. The source has to be mined correctly and I do not think it was done so. You want to keep the paragraph, I'm happy to help improve it. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod the source clearly says something different than what the synthesis was. Important parts were left out ( see my newest edit) and that is not ok. I think we can both agree it needs to be quoted accurately, and only by working together on this can we achieve it. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Aristeus01! I see you worry about "accurately", but you clearly falsified the timeline. You wrote: "According to Martyn Rady, linguistic evidence suggests a Romanian presence in Hunyad county from at least the eleventh century.The sources describe Wallachia as largely uninhabited forest until that time."
Martyn says: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century"
@OrionNimrod As your previous edit is basically a revert to the original form, I see we cannot reach an agreement in what should be included. I think it's best to raise this to Dispute Resolution page and try to find common ground there. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
"Linguistic evidence suggests a Romanian presence in Hunyad county from at least the eleventh century" "It could, nevertheless, also be taken to indicate the new political importance attaching to the Romanian chieftains of Transylvania and the Lower Danube which made their presence for the first time worthy of record." and the "largely" from the phrase: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century".
I do not mean to be abrupt, but judging from our previous conversations this could go on forever without having any agreement. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Aristeus01, I do not know exactly what are you doing… I did not dispute ever the above things that you show because I see they are in the source. Could you show me where I disputed it? Sorry I am not aware.
2 hours earlier I posted the “linguist evidence Hunyad county” part before your dispute report regarding this: how can I dispute it if I posted myself?
The chieftain part missed in the mess, I will add tomorrow, the “largely” word also was not disputed, I would copy paste everything from the source but this would violate copyright, so I needed rephrase that is why this word was ignored by me to avoid the copyright conflict. I can add this, I think finally I rewrote the words (woodland to forest) that it will be no copyright problem. Even I did a self revert due to the messy edits when more users are editing in the same time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=next&oldid=1159152685
The dispute was by me that you instantly kill the content instead of extend it, and also you removed deliberately the line which say there are no sources about Vlachs before the 13th century, so it is strange for me that you are not so carefully to follow the source in this case… OrionNimrod (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The Pascu's work I cited claims that "The toponomy of Transylvania has been put under pression during the Middle Ages from the Hungarian officiality, with the aim of changing the placenames with the translation (Măru-Almafa, Mestecăniș-Nyres, Strâmtura-Szurduk, Pomi-Remete, Peri-Körtvelyes, often there has been added the Hungarian suffixes of “falva”, “háza”, especially in the cases of placenames from anthroponymes (Harnicești-Harnichhaza, Dragoteni-Dragotenfalva). Other cases include the translation of part or the placename, with the survival of another form in Romanian language, in which the same settlement had an official and a popular name (Pârâul Sec – Szek-patak), or cases in which the placename was not translated but written in the official documents in the Magyarized form (Copăcești-Kopachfalva, Crăcești-Karacsfalva, Buteni-Bökeny, Bucuresci-Bokorfalva). This is in Voievodatul Transilvaniei Vol 2, and those are just some of the many placenames he cites.
It has nothing to do with Kristó Gyula's work, Az 1332-1337. évi pápai tizedjegyzék és az erdélyi románság létszáma, which critizes Pascu's study on List of Papal Tithes, which are in the books Die mittelalterliche Dorfsiedlungen in Siebenbürgen (bis 1400). Nouvelles études d'histoire of 1960 and Ce este Transilvania? of 1983. Also you've misinterpreted Petrovici's work, which criticizes Kniezsa's work, doesn't "add" information to support it. ZZARZY223 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I did not comment any place name things at the moment. I did not comment Petrovici's work regarding Kinezsa's work. That was different user, please talk with him.
I know Kristó does not deal at all with Pop, because Pop wrote this later. That is why started my content with "Pascu made the estimations, Hungarians made another conslusion and comments..." It is same like you published a content that a Romanian author critize Kinezsa, in my content a Hungarian author critize Pascu. I think it is not secret to show Pascu's and Kristo's study regarding the population subject to present the Romanian and Hungarian view. The topic is about demographic researches, where many scholars shares their opinions, btw Pop also said exactly similar 35-40% Catholic population like Pascu and 65% Romanians. While the Hungarian mainstream viewpoint is different as you see, Gyorffy and Kristo is same respected Hungarian historian as Pop in Romania. I have no issue that you present Pop's view, why do you have problem to present Kristo and Gyorffy view? Kristo deeply analyzed (more details in the link) the population and compared the Romanian estimation while Pop just made statements as I can see in your link. I think article should balanced and present more POV in the topic related subject. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The Hungarian view point about the papal tithes is already explained above, and the paragraph you've wrote is anyway too long and can be much summarized in "the lack of a Catholic parish is not correlated to the presence of one of the Orthodox religion and in the Kingdom of Hungary only a part of the settlements had a church". It still remains off-topic, since again, the studies of Pascu and Pop are different, since Pop besides implying that 950 settlements out of 2100-2200 had a Catholic parish, he also bases his claim of the fact that Antonio Bonfini claimed that during the reign of Louis I, "according to all, in Hungary [the Roman] denomination was widespread and had increased to the point where more than a third of the population was infused with the sacred custom" - "Quare praeter omnium opinionem, religio in Ungaria nimis amplificata, & usque adeo prorogata, ut plus tertia regni parte in Diuinium usum possideret" pag 349 Rerum Ungaricarum decades - and that was a great accomplishemnt that, in the multi-ethnic and multi-denominational Hungary more than a third of the population was of Western Christian denomination, similar to the situtation in Transylvania. ZZARZY223 (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The above Hungarian viewpoint by Kristo talk about the place names not about the religion, while the Romanian viewpoint by Pop talk about the Catholic/Orthodox population based on the churches. Pop does not mention sources, but he exactly says the same result (Catholic population, church numbers) what Pascu stated, which means Pop used Pascu or he used the same method. So Pop said 65% Romanian population at that time, while Hungarian historigraphy clearly criticize this calculation method providing examples regarding the churces and religion. So it highly relates to show what is the Hungarian view about this "65%" regarding Pascu. It is not off topic but the Hungarian view talks about exactly the same thing which is in Pop's content. As you can see, I did not mention Pop, because Kristo talk about Pascu who has the same result as you see in the content. Why would be a problem to show Pascu's result and the Hungarian view about this method? You know very well the key Romanian view is the "alway majority Romanians in Transylvania" while the Hungarian is different, so I do not understand why it would be problem to show this viewpoint. Anyway, the same theories already mentioned several times by several authors in the whole article because we use a lot of sources. Daco-Roman theory, migratory theory, place names of Hungarian/Romanian POV also mentioned many many times, even by yourself. Your contents also have several times criticizing authors, which is the nature of the topic which is: "Demographics and historical research". I have no issue that we can also extend the content of Pop.
You translate wrong Bonfini, even Pop does not say "population", that chapter in Bonfini work talks about how new monastic orders came to Hungary, the friars, chapels, building churches, chruch estates, how the king donated estates for them, then Bonfini write this: "Quare preter omnium opinionem religio in Ungaria nimis amplificata et usque adeo propagata, ut plus tertia regni parte in divinum usum possideret". "In this way, in Hungary denomination was widespread, stronger than expected such a large area that more than a third of the country was owned by the church." Which means 1/3 of the land was owned by the church as church estate, Bonfini does not write about that 1/3 of the population was Catholic. Btw it would be quite nonsense, if allegedly 2/3 of population was Orthodox in Transylvania, then 2/3 of the population in the other part of the kingdom was also orthodox/Romanian also? Do you say 2/3 of full Kingdom of Hungary was Romanian in the 14th century? Do you state this?
Off topic: Btw I read more or less the providing content from Pop from 2005, it is really obvious that Pop has a strong Romanian nationalism, and he is writing by the spirit of the former national communist ideology. It tells a lot that he is the President of the Romanian Academy. He wrote a lot about the "conquered, subdued, marginalized Romanians"... conquered, when how? Pop also wrote about John Hunyadi in English then he start to use the Romanian nickname "Iancu Hunedoara" in an English text, however he was called Hunyadi in all contemporary sources. I also read that the "very suppressed Romanian" Hunyadi family how rised to highest ran. Pop write "Iancu Hunadeoara the Romanian military commander made the greatest anti Ottoman effort and saved Europe from the Turks" at least he says that he was governor and captain general of Hungary, so this deny the " Romanian military commander" attribute. Pop wrote about "2 Romanian countries" and later "Hunyadi made a military system including the 3 Romanian countries" so Pop suggests Transylvania was a Romanian country in the 15th century... Pop wrote "Hunyadi gathered 30000 Romanians and won the siege of Belgrade in 1456" I really do not know about Romanians in that siege... Pop wrote "Hunyadi protected Romanian elite and he made with the other 2 Romanian countries a Dacian bloc" so Hunyadi made a "Dacian bloc" with "3" Romanian countries, no comment... Pop keep silent the many bad relations, fights, and betrayals between Hunyadi and Wallachia. Pop also wrote "Mathew Csák from Slovakia", it is a very strange because Slovakia is a 20th century entity not existed in the 13-14th century, he should know that. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The point of view above is both of placenames and the religion
According to this register the population of Transylvania was 330,720 around 1330. It gives an important data about to the ethnic and religious division of the peoples living in medieval Transylvania during the reign of King Charles Robert of Hungary. At that time, according to list of Papal Tithes 310,000 (Catholic) Hungarians, 21,000 (Catholic) Saxons and 18,000 (Orthodox) Romanians lived in Transylvania.
Hence, Pop's pov of the Papal Thites : of 954 localities with Catholic parishes, out of his estimated 2100-2200 settlements existing in Transylvania during that time, meaning that the villages with Catholic parishes represented 43-45% of all Transylvanian settlements, and the Catholic population could have represented between 34-40% of the entire population, as it is certain that in many settlements with Catholic parishes an Orthodox population also lived.
As a criticism to Pop's work, it can added that "it should be noted that in the Kingdom of Hungary only a part of the settlements had a Catholic parish and the absence of one is not directly correlated to the presence of an Orthodox church"
"Why would be a problem to show Pascu's result and the Hungarian view about this method?" And why should it be included, if Pop bases his claimings besides on the supposed proportion between settlemnts with a Catholic parish and those without, and claims that this is similar to what Bonfini claims?
Bonfini claims "plus tertia regni parte in divinum usum possideret" tertia parte being the subject of phrase, thus the literal translation would be "more than a third of the Kingdom had the divine faith", as if it was like you said "more than a third of the country was owned by the church" "more than a third" would have been in accusative tertiam partem, not nominative hence the subject of the phrase.
About the religious composition of Hungary, it's obvious that doesn't mean "say 2/3 of full Kingdom of Hungary was Romanian in the 14th century", but the religious composition of all Hungary it's not easy to estimate, especially because it is not clear how many Byzanthine-rite Slavs remained after their conversion by Cyril and Methodius in Pannonia. There were many "Greek monasteries" (Orthodox) even in 1204 as Emeric proposed Pope Innocent III to appoint a Catholic bishop to administer them, this 2 centuries after the conversion to Catholicism of Hungarians. It's obvious that Bonfini might have exagerated with this claiming, but it's clear that by those claimings Hungary did not have a compact Catholic population and non-Catholic populations did indeed live there.
About Pop's point of view and his works, it can be seen that both Romanian and Hungarian historians have both strong nationalists sentiments writing their works. For example László Rásonyi which is often cited in many articles has arrived to the point of claiming that the "Blachii" of Anonymous work are Bulaqs and not Vlachs, even if no foreign historian at all have even remotely considered such a theory and even some Hungarian historians have criticized his view points. Pop often refers with modern-day names to different places like Slovakia, or he uses "Iancu de Hunedoara" because of the ethnic origin, or "3 Romanian countries" by meaning that those were mostly inhabited by them. By "Romanians" he means ethnically, thus he also claims that there were Romanians at the siege of Belgrade because even Antun Vrančić wrote about some Romanians being autonomous as "living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". Still some of Pop's works can obviously be criticized when there are problematic parts, because Pop was indeed influenced by the Communist era (not only academically, he even collaborated with the regime itself) ZZARZY223 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@ZZARZY223 That is not from Kristo what you mention above. Kristo does not say population numbers, you see Kristo says about the how many % of villages has Romanian or partial Romanian population, which does not mean population number, and he shows the place name origins, Kristo and Gyorffy introduced, analyzed and critized Pascu's statement about the 65% as you see. So we need mention Pascu, because Kristo talked about Pascu's estimation not about Pop. Anyway Pop's result almost exactly as the same as Pascu one, Pop and Pascu both sateted even the Catholic villages had a big Romanian population. Kristo pointed out that calculation method which has many errors is serving the Daco-Roman theory and the "always majority Romanians" perception.
Bonfini: I used the Hungarian translation, and also I can provide the full section of the Bonfini book. I also showed that Bonfini mention that the Church got many lands from king and the faith widespread so much that the church owned 1/3 of the country. Even King Louis lead many campaigns to spread the religion, against Lithuanians (Lithuanians became Christians because of Polish-Hungarian campaigns, and Louis' daughter Saint Jadwiga married to the Lithuanian prince only if the country accept the faith, this was king Louis' demand), against heretics in the Balcan, etc... Do you think 2/3 of full Hungary was not Catholic at the time of Louis? Academic sources for that? Outside Romanians, Serbs, Ruthenians everbody else was Catholic. Perhaps do you think 2/3 of full Hungary was pagan in 1350? We have no info about that, even that age was a medieval times when the Catholic chruch had big power everywhere. Why would Hungary participated at Crusade much earlier if 2/3+ of the country was not Catholic?
"how many Byzanthine-rite Slavs remained after their conversion by Cyril and Methodius in Pannonia" Sorry but I do not have any info about Orthodox population in Pannonia (Transdanubia) do you have? Anyway according to Romanian authors as you can see all places whitout church and all Orthodox should be only Romanians...
Bonfini write about church lands, Bonfini did not write about the Catholic population, the chapter:"The first hermit order of the divine Paul came to Hungary, his body was brought from Venice to the church of Lőrinc, which stood three miles from Buda on a nearby mountain. László's sanctuaries. Louis of Nostra gave them a beautiful monastery and built another for the Carthusians at Lövöld, which he gave as a great gift. Furthermore, he built two chapels for the mighty mother at the royal expense, and honored her with a generous donation; one in Aachen, the other in Zell. With his example, the high priests, the nobles and the he made many of the nobles to serve the religious grace, who did not want to be left behind by the generosity of their king, and they themselves sacrificed for the church and donations. In this way, religion in Hungary became stronger than expected and widespread such a large area that more than a third of the country was owned by the church."
"Cum heremitarum ordo divi Pauli principis in Ungariam venisset corpusque eius Venetiis avectum in Laurentii edem, que ad tertium lapidem Bude proxima monti prominet, translatum esset, Carolus pater primus heremitarum collegia introduxit, qui Lauren tii, Sancte Crucis, Spiritus Sancti et divi Ladislai sacras edes usur parunt. Lodovicus autem in Noztre cenobium his excellentissimum dicavit et in Levelde aliud Carthusiensibus exedificavit magnificeque donavit. Duas item ediculas regio sumptu constructas magne so matri erexit ac ingenti donativo excoluit; in Aquisgrano alteram, alteram in Cellis. Exemplo quoque suo multos ex antistitibus, optiimatibus et nobilibus ad hec divine pietatis officia invitavit, qui, ne a sui regis magnificentia degenerarent, per se quisque templa dona que dicarunt. Quare preter omnium opinionem religio in Ungaria nimis amplificata et usque adeo propagata, ut plus tertia regni parte in divinum usum possideret."
Pop is the president of the Romanian academy, while Rasonyi not, also I do not know about much things his activity to determine weither he was nationalist or not. I do not think that Kristo was a nationalist, the communist Hungary was internationalist, nationalist Hungarians think they were traitors, for example at that time only the looser Hungarian battles were teached in school and it was big silence about the much more winning battles (List of wars involving Hungary this list if very far from complete). For example 1-2 years ago in a TV a "mummy" from the communist times said that the new history school books in Hungary not good because the Hungarians fighting in Hungary against the Turks are good boys in the Hungarian book, and focusing heroes, and the Ottomans in Hungary are the bad guys, and this is not good conception, because the students need a freedom to decide this to find the appropriate conclusion, and also we need to shed tears for the Ottoman soldiers...I bet in Romania this is unimaginable :) Also I know nationalist Hungarian authors who blame Kristo regarding the history of Arpad kings, Hun things (not Romanian related things). In Kirsto's document (if you translate) you can see he analyzes how wrong Pascu's calculation and why providing many details. You know if a Hungarian person does not accept every single statements made by Romanian authors regarding the Daco-Roman perception by Romanian nationalist purpose, this person will not instantly Hungarian nationalist. Morover the majority of historians in many other countries does not accept it, so they are definately not Hungarian nationalist. The Hungarian viewpoint is very easy, we do not have any sources before 13th century about Vlachs as many non-Hungarian authors stated also, so why Hungarian authors should have support certain Romanian nationalist fictions, invented stories if they have no evidence for those things? British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant [9]"More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."
A Hungarian academic book about the Romanian national communist times (2021) [10]page 67: "The anti-Hungarianism of Romanian national communism became an increasingly embarrassing challenge for the Hungarian state leadership. But only reactive steps were taken. If a Romanian work was more anti-Hungarian than it should have been, it was possible to respond with an analytical review, in which some self-criticism had to be included - more or less obligatory." "the thorough refutation of the Daco-Romanian dogma, was undertaken by Western Hungarians, first under a pseudonym, but with the help of Eastern Hungarians, then with a name, but the American Transylvanian Hungarian who gave his name also acquired a machine gun." "the official Romanian falsification of history had already reached such proportions that it was necessary to respond, because the Hungarian public expected it, and the state leadership was also offended by the anti-Hungarian Romanian propaganda" Even the intrrnationalist communist Hungarians who really hated every Hungarian national things did not like the very heavy anti-Hungarian things by Romanian national communism.
Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist times, Romania 9-13th century: [10] If you see international Europe maps, you will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] Those maps which made by Romanian historiography is clearly a falsifications and abuse of the international and Hungarian historiography, because in the reality this "Romania country" did not exist, which occupied the half territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9-13th century in that map. I think it is also strange that we have no records about that allegedly "always majority Romanians" in that huge area which presented on the fake maps in that long period between 300-1100. It was also a joke when in 1980s in the national-communist Romania, the Romanian state celebrated its 2050th anniversary in north Korea style...
Regarding the Gesta Hungarorum and the Vlach thing, there are 2 Hungarian viewpoints, one say the (blassij, blackis) are not Vlachs (details on the Bulaqs page, there are old maps and old authors which show the Blak people around the Caucazus), other view accept that these words means Vlachs, but they are very analytical critical regarding the Gesta, they say the Gesta has many fantasy stories, because the author just projected back the population of his age, and the author named invented heroes from local place names, like Cumans were placed at that time however they just arrived 200 years later after the conquest, so they think 1 blurry word from a 300 years later written work connection to things which are not any other records is not evidence for "always majority population" in a such a big place for many centuries long, because we have no sources about them before the 13th century.
Btw I see a big double standard in the Romanian historiography, they emphasize this 1 word in the Hungarian chronicles (about 3 times in the full Gesta), while they are refusing the other really clearly written and many times repeated things in the same books, for example that the Székelys were the remnant of Huns in Transylvania, or the Hun-Scythian-Hungarian things, but particularry this is strange for me that they do not accept what Gesta clearly say about the Szekelys but they emphasize that the (blassij, blackis) means only Romanians and making a full history story from only one sentence.
Saying "Matthew Csak from Slovakia" is cleary incorrect from a historian, it should be "Matthew Csak from territory of today's Slovakia", but this is also nonsense regarding the topic if we talk about the 14th century, that region was north Hungary and he also did not name counties, Csak also was Hungarian nobleman his family originated from seven Hungarian conqueror tribes, it is clearly a history falsification from Pop to project back a new 20th century country to the 14th century. It would be the same nonsense when we would say Queen Tomiris from the Soviet Union or XYZ native Indian ruler from 1000 from USA.
I know the fact that a large part of Communist-era Romanian historiography was often manipulated to make points of the propaganda of the regime, to this adding that the Romanian historiography wasn't internationalized as much as the Hungarian one, as very rarely the Romanian historians back then even translated their works to English and thus were rarely reached by foreign historians, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything that was written during that time should be completely dismissed.
And it's not about the fact that if somebody does "not accept every single statements made by Romanian authors regarding the Daco-Roman perception by Romanian nationalist purpose, this person will not instantly Hungarian nationalist", but it should be considered that historians often bring their own biases and interpretations to their work, resulting in differing views of historical events, and in the case of Transylvania for obvious reasons both Romanian and Hungarian historians have their biases in this regard.
Dennis Deletant himself claimed "To write all of this was not easy for me. Partly, because I still prefer to criticize Hungarian faults, which are also numerous. And partly because, regardless of any and all divergences in opinion that may exist, I do sincerely appreciate and respect those Romanian historians - and there are many of them - who work to achieve valuable results under very difficult circumstances".
It is not true that "the majority of historians in many other countries do not accept it (the Daco-Roman continuity)" as in 2013 authors of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages came to the conclusion that the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" in the debate of where the Romanian language originated. And even hypothetically considering a migration of Vlachs from south of the Danube, the scarcity of documents from the area of what is now Romania would still make hard to determine when it is supposed to have happened. The claim that "there are no documents before the 13th century in Transylvania about Vlachs, therefore there were no Vlachs" has many problems, starting with the fact that there are no documents at all about Transylvania before 1075, and like László Makkai claimed: "Of the known Hungarian documents drafted before 1200, only twenty-seven bear some reference to Transylvania; two date from the 11th, the rest from the 12th century. Of the latter, sixteen reveal only the name of some Transylvanian, religious or lay dignitary, such as a bishop, a dean, a voivode, or a count. In the 13th century, and particularly after 1250, the number of documents touching on Transylvania grows rapidly and reaches over four hundred." And as not a coincidence also after that time the number of documents about Vlachs are numerous. Meanwhile foreign sources mention only those who ruled the territory, not the particular ethnic composition.
For this reason even to this day many foreign historians when talking about Transylvania show both the point of view of Hungarian and Romanian historians. ZZARZY223 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@ZZARZY223, yes you are right we need to show both POVs. I agree that it would be not correct to say that all things was wrong, for example there were many Romanian authors (Radu Popa, Lucian Boia, Sorin Mitu, Florin Curta...) who cirizted those national-communist authors.
Unfortunatelly a lot of documents were destroyed during the wars in Hungary, Mongols, Ottomans, Habsburgs... but we have many foreign documents about the situtation, folks, events in Transylvania, but none of them know about anything about the "always majority Romanians" in that a such big area between Tisza-Dneister for a long period 300-1200, but those documents tell many things about many other folks.
This is just talking, but I found more things regarding Pop, the president of the Romanian academy, I see he is a strong Romanian nationalist and need other opinions if posting him because he is not so reliable:
A Hungarian historian and arcehologist in Transylvania, this document (you can translate) reflutes many statements of Pop [11]. He also blames that Pop almost did not mark sources in his book (we could see the same when I said Pop's number exactly the same as Pascu's number) and that Pop did not study the result of archeologists. Pop Aurel rebukes not only Hungarian historians, but also the Romanian Dennis Deletant, "who was not ashamed to state that Anonymus' writings are far from convincing". Pop claim the Visigoths was not in Transylvania until 350, however we have plenty arcehology about this (cemeteries with more generations) and you can see the international history claim different. Pop also say the Huns were never in the territory of Romania, which is nonsense if you see the maps and area of the later Moldova, Wallachia are full of Hun archeology, the richest Hun graves from there. Pop also made many strange statements regarding the Gepids in Transylvania. We have also the genetic science, but Hungarian genetic has Scythian/Gepid/Ostrogoth archeogenetic matches while the Romanians not, how possible the "always majority Romanians" have no genetic matches with these old folks while the Hungarian yes? And Romanian genetic has matches with Bulgarians, Macedonians, Greek, Turks, Lebanese... we can see all of them "point" to Transylvania...
Several statements of Pop clearly bears a historical racism about the superior and inferior communities. Pop also say the Hungarian conquerors were very primitive (of course :)) and they did not know nothing about the metalwork and the Hungarian metalwork did not exist. I would be very curious if the Hungarian conquerors did not know metalwork how do they defeated for 100 years long almost all the time every Europoan armies? Moreover we know many Hungarian metal work item from the Balkan to Scandinavia as result of trading, which imply the quality of them.
According to Pop the Hungarian conqueros had only arrow, he forgot the saber, spear, various battleaxes, armor... Some examples about swords in the Hungarian conqueror cemeteries, according to Pop "primitive cemeteries".
Of course according to Pop the old Hungarians had no economy just the looting of others, I do not think the full Hungarian population went to war each time to get things :) Btw the Hungarian conquest boosted the trading, the inner-Asian and Arab products, coins apperared. Also Pop say the Hungarians did not arrive through to the Carpathian mountains because this would means they arrived through "Romanian" land, however Hungarian conqueror cemeteries are everywhere from the Balaton to Alba Iulia. It seems just only the Mongols were able to climb the mountains 300 years later :) Of course Pop wants to prove the lowest population number as possible for this Hungarian "barbarian folk", he estimates the population of Vizigoths, Avar "hordes", interesting but he did not try to make an estimation number for the "ancient always majority Romanians". Pop says that the Hungarian cemetery in Bihar made for the Hungarians warriors who died in the historical battle against Menmarot, but in the reality women were also buried there and used around for 25 years. Pop talks about a lot about Menmarot duchy, just it is strange that not far from his allegedly place there are the most richest Hungarian conquerors cemeteries in many direction with elit warriors with full of arsenal. It is hard to imagine that those Hungarian warriors who fought many places in Europe and they were a fearful enemy of other Eurpeans powers, how they would "tolerate" Menmarot's duchy in their most important military center? Morover according to Anonymus Menmarot was Bulgarian and they great battles each other. And when Pop introduces the duchy of Gelu he keeps silent the lot of Hungarian cemeteries in that region.
Other things:
I did not talk about the origin of the Romanian language, I talked about the Daco-Roman theory, of course the Romanian language is Latin based (however it got a massive latinazitation in 19th century from the French). And language and people origin why would be the same? For example Afro-American people in New York speak in English, but from the English language we cannot determine his origin, and definetaly his origin is not England. Or the Brazilians, people of Peru, etc spoke Latin based language but they did not origin from Rome. For me the Latin base is an evidence about the south origin of Romanians, because Dacia province was the most short lived (165 years) hostile province on the edge of the empire, it was many wars, rebellions, ethnic massacres, Dacians and Romans were not friends. And more in longer stable provinces Pannonia, Britannia... the Latin language did not survive. Which means it needed more time and more stable situation to develop the Romanian language.
Archbishop Johannes de Galonifontibus - Libellus de notitia orbis, 1404:
“Further north is Bulgaria, which was a very good land, but has now been destroyed by the Turks. They come from the Romans, because when a certain Roman emperor acquired those lands, i.e. Macedonia, certain Romans, seeing the good country, took wives and stayed there. That is why they are called Vulgari in the common Roman language. That is why they boast that they are Romans, and it is clear from their language that they are really Romans."
Here was listed many example authors who refuse the Daco-Roman theory (that list was just a fast collection) Talk:Vlachs#Neutrality broken
I do not list Hungarians, because universally all of them refuse the Daco-Roman theory.
German example:"In 2001, an international meeting was held in Freiburg about the origins of the Romanians... All researchers agreed that the Romanians originated south of the Danube and migrated north." (in German) [12] page 343: [13]"At the conference held in Freiburg in 2001, eight German, two Hungarian and one Romanian historians and linguists debated the issue of Daco-Romanian continuity and took a 10:1 position against it." page 74 (2021) [14]
Romanian historian Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography, the most significant representative of the Polish historical approach to medieval Romanians is the historian and professor of Balkan studies Ilona Czamańska.[15]
Florin Curta. The Romanian Ethnogenesis in Polish Historiography [2020] „The article attempts to explain the conspicuous lack of familiarity with the Romanian historiographic and archaeological literature and suggests that Czamańska’s views are largely based on a migrationist approach to early medieval ethnogeneses. That approach still dominates the Polish historiography of the Slavic ethnogenesis (and the presence of the early Slavs in Poland). It is that approach that inspired Czamańska’s views on Vlachs and the alleged migration of the Romanians into the land of their ancestors.”
Emily Hanscam, British, Durham University: The Romanian myths of origin and the postnational critique: challenging reactionary populism [16]
British and Romanian historian, Emily Hanscam, Cătălin Nicolae Popa - Of Romans, Dacians and Romanians:[17]
"The Dacians, Romans and Romanians appear as unlikely bedfellows — how have these two peoples from the past ended up together in the popular imagination with the population of a modern nation-state? On the one hand, we have the Dacians, an Iron Age population with an uncertain territory, organization or even name. On the other hand, we have the Romans, a generic term linked with the biggest empire of the ancient world, who fought two wars against and eventually swallowed the Dacians. Last, we have the Romanians,a population that is neither ancient, nor ruling a mighty empire. Rather the Romanians are a modern-day nation which, just like many others, sought to root itself in the deep past through an imagined sense of ancestry: this is where the Dacians and Romans come in. In this paper we explore how the Dacians and Romans entered the hearts of Romanians from the 17th to 20th centuries asan enduring legacy of the need for a common ‘Romanian’ ethnic identity."
"The omnipresent Dacian ancestors become a ‘reality’ for nearly all Romanians during the third stage, which covers the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Following the Second World War a brutal Soviet regime was installed in Romania... With the arrival of Ceaușescu, who took the leadership of communist Romania in the 1960s. Installing a regime that nourished nationalistic feelings, interwar ideas resurfaced and the Dacians came into the spotlight like never before. In this environment we witness the Dacianisation of Romanians — with the deliberate intervention of the state, through the use of national education, museums, the press and other media, the inhabitants of Romania were literally transformed into descendants of the Dacians. This process goes beyond having the Dacians elevated to the rank of ‘official’ ancestors. Rather, there is a deep identity transformation of the population itself, as people start to define themselves as descendants of a 2000 year-old population. This process took national proportions and reached all corners of the country, given the rapid urbanization that Romania had gone through and the quasi-total penetration of national education, the written press and television. The presence of the Dacians became inescapable. During the fourth and final stage, stretching from the 1990s until today, the Dacian seeds blossom in the fertile garden of the Romanian national imagination. After December 1989, government incentive for producing glorious accounts of the Dacians faded away and academic publications carrying this message were slowly phased out. Given this withdrawal, a void of information appeared in the public sphere with regards to, what were by now, the uncontested Iron Age ancestors of the Romanians. This void was no longer filled by academics, but rather by Dacian enthusiasts, whose message was understandably appealing to members of a post-communist society that were hopeful in embracing capitalism and western democracy, but ended up disillusioned. And this is how the Dacians came to stay, for good."
"Today the Romans and Dacians are married in the imagination of the Romanian people. Each partner served its own purpose. The Romans gave Romania legitimacy though their noble, Latin roots, and a link to Western Europe; the Dacians provided the nation with a unique origin, which doubled as a claim to territory. But this unusual relationship is sometimes difficult to hide. Perhaps this situation is best illustrated by the controversial statue unveiled in 2012 in front of the National History Museum of Romania in Bucharest. It depicts the nude Roman emperor Trajan, awkwardly holding the Capitoline wolf, which doubles as a Dacian draco, a war banner of the Dacians. The statue thus exemplifies the awkward nature of the Roman-Dacian ancestral duo, a relationship that has persisted into the 21st century."
Romanian historian, Catalin Nicolae Popa - Late Iron Age Archaeology in Romania and the Politics of the Past:[18]
"The paper approaches the topic of nationalism in relation to the Late Iron Age archaeology of Romania. It is argued that nationalist agendas have played a significant role in the development of Late Iron Age scholarly work since the beginnings of the discipline in the 1řth century and particularly after the start of the 20th century. This phenomenon took extreme forms during Nicolae Ceauşescu’ national-communist regime and continues today, albeit, with reduced intensity. For illustrative purposes, four main ideas are discussed in connection to Late Iron Age Romanian archaeologyŚ the assumed unity of the Late Iron Age inhabitants, referred to as Dacians; the Dacians as ancestors of modern Romanians; the issue of ethnic labelling in Late Iron Age archaeology; and finally the implicit superiority of the Dacians. Although the relationship between nationalism and archaeology should not be condemned intrinsically, in the case of Romania such a link is problematic because of three factorsŚ the belief in the scientific character of the discipline; the lack of theoretical discussions on ethnicity; and the archaeologists’ denial of political responsibility for their research. This strategy has led most Late Iron Age scholars to retreat to the “ivory tower” of positivist research, allowing for a large number of non-academic publications about the Dacians to flood the internet and bookshops."
"21st century Romanians have a great affinity with two past populationsŚ the Romans and the Dacians. These two peoples are considered the ancestors of today’s nation. However, it is the latter that were chosen to represent a golden age, since it is the Dacian past alone, dating back to the Late Iron Age, that was able to provide the unique character that Romanian nationalists were seeking and at the same time legitimated the 20th century borders of the country."
"Starting with the 1990s, more and more authors have begun to acknowledge that in many cases there is a very strong relationship between archaeology and nationalism. Scholars have brought to light many examples where archaeology was one of the fundamental elements in the construction of national ideas or where it was used to support various political agendas... Moreover, political influence has determined that archaeological interpretation of the evidence was used to create an ancestral link between two nations (one “real” and one “invented”) situated two thousand years apart."
"With the 1960s, came yet another important ideological shift. In this period Nicolae Ceauşescu became the head of communist Romania and his intention was to break away from the strict control of the Soviets. Hence, the regime diminished its control of academia to a degree, at least during the initial years of Ceauşescu’s rule, and started to encourage nationalist writings in all disciplines, including archaeology. The change in ideology allowed for the inter-war nationalist ideas to resurface and augment in strength. This meant that priority was given to the research which, in a more direct or indirect manner, illustrated the greatness of the Romanian nation and its people. Therefore, a more radical version of the contemporary French ‘archéologie nationale’ took shape, which prompted the focus of archaeological research in areas that had the potential to illustrate the unique character of Romania and its glorious past."
"As the regime and top party members became aware of the unique potential of the Dacian ancestorhood, under their guidance, the Thracomaniac/Dacomaniac movement was born. Its adepts considered the Dacians the only, or at least the most important element that led to the ethnogenesis of the Romanians. The birth of this movement may be connected to Ceauşescu’s visit to Iran in 1971, when he attended the 2500 year celebrations of the Persian Empire in Persepolis. At this point he may have become interested in providing a comparably grandiose narrative of the past for Romania. An important role in revealing the potential of the Dacians to the communist leader was played by the pseudo-official historians of the Romanian Communist Party, Mircea Muşat and Ion Ardeleanu, as well as by the activity of exiled regime collaborator Iosif Constantin Drăgan. Through their writings and close relations with the regime, the Thracomaniac views were more or less established as state doctrine. Nonetheless, few scholars embraced the idea of the Dacians as the only ancestors. Some archaeologists attempted to resist the party orders to stress the importance of the Dacians and retreated to a positivistic discourse, similar to what was happening in Serbia during the same period. However, such an attitude only helped to sustain and naturalize the dominant discourse. The result was thus a gain in importance of the many writings which did reflect the ideas of the regime. The peak of the Thracomaniac phenomenon was reached in 1980, when, following the Iranian model that Ceauşescu witnessed, celebrations were held for the 2050th anniversary since the birth of the first Romanian state – that of the Geto-Dacian king Burebista."
"Even though the communist regime of Romania came crashing down in 1989, the idea of the united Dacian ancestors did not decline because no break can be seen in the way archaeology was practiced and written. Indeed, while the Thracomaniac ideas were largely abandoned, most people continued to work within the same nationalist framework as in the two previous decades, although most Romanian researchers were retreating by now to the ‘ivory tower’ of objectivism/positivism."
"Archaeology in Romania today is very much dependent on that of the communist period. Most archaeology courses in Romanian universities still rely heavily on the publications from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s that provide the bibliographical basis for current students. While this situation is determined to a degree by the poor supply of academic material, it led to current archaeological works following broadly in the footsteps of previous authors, especially in terms of style of writing and questions that are being asked."
"Nowadays most researchers understand that umbrella names Geto-Dacian, Getae or Dacian are primarily a modern invention. Yet, although some have pointed out that such terms are loaded with nationalist ideology, they are often dismissed as harmless convention...Last but not least, the Iron Age inhabitants undergo one more evolutionary ‘upgrade’ as they integrate Roman civilization and culture, thus becoming Daco-Romans."
"The final major idea that repeatedly appeared in Romanian publications about the Late Iron Age is that of the superiority of the Geto-Dacians over the other 'neamuri'. Their civilization, material or spiritual, was in numerous cases depicted as more advanced than that of the neighbouring populations, be they of Celtic, Sarmatian, Scythian, or Germanic origin. Only the Greeks and Romans were seen as having a higher level of development, but their knowledge was rapidly absorbed by the swift learning Geto-Dacians... Almost everything that the Geto-Dacians did was unique, extraordinary; it revealed their ingenious character...Some archaeologists described the civilisation, the power, the skill, the riches and the fame of the Geto-Dacians as being so great that they dominated much of Europe. Many of their neighbours, especially the Romans, looked with envy towards them, making plans to conquer them and therefore destroy this grandiose society...The quintessence of the Geto-Dacian spirit is embodied in their kings, Burebista and
especially Decebalus, both of whom represent true heroes."
"However, nowadays, the general Romanian public has already incorporated the idea of their Geto-Dacian ancestry into their view of the world. Many people are very interested in finding out more about what they perceive as being their nationalancestral heritage. The ‘scientific’ archaeological papers and books, with their descriptive style, are naturally unappealing to the public. Consequently, magazines and organisations, usually established by non-archaeologists, have appeared in order to satisfy the Romanians’ thirst for the past, stirred up, but unquenched by scholars."OrionNimrod (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Toponomy of Transylvania
I can see there is a lot of activity in the "Demographics and historical research" section and many of the edits, or should I say arguments, are about toponomy. I suggest we open a new section for this topic, possibly with the two different points of view separated, to avoid edit disagreements. What do you think?
I think because toponymy is a way to determine the historical demography of Transylvania, it should stay in that chapter. I find it unnecessary to describe a big scholarly debate. That is not fitting to the article "History of Transylvania". Gyalu22 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
ZZARZY223, I'm also reading the work of Emil Petrovici. Where does he say that it is a critique of Kniezsa's work? The subtitle says "on the book of Mister István Kniezsa, Ungarns Völkerschaften im XI. Jahrhundert" ("à propos du livre M. István Kniezsa, Ungarns Völkerschafter im XI. Jahrhundert").
It appears to me that we are only talking about Petrovici's interpretation of the less Hungarian toponyms in less easily accessible places, which phenomenon Kniezsa didn't even mention (in addition a theory answering this) and a small disagreement on some village's names. In this case you shouldn't present the two opinions as antitheses. Also, despite I told you, why do you insist writing the author's name incorrectly? (It's not Kniesza.) We are not here to stubbornly keep improper things but to make improvements. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
First of all, sorry if I've miswriten István Kniezsa's name. However, Petrovici criticizes Kniezsa's work, including the map which Kniezsa provides. He claims "Mr. Kniezsa has found no evidence for the existence of Romanians in Transylvania in the eleventh century. On the other hand, he found Hungarians everywhere. To establish the areas where there were Hungarians at that time, he uses three categories of evidence: historical, archaeological and linguistic. [...] Consequently, where M. Kniezsa supposes the existence in the eleventh century of a Slavic population in the East of ancient Hungary—these "Slavs" were driven back by the Hungarian conquest into the mountains, occupying the plains and depressions — it is actually a Romanian-Slavic population. Similarly, the mountainous regions of Transylvania, presented as uninhabited in the eleventh century on the map at the end of the book with which we are concerned, were in reality traversed, at that time just as today, by the Daco-Romanian shepherds who have always exploited the pastures 3), from the time when Florus said of their ancestors: "Daci montibus inhaerent", until modern times when the Italian Ascanio Centorio (16th century), found everywhere [...] The mountainous regions of Transylvania, even where they do not contain villages, must be considered as belonging to the "living space" of the population established at the foot of the mountains and in the valleys which penetrate inside the massifs. mountainous, that is to say Romanian mountain dwellers who live mainly from livestock. On Mr. Kniezsa's map, the "uninhabited" area of the mountains should have been colored in a color indicating the presence of the Romanian shepherds, just as the plains and depressions are colored in red, territory traveled by the Hungarians who were still at that time a nomadic people practicing extensive livestock breeding r) which they had learned in the Eurasian steppes. Extensive farming cannot feed a very dense population. Also the map presented by Mr. Kniezsa must be considered misleading; the large expanses colored red seem to indicate a large Hungarian population, while the narrow blue bands at the edges of the plains and depressions would indicate a rather insignificant Slavic population (in eastern Slavo-Romanian Hungary). The ethnic situation of the following centuries is also proof that the indications on this map are erroneous: a Hungarian majority population which for centuries enjoyed the prestige conferred on it by the possession of power would not have yielded to a minority of mountaineers reduced to serfdom, therefore deprived of all prestige.
He also criticizes the archeological evidence, claiming that "As for the archaeological evidence that Mr. Kniezsa invokes, the following remarks can be made: first, the culture, art and burial rite of the Hungarians were identical to those of the other Turanian nomadic horse people of the Eurasian steppes. Not everything is Hungarian among the materials that the archaeologists of Budapest present it as suc. Then the tomb of a Turanian horseman does not prove that the region was populated by Hungarians at the time of the funeral; the raiding troops of a nomadic cavalry tribe can move very far from the territory where the bulk of the population usually encamps. For the archaeological discoveries proving the existence in Dacia, from the seventh to the eleventh century, of a Daco-Romanesque and Slavic population, see the article by M. C. Daicoviciu that we have just quoted.
"The third category of evidence on which Mr. Kniezsa’s study is based is linguistic. For the eastern regions of Hungary, it is the following facts noted by the Hungarian Slavist that interest us: the names of places of Slavic origin would prove by the conservation, in their Hungarian form, of the nasal vowels, that the Hungarians heard from the Slavs no later than the middle of the eleventh century (p. 9)." then he goes on with the placenames and their origin according to him.
He concludes by claiming that "In summary, the Hungarians must have found in the eastern parts of ancient Hungary, during their progressive establishment during the tenth-thirteenth centuries in these regions now Romanian (except the "Land of the Szeklers"), Romanians and Slavs. The anonymous notary of King Béla who wrote his chronicle in the middle or at the end of the 12th century calls this mixture of the two peoples “Blasii and Sclavi” *2). This Romanian-Slavic population was driven back by the newcomers to the mountains where the Romanianization of the Slavs took place before the 13th century. (The charters—which are not attested for Transylvania until the thirteenth century—speak of the Romanians, but never of the Slavs). As the Hungarians, people accustomed to the steppe, have always had a horror of the mountains, their domination over the mountainous regions of the East of Ancient Hungary has been much reduced. This is also valid for the mountainous regions of North-East (Subcarpathian Russia) and North (Slovakia) of Hungary before the Peace of Trianon. This explains the Romanian-Slavic names of villages and towns in the mountainous regions of Transylvania (indicated by hatching on the attached map). In the plains, the depressions, the wider valleys and the sparsely wooded hilly regions, Hungarian rule impregnated the toponymy—especially that appearing in medieval charters—with a Hungarian character. Hungarian toponymy is therefore not proof of the existence in any region of a large Hungarian population; it is a toponymy of feudal origin. Moreover, even if we admit that the Romanian-Slavic population has been completely driven out of the regions where the names of the villages and towns have a Hungarian character (parts left blank on the attached map), we cannot deny the uninterrupted existence of this population at least in the regions with Romanian toponymy (Slavo-Romanian), regions indicated as densely forested on the attached map."
Those claimings are clearly in contrast to what Kniezsa asserted in his work, especially considering that the main topic of Kniezsa's work are the placenames, which Petrovici criticizes. ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and sorry for answering back later, I had no internet.
I read all what you wrote down, but we're only talking about this: "Romanian linguist and Slavist Emil Petrovici, in criticism of István Kniezsa's work, claims that settlement names of Romanian-Slavic origin are more commonly found in places which Kniesza indicates as only densely forested areas. Petrovici theorizes a retreat of the Romanian and Slavic population to mountainous hardly accessible areas during the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, where several placenames derivated from the Slavic-Romanian symbiosis can be found. He also believes that Kniezsa didn't consider the Hungarian placenames of Slavic origin which passed through Romanian and other that came directly from Romanian". It's not a "game-changer" whether "in criticism" is written down at the start or isn't. But his inference from Kniezsa's work that place-names of Romanian and Slavic origin are more commonly found in densely forested areas doesn't deny anything what Kniezsa says, just takes note of a phenomenon and also explains it with a theory. And about the etymology of those place-names, you wrote Kniezsa didn't even consider Petrovici's alternative, so in this case too there can't be any disagreement. However, I don't want this argument to be about the acceptability of naming Petrovici's work a critique because that wouldn't change anything. If you believe it is a critique, you must agree that its place is not three paragraphs away from what is criticizes, with a different topic pierced between them. I say it's the most appropriate to put it next to Kniezsa's opinion. If we concur here, we've resolved most of the disagreement. The rest is around phrasing.
Specifically about these things:
the author's name should be corrected from "Kniesza" to Kniesza
"mountainous hardly accessible" should be rewritten to "forested and hardly accessible"
"placenames" (2x) to place-names
"derivated" to derive
the rest of the sentence following the above word is incomprehensible and seemingly redundant (symbiosis means closeness, cohabitation, but it doesn't need explanation that if the Slavs and Romanians retreated to the same place they were at the same place)
the third sentence is again phrased incomprehensibly and in one place grammatically erroneously, so I put forward this version: "Petrovici identifies certain Hungarian place-names' origin differently. He views them as either Romanian-originated or Slavic-originated, but came to Hungarian through Romanian."
If you consent, I will make these changes. I can tell you that readers would hardly be able to understand your text in its current form. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I see you support the idea of Dacians being exterminated as a result of the second war. I would like to see what sources can you bring to support this when the entire or at least vast majority of the historian community says otherwise. Here are some I could find on a quick search:
Ellis, Linda (1998). Shennan, Stephen (ed.). "'Terra deserta': population, politics, and the [de]colonization of Dacia"
Opreanu, Coriolan Horațiu (2006). "The North Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries A. D.)".
Georgescu, Vlad (1991). Călinescu, Matei (ed.). The Romanians: a history. Romanian literature and thought in translation series.
Köpeczi, Béla; Makkai, László; Mócsy, András; Szász, Zoltán; Barta, Gábor, eds. (1994). History of Transylvania – From the Beginnings to 1606.
Clearly the majority of the scientific community, even the Hungarian one, does not think Dacians were exterminated. Could you please justify why we should keep that line in the article? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
If you care about my opinion I don't keep it secret that I don't believe the sources cited at the sentence in question are fully credible and free from exaggerations. However, next time when we talk I ask you not to criticize my personal views but my edits. See I'm also not accusing you of deleting that sentence because you personally don't believe in it. Everyone has their own opinions, but Wikipedia is not the place where we unfold them, you know that as an experienced contributor.
Thank you for citing sources on the topic, but I don't want to do the same, simply because I didn't revert the same sentence you removed ([19][20]) but changed it up a bit because it was backed by ancient sources, not by modern ones. And it's true that ancient writers reported the complete extermination of this people. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to criticise you as a person, I was aiming at the editing. An experienced editor on Wikipedia like yourself knows that secondary sources should be the main body of citation, while primary sources are there mostly for illustration. The reason for this in this particular case is that we may fall in making personal interpretations. Here's what Vekony says on the topic:
the critical sentence in Eutropius also exists in a different version: Daciae (Dacia) enim diuturno bello Decebali res fuerant exhaustae (Eutr. Brev. 8, 6, 2, comm. Santini). In other words: "the wealth of Dacia was plundered due to Decebal's long lasting wars."
I think the given sentence falls under illustration. Even if it's not a quote, it summarizes what the relevant part of ancient historical works say. The references are (except one) English translations of the works, not our own and they clearly talk about genocide. ("their entire people was reduced to forty men") And the chapter appears to still rely almost completely on secondary sources (see the mention of Jérôme Carcopino), even if they are unfortunately not cited. To me it looks like there is no problem with using primary sources. Or what do you think about putting in quotes? There are very informative parts to quote about the war on Dacia. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Vékony is one modern scholar. What about others, for example Köpeczi whose work is much more widely known ([21], see first paragraph) or the English translation itself which is from a reputed translator and publisher? (It is rich in notes and explanations, but it considers it "obvious" that Eutropius meant the inhabitants.) Also, Vékony doesn't refuse the "inhabitants" interpretation. He introduces another version, giving reasons why he thinks it is more likely to be correct, but he uses "may", "can" and "would".
This part of the chapter is dedicated to the presentation of the event in intra-Roman Empire accounts. I don't see any reason to write the controversial view of a group of scholars in there. Above it is the place where the war is described according to modern science. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
First of all, no part of the chapter is dedicated to presenting the events from a particular point of view. We present the main historical view - the academic consensus, more if there other relevant ones.
I've given Vekony as an example. We can obviously count how many there are that agree with his point, ideally outside Hungarian or Romanian. Here's some:
Guy Edward Farquhar Chilver (Dacia) In 105 the war was renewed, and in 106 the whole country was subdued, with large parts of its population being exterminated or driven northward. - Britannica current article
Paul MacKendrick (The Dacian Stones Speak) Dacian loses were heavy: prisoners alone numbered fifty thousands. But Dacian life was not stunted: it lived trough the 165 years of Roman occupation - 2000
Carl Waldman (Encyclopedia of European peoples) The Romans drove survivors northward and seized enormous wealth from the Dacians. - 2006
John Hazel (Who's who in the Roman world) In 107 Trajan turned the Dacian kingdom into a Roman province under a governor of consular rank, drove out many of the Dacians, and repopulated the area with settlers from the Balkan provinces and Asia Minor, founding colonies and other towns. - 2001
Notice none of the sources here talk or have anything to do with Romanian history.
It is therefore not a "controversial view" but the main view and what we present in the text at the moment is undue and deprecated. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
And you can see that—as I said—the chapter's content is still overwhelmingly from modern history books. Primary sources are only there for an illustrative purpose to verify that ancient sources report complete extermination, while the event itself is described how modern science interprets it. Vékony's idea is controversial (or disputed) as most think Eutropius's words refer to the population. Your citations are not challenging that. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Gyalu22 "complete extermination" is not verified by primary sources, that is your interpretation and that is why we should have secondary sources. Anyway, we clearly do not see things from the same side so I'll ask for 3rd opinion. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I told you already, these are not my interpretations. This is how professional translators and historians interpret the original Greek and Latin text. Or do you think "destroyed by Trajan in such a way that their entire people was reduced to forty men" isn't referring to total extermination?
I don't believe this is true and the sentence also doesn't present it as true. Can you name any problem with telling what ancient sources say when above of that visitors can read about the war from modern history book content? Gyalu22 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I see the discussion is about the Dacian people and the Trajan's Dacian Wars. Although I am not a historian or Dacian scholar, I suggest that editors in this discussion quote verbatim relevant parts of the sources, which preferably should be secondary. Per WP:RSPRIMARY (a subsection of the Reliable sources guideline), Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.
Primary sources can be used but according to WP:PRIMARY (a subsection of the policy No original research), "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". There is a set of rules on how to use them. For example, Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
We all can express our opinions, but per the Neutral point of view policy, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Finally, per WP:BALANCE (part of the NPOV policy), Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
@Thinker78 Thank you for your input and taking the time to look at this, much appreciated.
@Gyalu22 I suggest, based on what @Thinker78 said, to use either Hazel or Waldman for the verbatim quote, and perhaps we can use a couple of the references to primary sources within the phrase to offer insight into the "drove out/drove survivors" part. Aristeus01 (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for quoting from these guidelines. I can verify what primary sources say with secondary sources. I don't see any problem with the original idea that the war is described according to modern sources, but a sentence at the end shows what the primary sources report. However, I accept to quote these reports if that leads to agreement. What do you think, Aristeus01? Gyalu22 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The result of the war was devastating for the Dacian Kingdom, as historian Guy Edward Farquhar Chilver says: "in 106 the whole country was subdued, with large parts of its population being exterminated or driven northward"[8][9][10][11][12]
and perhaps it's best if we move the previous line under this to link with the next chapter
We can't talk about Dacian kingdom after the war, only Dacia province. It was established the same year it was conquered.
The country's subdue is already described. This should be about the demographic consequences.
Chilver's words are very succinct and don't mention the repopulation.
In the meanwhile I was also researching and I couldn't find any good and fitting quotes from secondary sources. I think we should use multiple sources cited here (as they all say the same) to describe the demographic consequences and then mention the primary source attestations. I still find it unexplained why there is a problem with telling what they say. It's perfectly relevant. We can quote them verbatim if that is better and put e.g. Vékony's view next to Eutropius's text. See Roman Dacia, a GA also uses these quotes. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Gyalu22, @Aristeus01, I was checking the mentioned Hungarian academic source. There are many details and long text about Dacia and the Roman times and after. The source mentions the extermination of Dacians (or almost), it also emphasizes many times in many related topics (settlements, population, economy...) that the Dacian population loss was very very high, not much Dacian left, deportation and slavery of remnants, however it does write the a total extermination just almost, and it was many immigration to the new province from everywhere even from Syria, it mention some free Dacian tribes, continous wars, more depopulation, epidemics.
Just some info, but there are much more in the sources, please read it more in the provided links:
With the demise of the kingdom, Dacian society also fell apart. Some of the common folk emigrated, and of those who remained, some were taken into slavery. The rigidly stratified society's highest caste, the 'capped ones', were decimated, and the survivors lost their status. The priesthood's authority vanished along with the kingdom; there is no surviving trace of a Dacian religion during the Roman period. Those Dacians who remained in place had great difficulty in becoming integrated into the society of a Roman province. In other conquered lands, the Romans could work with the only interlocutors that they were prepared to acknowledge, the aristocracy; but in Dacia, the aristocrats had disappeared, leaving the people without representation. It was this social vacuum, as well as the loss of population, that prompted Trajan and his successors to encourage people from other parts of the empire to settle in conquered Dacia.
Eutropius records that 'Trajan, after defeating Dacia, brought in huge masses of people from the four corners of the empire to settle in towns and rural areas; for Decebalus's long war had left Dacia {1-101.} short of men'.[43] The historian's succinct summary of cause and effect confirms that the war had severely depleted Dacia's indigenous population, leaving Trajan with the task of repopulating the province. Rome commonly rewarded veterans with land in newly-acquired provinces, and it was equally common for soldiers' families — and for merchants who catered to the army and the local population — to settle near the camps. If this had been the extent of settlement in Dacia, Eutropius would not have bothered to mention it. It is therefore significant that the historian stressed Dacia's uncommon circumstances: the disappearance of much of the local population, and the concerted attempt to repopulate the province.
The fate of an indigenous people depended on why and how Rome conquered their land. By definition, peaceful annexation was accompanied by little if any loss of life. With Dacia, this was not the case: Trajan occupied the territory after a century and a half of animosity that culminated in two wars. The protracted struggle, the reverses suffered, Decebalus' arrogance all made the Romans hate Dacians.[44] The actions of the Dacian king after the first war only sharpened this hatred. Decebalus broke his oath by failing to respect the terms of peace. He enticed and captured a high-ranking officer of the occupation army, attempted — unsuccessfully — to make the Roman change sides, then 'had the presumption to demand territories reaching to the Istros, as well as compensation for the costs of the war, in exchange for Longinus [his hostage]'. The officer solved Trajan's dilemma by committing suicide.[45] Decebalus thereupon tried to have the Emperor murdered at his headquarters in Moesia.[46] These actions only served to infuriate the Romans, who foreseeably would show no mercy for the Dacians.The wars and broken pledges would colour the Romans' image of Dacians for centuries to come.
These immediate antecedents of the second war explain why the Romans were intent on totally annihilating their enemy.In any case, the extermination of Barbarians who dared to attack the {1-102.} Imperium Romanum raised no ethical problems. This form of retaliation had already been justified by Augustus (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 3), and put into practice. Subsequently, Marcus Aurelius wanted to exterminate the Jazyges.[47] Annihilation did not mean merely the death of enemy soldier, but also the forced conscription of the vanquished and their dispatch to distant provinces, as well as slavery for others.Thus the Dacians who stood by Decebalus to the end could not have expected mercy.This helps to explain their final act, immortalized on Trajan's column: the Dacian elite committed mass suicide by poison.Most of the 10,000 gladiators in the post-victory circus games, which lasted for 123 days,[48] must have been captured Dacians. Criton, physician at the Emperor's court, participated in the Dacian campaign and recorded its history; drawing on his work, later chroniclers said that the Romans had captured 500,000 Dacians, and that, in the end, Trajan spared the life of only forty of them.[49] Although these estimates may be excessive, they no doubt reflect the nature of Daco-Roman relations and scale of Dacian losses.Thus the wars ended not only in the destruction of Dacia's military might but also in a sudden drop in its population. Even fewer were left after many Dacians fled to escape the Romans' yoke.
Dacian men were conscripted into auxiliary units and sent to Britannia or to the east. Little is known about their fate; there is nothing to indicate that any of them returned to their homeland after demobilization.In assessing Dacia's depopulation, it is important to note that the new province coincided with the centre of Decebalus' kingdom, where much of the war had been fought; it was the region that suffered the greatest loss of life, the one where Decebalus' faithful fought to the death, be it by suicide. It was mainly this region's inhabitants who were either massacred by the Romans, sold as slaves, or forced to flee beyond Rome's reach.
When founding a new province, Rome would generally impose on the natives a self-serving, territorial structure of administration {1-103.} (civitas peregrina). The local people would be divided up by tribes, unless a tribe had shown uncommon belligerence, in which case it was broken up. Tribal elites were drawn into the civitatis, which remained initially under military supervision. This tribal aristocracy benefited from Rome's favours — for instance, by being the first to be granted Roman citizenship — and would eventually provide leaders (princeps) for the civitatis. The latter provided the organizational framework for progressive Romanization and were the basis for future towns. It seems that the Romans suspended this practice in the case of Dacia, where there is no trace of any civitas. One reason must have been the absence of a tribal elite; already decimated under Decebalus' autocratic rule, the elite was largely eliminated along with the rest of the Dacian nobility, the pileati, as a consequence of Trajan's wars. Remarkably, only one tribal name survived, in vicus Anar(torum), a village belonging to the Anartes tribe in northern Transylvania;[50] however, the village was inhabited not by Dacians but by Celts, their former subjects. There also survives the name of a princeps: T. Aurelius Afer, a tribal leader who originated in Splonum (Dalmatia), and was thus not a Dacian either.[51] The other reason why the Romans may not have formed civitatis was that the residual population was to sparse to warrant such a vehicle for Romanization. Therefore, as noted, Dacia's towns were created not on the basis of, or alongside civitatis, but from military settlements and their satellite communities. This meant that what was left of the indigenous population did not participate in the urban experience that fostered Romanization. The epigraphs found in the province show no 'Thraco-Dacian' names in the membership of urban institutions, whether as council members or as priests of the cult.
Some three thousand Dacian residents have been identified by name. Estimates based on the ethnic derivation of names indicate that around 2,200 were Roman, 420 were Balkan or eastern Greek, 120 were Illyrian, 70 were Celtic, 60 were Thraco-Dacian, and another 60 were Semites from Syria; there are also German, Asian, and African names among them. At two per cent, the proportion of Thraco-Dacian names is strikingly low. The Thracian-Dacian linkage is contested, but attempts to distinguish two sets of names have brought no conclusive result; most of them appear to be authentic Thracian names, borne by people who came from the region south of the Danube. Significantly, names of obvious Dacian origin {1-107.} (Bitus, Butus, Decebalus, Diurpanaeus, Sassa, Scorilo) are found outside the province, in other parts of the empire, where Dacians were transported as slaves. In Noricum, which had a hundred-year lead over Dacia in Romanization, 24 per cent of the names are those of indigenous Celts, indicating that a comparatively large number of Celts had remained in the province and been exposed to Romanization. This contrasts with the pattern in Dacia, where the indigenous population suffered a great decline in numbers and was largely excluded from Romanization.
Thus the indigenous population had limited opportunities to become Romanized. Rome, for its part, seemed to have been much less intent on Romanizing the Dacians that it had been in the case of native peoples in its other provinces.
Archaeological finds attest that part of Dacia's indigenous population stayed on after the conquest.These include a few settlements and {1-112.} cemeteries, although in some cases the dating is uncertain, and it remains to be determined whether the settlements were inhabited both before and after the conquest. The cemeteries were discovered at Obrázsa (Obreja), Maroslekence (Lechinţa de Mureş), and Locuşteni. There are reports of other old Dacian cemeteries at Iacobeni, Radnót (Iernut), and Segesvár (Sighişoara); however, the tombstones at the last-named location bear Illyrian names. A cemetery at Mezőszopor has been fully excavated.
An ethnic analysis of cemeteries must take into account that two groups of free Dacians were settled in the province at the end of the 2nd century. The silver jewellery, bearing a granular decoration, that has been found in some cemeteries can be most plausibly attributed to Dacianized Carpi who lived across the province's eastern frontier. Similar jewels have been found in the Mezőszopor cemetery. It is, therefore, arguable that at least some of the graves belong not to aboriginal Dacians, but to Carpi or free Dacians who moved into Dacia shortly before 200.
The province's Dacian earthenware does have a bearing on Romanization. In Pannonia, the production of hand-made vessels had died out by the end of the 2nd century, and was replaced by a uniform style of wheel pottery. This did not happen in Dacia, where {1-114.} there is barely any sign of mutual influence in the potting styles of natives and settlers. The prevalence of certain types of pottery confirm the survival of a native Dacian population under Roman rule; but the unchanging style of that earthenware also indicates that this population was untouched by Romanization. In all other Roman provinces, the long and complex process of Romanization is revealed in myriad detail by archaeological finds. The latter confirm that Romanization had to leave concrete traces — in epigraphs, names, and evidence of continuity and adaptation in dress. The lack of such traces in Dacia can only lead to the conclusion that the native Dacians were not Romanized.
Romanization of the indigenous people in Dacia was only impeded by the fact that most settlers were bilingual. Proximity to camps manned by soldiers from Syria, Asia Minor, and Thrace {1-115.} scarcely helped the natives to become acquainted with Latin. The framework of civitatis, which in other provinces stimulated cultural adaptation, was absent. That absence is so striking that it may be explained not just by the comparatively small number of native Dacians, but also by a Roman decision not to Romanize the latter. The Romans' usual interlocutors of choice, a tribal aristocracy, had disappeared. Urbanization progressed slowly, and then only in part of the province. Towns grew out of the vici of military camps and not out of native settlements. The only civilian settlement to become a town was the one by the Apulum military camp, but even there, native Dacians did not participate in town life. One explanation is that most Dacians were shepherds and lived in the mountains, thus excluding themselves from Romanization. There is no evidence that, decades after the conquest, native Dacians might have been recruited into local military units, as was done in other provinces. There are no references to Dacian cults or a Dacian deity on religious memorials, nor any indication that the Dacians might have worshipped a local deity who, due to interpretatio Romana, bore a Roman name. And, apparently, no native Dacians partook of the creation of epigraphs, which was an intrinsic part of Roman culture and daily life.
The province existed for 165 years, too short a time for cultural assimilation. In Pannonia, much like in the other provinces, the material culture of the native population showed little sign of Romanization in the first 160 years of Roman rule. Everyday objects and apparel began to change only after the shock of the Marcomanni wars, and after another two centuries had passed, some regions were still not fully Romanized. In Dacia, the devastating Marcomanni wars were followed by a second wave of immigration from the east, a brief period of prosperity that coincided with the Severus dynasty and spanned a generation, more wars that spanned another generation, and then the Romans withdrew.
In sum, there is nothing to demonstrate that the indigenous Dacians who stayed behind after the conquest had become Romanized. The influence of Roman technology and culture cannot be detected even in pottery, which would have been the lowest level of Romanization. For the agrarian Dacians, there was no need to adopt new techniques; their tools had been developed centuries earlier and remained in general use. That the native Dacians failed to adopt Latin as their mother tongue — the highest level of Romanization — is not simply a conclusion drawn from the lack of contrary evidence; the fact is that Dacia's historical and social development did not make such a transformation possible.
It also seems likely that, despite the efforts at resettlement, the mines suffered from a shortage of manpower.High wages are indicative of a tight labour market. One of the wax tablets clearly indicates that by the late 160s, the district's population was declining. On 9 February 167, before the outbreak of the great wars (and before the concealment of the tablets), the officers of the Jupiter Cernenus collegium at Alburnus disbanded the association because the membership had dwindled from 54 to 17. Thus the population was shrinking even in Dacian districts that offered well-paid employment.
To introduce civil administration, Trajan needed {1-92.} to create autonomous towns, and this came about, at the latest, between 110–112. The first such town, Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta (known later as Sarmizegethusa) was founded on Trajan's instructions by the governor; those who were settled there included veterans of the Dacian Wars from the XIV Gemina, V Macedonica, and XI Claudia legions. The remaining native Dacians earned less consideration than the veterans; since agricultural land was scarce, there was a greater incentive here than in other new colonia to move out the indigenous population. Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta remained Dacia's sole town until the reign of Hadrian. The establishment of the province of Dacia had a greater effect on urbanization in other parts of the Balkans, which the defeat of the Dacians had made more secure.
The slow pace of urbanization is not the only indication that Dacia remained underpopulated in the 2nd century. A purposeful wish to embellish reality may be seen in the attribution of the term 'metropolis' to the sister towns at Apulum, Colonia Aurelia Apulensis Chrysopolis, and Sarmizegethusa; or in the minting of coins inscribed 'Dacia felix' ('Happy Dacia') at a turbulent moment in the 3rd century, just before Rome abandoned the province. Dacia also enjoyed a more tangible distinction, one in which it outdid the other Danubian provinces: up to five of its towns — Sarmizegethusa, Napoca, Apulum, Potaissa, and perhaps Dierna — were granted the ius Italicum under Septimius Severus, if not earlier. (There is no evidence that this right, which entailed exemption from land tax, was held by any of Pannonia's towns.) The purpose was to make Dacia more attractive to settlers, for early efforts at resettlement had not brought the desired results; indeed, by the 160s, people were emigrating from Dacia. The long-lasting Marcomanni wars and the plague epidemic also contributed to reduce Dacia's population. The shortage of people had a negative effect on the development of an urban culture and, consequently, on Dacia's ability to attract new settlers. After the wars, economic hardship and the delay in establishing local government led to civil disturbances. Radical remedies were needed to improve the situation and induce immigration — hence the granting of ius Italicum. This measure clearly paid off, for it drew Syrians and other settlers from the east
The result of the war was devastating for the Dacian Kingdom. Historian Guy Edward Farquhar Chilver says: "in 106 the whole country was subdued, with large parts of its population being exterminated or driven northward"[14] and John Hazel adds: "Trajan turned the Dacian kingdom into a Roman province under a governor of consular rank, drove out many of the Dacians, and repopulated the area with settlers from the Balkan provinces and Asia Minor, founding colonies and other towns."[15][16][17][18][19]
Aristeus01, problems I pointed out are still there. I would like to make an agreement but the most important is what is the best for the article, and I don't think this "scissored-together" sentence is. Below is my proposal. I mixed primary sources with verifying secondary sources, and many sources listed by you, since all say roughly the same.
Hi @Gyalu22, @Aristeus01 I think you said it well: "that secondary sources should be the main body of citation, while primary sources are there mostly for illustration" In my quoted long text which is a modern secondary source, we can see quotings from ancient authors like Criton, Eutropius, so that source is appropriate for presentation. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
To me the text looks ok, even if it is not "verbatim", with one tiny little request: could we remove inline citation after "enslaved"? I don't think it's needed there. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
^Eutropius, Eutropius. Abridgement of Roman History. Translated by Watson, John Selby. ...Trajan, after he had subdued Dacia, had transplanted thither an infinite number of men from the whole Roman world, to people the country and the cities; as the land had been exhausted of inhabitants in the long war maintained by Decebalus.
^of Heraclea, Criton. Getica, a work on the history of the Getae (in Latin). Criton, physician at the Emperor's court, participated in the Dacian campaign and recorded its history, said that the Romans had captured 500,000 Dacians, and, in the end, Trajan spared the life of only forty of them.
^I [Trajan] alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly to their physical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adopted from their admired Zalmolxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so. - Julian
^The Getae, a barbarian and vigorous people who rising against the Romans and humiliating them such as to compel them to pay a tribute, were later, at the time of king Decebal, destroyed by Trajan in such a way that their entire people was reduced to forty men as Kriton tells in the Getica. - Lucian of Samosata
^John Hazel: Who's who in the Roman World, page 309, Routledge, 2001
^Eutropius, Eutropius. Abridgement of Roman History. Translated by Watson, John Selby. ...Trajan, after he had subdued Dacia, had transplanted thither an infinite number of men from the whole Roman world, to people the country and the cities; as the land had been exhausted of inhabitants in the long war maintained by Decebalus.
^of Heraclea, Criton. Getica, a work on the history of the Getae (in Latin). Criton, physician at the Emperor's court, participated in the Dacian campaign and recorded its history, said that the Romans had captured 500,000 Dacians, and, in the end, Trajan spared the life of only forty of them.
^I [Trajan] alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly to their physical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adopted from their admired Zalmolxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so. - Julian
^The Getae, a barbarian and vigorous people who rising against the Romans and humiliating them such as to compel them to pay a tribute, were later, at the time of king Decebal, destroyed by Trajan in such a way that their entire people was reduced to forty men as Kriton tells in the Getica. - Lucian of Samosata
Feszty's panorama is pure fantasy. Might as well put images of Space Marines.
The point was to illustrate nomadic society, not just horse-lords, so I'm thinking this is more close. Or perhaps this habitat to match the connection with Turks? Btw, Bashkirs are not Siberian, they live close to were the Magyar people were formed and their name was used for Magyars as well so in many ways they are as close to those initial Magyars as any population can be. Unfortunately we do not know exactly how Hungarian Conquerors lived, otherwise I would prefer an image like this. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe it's definitely the best to illustrate the Magyars themselves. There's media about them available so I don't understand why you solely consider showing other peoples. For example, the other image I linked is from a professional book about Hungarian traditional costumes. I don't know why you call the work of Feszty "pure fantasy", although I don't insist on this option; he did serious research in preparation, even visiting the site. You can zoom in on the figures, what unrealistic do you see? There's no reason to think that the current one you inserted is more reliable, having been made from Paris, while the Bashkirs were at the Ural mountain chain on the Siberian or not the Siberian side, doesn't matter. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I think putting an image about Bashkirs in the 19th century depicting Hungarians in the 9th century is total nonsense. Baskhirs are about 3000 km far from Transylvania, they are total unrelated to the history of Transylvania article. Also, the 19th century Baskhir clothes in the painting are total different than the old Hungarians are depicted in the images. Should we add images about Huns or Scythians or Sarmatians to depict Hungarians as was claimed as Hungarian ancestry and proved by genetic studies? It would be also nonsense here, maximum on the origin of Hungarians article in the relevant section. However we cannot say about total identification as many hundred century past and becoming a nation is a very complex thing and it had many folk mixing during that way and old Hungarians were a very diverse group. There are many Hungarian historians and archeologist who depicted the old Hungarians (who were seminomads, excellent metalwork etc), if necessary we need use those depictions which about the Hungarians not about others, there are many, also there are many modern movies, images to depict them, and, those look total different than this Bashkir painting. It would be the same nonesense that depicting Japanese people of the 9th century with Vietnamese people of 19th century or depicting English people of 9th century with 19th German Bismarck. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
"Should we add images about Huns or Scythians or Sarmatians to depict Hungarians as was claimed as Hungarian ancestry and proved by genetic studies?"
Well, yes. That's what genetic studies say about Hungarian Conquerors. And if they are/were genetically related it means they looked the same and most likely had very similar cultures/clothing/housing. I don't understand why is this "complete nonsense" as you say. Yourself, as a history buff, should know better how Hungarian Conquerors lived, and surely agree with the Bashkirs being a closely related population, not to mention they still inhabit the area from where Magyars came. Am I wrong in saying it was close to this:
Feszty's panorama shows the Hungarian Grey, for example, although the breed was introduced later.
The second option you offered is a 19th century interpretation of 15th century knights/warriors, 600 years after Hungarian Conquest! I'm trying to find something that represents the nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes of the 9th century. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
We don't know which migration wave that cattle breed came from: the Magyars', the Pechenegs' or the Cumans'.
We don't know from where it came , but we are pretty certain it wasn't during Hungarian Conquest:
"Recent archaeological research has proven otherwise. According to BÖKÖ NYI (1961), based on the bone findings of the excavations, small, brachyceros-type cattle lived in Hungary before the 14th-15th centuries, which were widespread all over Europe" Imre Bodo, István Gera and Gábor Koppany - THE HUNGARIAN GREY CATTLE BREED
But that is not the central point. The point is Feszty's panorama is not historically representative but perhaps for 19th century romantic nationalism.
I think depicting Hungarians should be images about Hungarians not about others. Morover 1000 years time and 3000km distance difference is also wrong, that Baskhir image does not have any bussiness with history of Transylvania. It would be the same wrong depicting medieval Anglo-Saxons, king Arthur and knights of Cameloth as German-Saxon WW2 soldiers. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I understand the logic here, but do we have a closer image for how Hungarian Conquerors looked, dressed, and live? Anyway, I added the image I think is from Hortobagy, it even has description of karam hut, linking to old Turkic loanwords, and it is probably closer to how the seminomadic pastoral Hungarians lived than the Bashkir one. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Aristeus01, the point of my link was to show you that it's not an illustration of 14th century knights, but of Hungarian conquerors. You shouldn't criticize the date of its publication, because both the Bashkir and the Hortobágy images are older! Furthermore, it was made by reputed professionals, like Mihály Nemes. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty images, paintings, drawings, statues about Hungarian conquerors. I do not know what is karam hut and what is the bussiness with a 19th century reed huts with a lot of sheeps in the Great Hungarian Plain about the Hungarian conquerors 1000 years earlier, also this is not Transylvania. We can find sheeps and reed huts in all countries in the world today, even today in Transylvania there are many sheep herds and reed huts. Btw what about the horses? Hungarian conquerors had many horses, they were horse lords, horse warriors, horse archers, but I think showing a big horse herd from the American steppe to represent them it would be the same strange. If we want show Hungarian conquerors we need to show images about Hungarian conquerors not about other things.
This is a reconstruction image about Hungarian conquerors in Hungarian history schoolbook:
Are we going to use teaching manuals now? How can we not mention karam huts, an old turkic word, and Puszta images, the area where Hungarian culture preserved the most of the Conquerors culture and genetics? This ones even has a horse, to go with what you asked.
Still I do not understand what do you want with 19th century drawing about betyars who are not in Transylvania. Clearly the Hungarian conquerors looked not like that as we have many reconstruction images based on archeology and old descriptions by historians, why do you want to ignore those one, or the classic depictions like Feszty, Munkacsy, etc paintings? The proposed images by Gyalu also looks appropriate and shows many kind of people. I did not see ever those depictions that you choose yourself and want to put here to represent Hungarian conquerors. Hungarian conquerors used saber, composite bow, ornamented metal bag etc, while betyars were outlaws used whip and pistol... I think depicting a soldier with machine gun would be not accurate to represent Arpad. :D
For example the French people in the 1200, 1400, 1700 looked different in each century as we can see in history and fantasy movies, like seeing the Pirates of Caribean movie we know they are not medieval times but the story is about 1700s. Transylvania has no steppe (puszta in Hungarian).
I see images in the article which are related to the content, like person image about certain person in Transylvania, battle image about battle in Transylvania…
Why do you have problem to show direct depictions about Hungarian conquerors? Why do you want to show anything else just not depictions about Hungarian conquerors? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Look, Aristeus01, we're more studied in our culture than you, but just by looking at the pictures me and OrionNimrod brought up, and comparing them to your Hortobágy pictures, you can see there aren't many similarities.
They had different clothing, face, job, (the Hungarian conquerors were part-time warriors, sometimes all of the time) beliefs, traditions, etc., etc. I don't even see why it's so important to illustrate any (semi)nomadic society, especially ones that aren't very similar. The chapter talks about the appearance of the Hungarians, and their conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Gyalu22 (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The challenge of contemporary studies does not stand on gathering as much information as possible, since information is ready available in large quantities nowadays, but in the capacity of discerning the right information that can be used. For example, the images created by Mihály Nemes mingles elements from previous populations into the Hungarian Conqueror aspect: "the Hungarian costume at the time of the conquest is essentially nothing more than the ninth century figure of the Hunn-Avar costume" - citing from Arcanum text. This is highly debatable since recent studies show no direct connection and is a stretch to present it in wiki voice. Even more, the similarities to Bashkirs are universally accepted, so...
What stands in the way of finding a compromise is data showing the Hungarian Conquerors as a complex group formed of men and women, upper class warriors and lower class workers, and presenting just one of the groups cannot be representative. Furthermore, the passage associated is discussing the nomad lifestyle, not only the military tactics, so again, narrowing it to 19th or 20th century representation of horse-lords does not really cut it. What of the housing, the lower people, the way they practiced agriculture or fed themselves?
Going back to what @OrionNimrod said, I'm still surprised that important details such as amount of Old West Turkic loanwords in the agricultural vocabulary are overlooked (see gyapjú, iró, karám, olló, ürü for example), and at the confusion between betyars and pásztors. Even more, the dismissal of the 19th century image for a Middle-Age population made by one of his favourite authors, Théodore Valério, whom he previously supported as representative and "cool", leads me to conclude the cultural analysis in this cases is only at an incipient stage. Perhaps discussions on Pirates of the Caribbean and Romulans are more appropriate.
The purpose of this edit (and the discussion) is to sieve the elements representative of a very particular and interesting group, as opposed or simply compared to modern populations, in order to better visualise it. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
You're the one who's championing 19th century images of shepherds and Ural nomads to be identical with 9th century Hungarian conquerors. The sentence you referred to says Hungarian costume was around the same as Avar costume from the same time. I think there's no doubt that nomadic groups from the same time and place had similar dresses. However, the statement of the book the Hortobágy picture comes from is laughable: "And, indeed, this people are at the present day exactly in the same condition as were their ancestors when they occupied Hungary a thousand years ago." I guess that book was written not for academic purposes, but to inform the Americans who were ignorant of this landscape.
Regarding your second paragraph, this article doesn't go into details about how the Hungarians lived, because this is not their article. The § Hungarians chapter talks about their appearance in the region and their conquest of it. BTW, representations of their entering show the baggage train too; that's the "lower people". However, I won't let a detailed illustration of their housing, diet, agriculturing technique, etc. go through. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Representing Hungarian Conquerors we need to use images that represent them not others and other things. This is the same to represent any people, items, events. Using French people to represent Russians? Using a table image to represent a door? Using a banane to represent a coconat palm tree? Using WW2 aircraft to represent ancient Roman soldiers? What a nonesense, nobody do this. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
regarding your reed hut image from 1890, just I would like to show this about the semi-nomadic Hungarians:
Diary about the excavation of the Hungarian conqueror cemetery of Gedahalom: the archeologist found that the old Hungarinas lived not only yurts, but brick houses too, even there are brickgraves, building materials: brick, tile (Moreover, they built it without digging a foundation, but just smoothed the surface, just like the Khazars in east) And the yurts had big rampart, a 2-3 meter deep and 2-3 high, 4 meter wide, which needed many weeks or months to build. They found animal bones: horse, sheep, cattle, pig, cat, poultry, dog and grains: wheat, barley, millet...which indicate that they used farming also.. [23] more images about this [24]OrionNimrod (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Retracting old theories as "fact"
Hi everyone, I see @Aristeus01 is referring to old theories, I don't think this is a good direction, after all we are all here to make wikipedia as modern and, credible as possible. I think old theories should be ignored. CriticKende (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The source is from 2023. The image is in discussion, so please do not take anymore unilateral decisions, or I will have to report you to an admin. Aristeus01 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Would you clarify what theories you are discussing. The theory of double conquest is a fringe theory, we should not mention it in this article. Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod Let me get this straight: because of a map in a different article, added after the discussion here with no direct association to the topic of Hungarian Conquerors, the edits for the double-conquest theory are OK because national-communist propaganda which supported Romanian indigeneity does not agree with Martyn Rady's assessment of how Cumans participated in the reestablishment of the Bulgarian Empire in symbiosis with Vlachs?
Yes, I believe this to be the case. The following edit was deleted with the explanation "outdated theory":
"Other theories dismiss the continuity between late Avar and Hungarian Conquerors and/or the "double-conquest" (kettős honfoglalás) of the Carpathian basin." - source Bálint Csanád - Gyula László’s theory of the “two-time conquest of the Magyars” and the archaeology of the Avars. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The article does not mention the double conquest theory, so it is total unnecessary to mention the critic of a theory what is not mentioned with a long quote. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure about the format. Should we list every single mention of Hungarians or Saxons too in every old medieval documents? It would be a thousand pages book. Or should we mention every single things only about the Romanians in Hungarian documents? And what is the time limit? Every single mention about Romanians until 1900? It would be also a long book. You can see this is different than the other part of the article or other history articles, where we are focusing to the important things and events, historiography, historian researches, not about every single details.
Example, is this important for the history of Transylvania?
In 1256 King Béla IV of Hungary, upon the complaint of Archbishop Benedict of Esztergom, confirms the right of the archdiocese to tithes from mining wages and from animal taxes collected from the Szeklers and Vlachs to the king or anyone else, among the judicial, accommodation and taxation privileges of the archdiocese, with the exception of land rents from Saxons, but also from Vlachs from everywhere and from anywhere they came
In the spring of 1291, in Alba Iulia, King Andrew III, the last from the Arpadian dynasty, convened and presided over an assembly consisting of the representatives of "all nobles, Saxons, Szeklers and Romanians" (cum universis Nobilibus, Saxonibus, Syculis et Olachis). This was the general congregation of all the privileged groups in Transylvania (the Hungarian nobles, the Saxons, the Szeklers and the Romanians), held about six months after the General Assembly of the Kingdom of Hungary, unfold at Buda
This is not Transylvania:
In 1247, Béla IV of Hungary gives the "Land of Severin" to the Knights Hospitallers with two polities (kenezatus of John and Farkas), except kenezatus of voivode Litovoi which was left to the Vlachs as they held it
The other question, there are many duplicates in many section in different format not just a raw list.
Example duplicate, myself edited earlier this, it is already at the Mongol invasion section:
Several sources cite that the passes of the Carpathians in Transylvania were defended by the Vlachs together with Székelys and Saxons during the Second Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1285.
Thanks for pointing that part. I missed quite a few passages when doing the big copy move are not specific to Transylvania.
I don't think the paragraph is too long. By comparison the "Hungarians" part is quite extensive. As for Saxons, my opinion is that the segment is too brief, and should probably be extended. They might no longer be a large minority but their history in the region is quite important.
In any case, since there is another section dealing with Romanian loss of status, this one should not expand past end of 13th century - early decades of the 14th, otherwise it would just repeat information. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The Hungarian section is about many important historical events in the same format as other articles, and not only listing all mentions about Vlachs that some Vlachs moved A city in 1250, and some Vlachs moved B city in 1251 one by one like a accountant yearbook.
However I do not have issue with the information just we need present in a proper way, like you can see I attached this Vlach mention in the Mongol invasion historical event content together with the story:
In 1285, Nogai Khan with Talabuga led the invasion of Hungary. Talabuga led an army in northern Hungary but was stopped by heavy Carpathian snow; he was defeated near Pest by the royal army of Ladislaus IV and ambushed by the Székelys in retreat. Talabuga's army ravaged Transylvania; cities such as Reghin, Brașov and Bistrița were plundered. Still, the invaders suffered from lack of food, being also confronted with the resistance of the local people, Székelys, Romanians and Saxons.
Benedict, abbot of the church Szent Tamás of Esztergom, wrote regarding the Mongol invasion of 1285: "26,000 Tatars were killed in the Kingdom of Hungary, so the Tatars fled, trying to save themselves from the hands of the Hungarians, they reached Transylvania, but the Székelys, Vlachs and Saxons blocked the roads with their scouts and surrounded them...". Iohannes Longus de Ypre, Marino Sanuto Torsello recorded that in the Mongol invasion the passes of the Carpathians were defended together by the Romanians and the Székelys: "However, the remnants of the Tatars returned to Cumania, after their retreat, the nations of Pannonia, the Vlachs and the Székelys, who live in the Zipheos [Carpathian] mountains, which the Hungarians call forests [Transylvania], closed those passes in such a way that the Tatars could no longer cross them."
I hided also the Latin this under the reference number:
Sófalvi, András (2012). A székelység szerepe a középkori és fejedelemség kori határvédelemben [The role of Székelys in border defense during the Middle Ages and the age of Principality] (in Hungarian). Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület (Transylvanian Museum Association). sed siculi, olachi et Saxones omnes vias ipsorum cum indaginibus stipaverunt sive giraverunt et sic (de vita ipsorum omnino sunt de) necessitate cogente ibidem castra eorum sunt metatiOrionNimrod (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Why do you moved the 14th century Vlach law section and 13th century documents below many earlier events? Should we move the Goth/Hun section after the Principality Transylvania after 1700? OrionNimrod (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Vlach Law refers to a set of rules used by Vlachs/Romanians from Serbia to Poland.
Why do you add "Romanians in the 13th century Hungarian documents" chapter in the Migration Period 300-800 chapter? Why do you move that 13th century raw lists, 13-14th century churces, King Béla 1256, King Andrew III 1290 before the Hungarian conquest stories (895), Gelou (900), Menumorut (900), King Saint Stephen (997-1038) + Gyula (1000), King Ladislaus (1060, 1080), Saxon colonist 1150?
Should we move the Huns (400) after the Principality of Transylvania (1700) following that logic?
That Migration Period chapter list the migratory peoples: Huns, Goths, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, do you say Romanians migrated after the Hungarian conquest and before King Stephen (1000)?
You can see on the left side the subchapter of "Hungarians" is the "Medieval Gesta Hungarorum and the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin" chapter in 860-900 which is connected. Why do you split in two the same story with 13th century documents?
I am being polite here by not adding anything to Romanian chapter than the mentions in Hungarian documents or moving the Romanians chapter directly after Antiquity. There are plenty of sources, even if they are "disputed", that can justify the placement earlier.
Even more, following Romanians historians we could add a lot of info besides the one already included in the "Romanians in the Hungarian documents" that would place their earlier mention before 13th century. To add to that, although I am not a historian myself, from what I understand the medieval polities in Transylvania described by Gesta are considered part of Romanian history by the said historians.
That chapter is about "Romanians' presence in Hungarian documents" as the title suggest not about where were the Romanians in the antiquity which is disputed. Btw following that logic, you can move "13th century Hungarian documents" chapter before the Dacians if you say Romanians were there in antiquity, why not? Still I do not know what is the business the antiquity with "13th century Hungarian documents". My problem the chapter and its content regarding the chronology. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Again, I only left the Hungarian documents there so we do not go into another round of debating the origin of the Romanians. I will gladly add Russian Primary Chronicle and the Blakumen to the chapter "Romanians" as an intro Anonymus and Simon of Keza books. I think it is a fair compromise. Or would you prefer to move the Hungarian documents down and put the paragraph with Romanians before Hungarians, with the info I just mentioned? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
So your real poblem that the Romanians are not mentioned earlier in the article than the Hungarians. Right? As you can see I moved the Daco-Roman theory chapter in the antiquity and there is link "oirign of Romanians" -> Earlier than the Hungarians.
Could you tell me what do we know about Romanians after the Romans and before the Hungarians in Transylvania? The Biertan Donarium? It is already mentioned.
I do not think that "Romanians' presence in Hungarian 13th century documents" King Béla 1256, King Andrew III 1290 would be proper before the Hungarian conquest stories (895), Gelou (900), Menumorut (900), King Saint Stephen (997-1038) + Gyula (1000), King Ladislaus (1060s, 1080s). Do you think it is correct to mention a document from king Andrew III from 1293 before the mentioned events? Morover for example that King Stephen took Transylvania from Gyula 300 years earlier is more important event regarding the history of Transylvania. What is your real purpose? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Do we use or not images and phrase supporting the Daco-Roman continuity theory or the Immigrationist theory? If no, why do we try to put an image with the text "settling Romanians"? If yes, why are the parts on continuity theory not allowed/expanded? Aristeus01 (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
So what is the difference between adding a caption to this image and adding a caption to transhumance image? Why is one acceptable and the other is not? Aristeus01 (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Because one presents a contested hypothesis and the other the first autonomies of Romanians in the Kingdom of Hungary - fitting for the chapter. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The hypothesis of the first autonomies of Romanians in the Kingdom of Hungary and a contested theory. That map should not be there. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand you. These Romanian autonomies are documented from the 12-13th century onward. The chapter talks about them and the map shows them. Why is that a problem for you? You yourself came up with many fragments verifying their existence. They aren't a theory and no authors contest them. The matter of hypothesis is that there were or weren't other places inhabited by Vlachs in Transylvania. I hope you see now that it doesn't go against anyone's viewpoint. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point: the map which you want to keep states in capital letters "settling Romanians" - a very contested topic. Can we agree on a course of action in favour of the article being free from these contentious entries or not? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I've already talked about this, but I repeat. The image caption says these are the settlements mentioned to be inhabited by Romanians in the mainly 13th century documents the chapter talks about; and they are! Whether these were the first Transylvanian communities of settling Romanians, or some of a much larger autochthonous civilization is a matter of debate, but what the map shows is accepted by both sides and is very relevant. Only that it was made by a Hungarian cartographer who liked the first alternative. If it were made by a Romanian cartographer, it would say something else that is the opposite. Everyone picks sides, but duh, the caption is there anyway. This is the same as in the Vlach law article. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Therefore, by applying the logic you presented here, what exactly is disputed in this map:
What is your goal by making me to repeat myself again and again? I've elaborated all reasons for my change Α to Ω. You're not justifying the action you want to make, you're just taking my time for nothing. I ask you to stop doing that.
You yourself wrote it's a hypothetical map.
The map presents Romanian autonomies inside Hungary that aren't dubious and completely fitting with the chapter. But the cartographer is Hungarian. Nevertheless...
That is not what I asked so obviously you are not repeating yourself. That the map contains hypothetical information is not debated, nor against wiki rules. What I asked is an argument to your edit explained as no need for Daco-Roman hypotheses to interfere here which you have not provided an answer for it. I initiated a conversation to reach an agreement so it is mostly my time that has been wasted so far.
I liked the idea of getting away from both theories and focusing on facts, not politics but I note that you do not consider erroneous to use phrases and images that explicitly support Immigrationist theory but demand that the continuity theory be censored. This is a no deal. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Neither theories are censored. Both are mentioned, but the history of Transylvania has to be presented neutrally and not through one of them. It's very good that we agree on that. The point of divergence between our standpoints is at this map, more precisely whether it's biased towards one opinion or not.
From here I can only repeat my arguments again. The map presents the Romanian lands the chapter talks about, so the relevancy is perfect. The cartographer visibly thinks these were the only Vlach communities in the region at the time, but what does that change? The same way as in the Vlach law article, the image is presented impartially by an appropriate caption. What it shows is not questioned by the supporters of the continuity theory. So it doesn't depict contested hypotheses. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Also, I guess the "hypothetical" adjective you used to describe it is false. It's just a map showing migration paths of Balkan Vlach shepherds around the 18th century. And it has nothing to do with the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Nor with the Vlach law, as it ceased to being referred to in the 17th century. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have no problem to mention main theories, even many section like this "according to Hungarian historian", according to Romanian historian" already has many theories, because it is part of the history of Transylvania, however I think it would be good to use them content related way and not too much details, because there are main articles. I think this is important and relevant regarding the population at the time of the Hungarian conquest to present both opinions: [25]
(Not a photoshopped fantasy painting like this from an user: File:1419VOIVODATE.png (where many regions detached from Hungary and marked as Ottoman vassal areas in 1419 during King Sigismund) the user is very keen to add to articles against many editor and talk page discussions [28] )
This map made by an user not by a historian: File:Transhumance ways of the Vlachs.jpegmorover legend says 18-19th century, what is business with medieval times? Should we put a 21st century population movement in a medieval chapter? :)
As Gyalu22 said: "You yourself came up with many fragments verifying their existence". Aristeus01 used Hungarian archive documents to show the Vlachs in those entries, so that historians are used that medieval documents to present the known Vlach settlement at that time whitout any speculation. Which means it is not a theory but the documented Vlach villages. The theory would be to add or remove speculated non documented settlements.
Aristeus01 yourself have put in the article many this kind of similar info from old documents: "After 1276 May 8, King Ladislaus allows the chapter of Alba Iulia to settle 60 Romanian households (mansiones) on the border of his estates called Fülesd and Enyed, separated from the episcopal lands, and to exempt them from all royal taxes, fiftieth and tithes."
In every centuries many new Hungarian and Romanian settlements were established as Transylvanian population increased, they numbers were growing as we can see in the Kristo source below. So Hungarians and Romanians both settled on many new settlements and they both established many new and history documents attest them.
Aristeus01 what would you like, draw 1000 Romanian settlements as speculation like in the Draganu map? Like "in XY area 100 Romanian villages should be because"always majority Romanian" that would be just speculation while the other shows only the documented Romanian settlements, autonomies = not a hypothetical map. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Again, we are not discussing the point. @Gyalu22 deleted the transhumance map because: "there's no need for Daco-Roman hypothesis". I've asked him what is related to Daco-Roman theory in the map and in the end he admitted he missed the timeline of the map. Besides I asked if we decided to not expand one theory or the other(s) why did he reinstated a map that explicitly promotes one view? Since clearly your (plural) opinion is that the map is useful, I take it's OK to present such information (Immigrationists or Continuity related) as long as it is within Wiki rules, of course. My misunderstanding I guess, since I thought that should be discussed and limited. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/Fájl:Pannonia01_hu.svg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://cdn.adh.reperio.news/image-b/b0cef357-aa29-43ce-90d8-a1b2aaa269ec/index.png?p=a%3D1%26co%3D1.05%26w%3D1400%26h%3D750%26r%3Dcontain%26f%3Dwebp){kind=link}
![[10]](https://tortenelemportal.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/roman-9-13-sz.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://dacians.romaniadevis.ro/storage/pages/04-2dmaps/harta-dacia-t04.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/People%27s_Crusade_%28cs%29.JPG){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_in_the_14th_Century.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_814.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
