Talk:John Hunyadi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Sources about Cumanian origin

• What source is http://lexikon.katolikus.hu/? (year of publication, authors). Also please offer here the English translation
• Who is Balassa Zoltán and when did he publish his work? Also please offer here the English translation
• Please offer here the English translation of Ferenc Glatz's text Sutgol (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Answers

• This is the online version of [1] encyclopedia series. The online version was edited by András Rácz, dean of the Faculty of theology in the Pázmány Péter Catholic University and Miklós Pásztor. Translation (sorry for my grammar): his ancestors were Catholic boyars of probably Cumanian origin from Wallachia.
• Zoltán Balassa is a historian and journalist from Kosice, Slovakia, one of his famous works is the four volumes of Két nemzet a Kárpát-medencében – A szlovákok történelme (Kosice - Budapest 2006, 2007, 2007, 2010). He published this work about Hunyadi in the cultural journal of Jel in Dec. 2001 (according to this source). Some translations from this sourced work with footnotes and citations: (1) The social and political organization of Wallachia in previous centuries carried out by the stay here Turkic elements, mainly the Cumans. (2) Hunyadi's ancestors were descendants of a Turkic genus (3) According to professor [László] Rásonyi, these two male names show John Hunyadi's Cuman origin. Zoltán Balassa is not considered as "extremist" historian, see [2], [3] and [4].
• From Ferenc Glatz, former president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: János Hunyadi came from a Cuman-origin family from Wallachia (p. 171.), His father, Vajk son of Sorba was the first-born child of Cumanian kenéz [sorry I don't know the English translation of this position] from Wallachia and Elizabeth Morzsinay. (p. 156.). --Norden1990 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the evidence for the Cuman theory about his origin. But what does that has to do with discrediting the main theory with the addition of the words "most likely"? Adrian (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that a theologian (András Rácz) can be considered a specialist in such issues. Historians should be preferred.
• I am afraid that is not enough that Zoltán Balassa is a historian. Any graduate of a faculty of history is a historian. Can you offer more details about his qualification? Is he a university professor at least?
• I don't think that if someone considers that "the name of Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin.", it means that John Hunyadi was Cuman. The medieval documents linked in the current article refer to a Vlach (Romanian) origin Sutgol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Adrian, quote from your talkpage: "Most likely = most probable theory, but there is a lack of evidence. And there are other theories by contemporary sources and academic works." I have not doubted his Romanian origin, it is clear that this is the most supported theory. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rácz only edited this lexicon, here is the list of authors: [5] with lot of historians . --Norden1990 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This current version is OK for me. "Son of a noble family of Romanian origin according to the majority of sources" - "Son of a noble family of most likely Romanian origin", sorry, I don't understand the difference. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Big difference because this is an article. If you say "I am the best in quake" and add "most likely" it is not quite credible because it is very unofficial. Adrian (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am quite curious about genetic researches of Basarab dynasty. I have read somewhere that researchers are intending to do it in the close future. What if the Romanian ruling class was of Cuman origin? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable research prove that the Basarab dynasty was of Cuman origin, then that`s it. We correct the articles and move on. Adrian (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I reiterare my unanswered above request: It is not enough that Zoltán Balassa is a historian. Any graduate of a faculty of history is a historian. Can you offer more details about his qualification? Is he a university professor at least?
• Which person from this list [[6]] wrote the passage about Hunyadi? Is it a recent research?
• I am very moderate in believing these sources which totally ignore the medieval documents which call Hunyadi a Vlach (one is even presented in the article: "Pope Pius II writes that Hunyadi did not increase so much the glory of the Hungarians, but especially the glory of the Romanians among whom he was born")Sutgol (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As no more additional information were oferred, I removed two questionable sources Sutgol (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Glatz source? --Norden1990 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not delete it. I moved it to the paragraph about Voyk Sutgol (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not true, that is a completely different source. A magyarok krónikája, this is the Glatz publication. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Lexicon: I provided the list of authors and the members of the editorial Board, it's fully credible and useful source. Iaaasi, have you ever seen a encyclopedia, which each entry (here 'Hunyadi János' is coupled with the concrete author? I don't think so. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Write here the name of the so called historian who claims in the Catholic Lexikon that Voyk, in spite of medieval sources that name him a Vlach, is Cuman. I am interested in his CV 89.162.131.190 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is still no information about the author Sutgol (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual count

The issue is solved now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The source provided by User:Norden1990 uses the formula "Perpetual count": http://books.google.ro/books?id=vEJNBqanT_8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+Realm+of+St+Stephen:+A+History+of+Medieval+Hungary+engel&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=8-k9UtHuMsaLtQaujoGgBg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=perpetual%20comes&f=false 79.117.169.57 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Which are the sources that support the Hungarian ethnicity?

The question is addressed to User:Borsoka. 79.117.174.82 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Borsoka, I am still waiting for sources which univocally tag Hunyadi as an ethnic Hungarian (and don't leave any interpretation that the meaning would be "Hungarian citizen"). According to source no 10. from the article (John_Hunyadi#cite_note-10), "John Hunyadi was a Romanian" => contradiction 79.117.161.106 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another instance of the contradiction is the fact that the subject is placed simultaneously in Category:15th-century Hungarian people and Category:15th-century Romanian people 79.117.163.102 (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as there is no answer, I will delete this unsourced claim 79.117.187.193 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Norden1990 Thanks for finally adopting a constructive approach and providing some sources. But I don't think that the formala used there, "Hungarian general", implies that Hunyadi was an ethnic Hungarian. It simply denotes, as the Canadian historian L. S. Stavrianos writes, that he was a Romanian in the service of Hungary. An analogy that comes into my mind is with Giorgio Basta, who was an ethnic Italian, but is described in sources as an "Austrian general" [7] (general in the Austrian army). Another similar case is with Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, who was ethnic Finnish, but acted as a Russian general (general in the Imperial Russian Army) during WWI 79.117.160.27 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The historian Barbara Jelavich also presents Hunyadi as a Romanian in Hungarian service. If there will no objection to my comments here, I will make the article modification tomorrow 79.117.164.229 (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate my request for all editors who contest my statements to expose their counter-arguments here, on the talk page 79.117.163.217 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Koertefa ("His mother was Hungarian according to several sources"). The father of Matthias Corvinus was also Romanian according to some sources (3 of them mentioned above), so I assume that you support this edit 79.117.177.89 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I do if you cite some direct sources which call Matthias Corvinus Romanian (we have such sources for John Hunyadi, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica claims that he was a Hungarian general). Otherwise it looks original research. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica uses the formula "Hungarian general" which does not imply that he was an ethnic Hungarian (see the above examples Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and Giorgio Basta) 79.117.177.89 (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does not use the word "ethnic". On the other hand, it is quite rare to emphasize ethnicity in sources directly with the phrase "ethnic Hungarian". For example, Albert Apponyi came from an ancient Hungarian noble family which traced it roots back to the conquering Hungarian tribes, still I did not find a source which directly call him "ethnic Hungarian"... Thus, a source which calls Matthias Corvinus Romanian or of Romanian origin/ancestry, etc., is enough, it don't have to explicitly use the word "ethnic" either. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are some quotes: "(partly) Romanian origin of Matthias Corvinus" / "the Romanian Matthias Corvinus" / "Matthias Corvinus, was of Romanian origin." / "was of Romanian origin on his father's side" 79.117.177.89 (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's OK, then we can also add that category. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that User:Fakirbakir does not support this agreement [8] 79.117.172.6 (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. On the other hand, he also has a point, i.e., Barack Obama's father was a Luo, but that does not immediately make Barack Obama one (e.g., he was born and grew up in the US). It is not an easy question. Obama has a category called "American people of Luo descent". Maybe, we should not use the category "15th-century Romanian people" for Matthias Corvinus, but create a new one called "15th-century Hungarian people of Romanian descent" or something like that. I am open in this question. On the other hand, we should not discuss this here, but on the Talk page of the related article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "Hungarian people of Romanian descent" is enough. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"the formula "Hungarian general" does not imply that he was an ethnic Hungarian", is it your original research, dear Iaaasi? --Norden1990 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: Even if the word "Hungarian" does not always mean ethnic Hungarian, the word "Magyar" always does (in English sources). And there are sources which call John Hunyadi Magyar, e.g., [9] or [10]. Of course, I know that many modern sources claim that the Hunyadi family had its roots in Wallachia, but it does not contradict that John could also be ethnic Hungarian. His ethnicity is controversial and he could even had a mixed ancestry (for example, if his mother was Hungarian), so we should list him in all reasonable categories. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Koertefa One your sources uses the phrase "Magyar national hero", which can be read as "Hero of the Magyar nation" and the other one, written more than 150 years old, shamelessly hides the (at least) high probability of Romanian origin. But I agree to keep the category because of the possible Hungarian origin of the mother.

@User:Norden1990 :

Hungarian (comparative more Hungarian, superlative most Hungarian)

1. Of, from or pertaining to present-day Hungary, the ethnic Hungarian people or the Hungarian language.

2. Of, from or pertaining to the Kingdom of Hungary, during the days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, regardless of ethnicity. {http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hungarian} 79.117.177.89 (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Romanian populism

Of course Hyniadi is a hungarian hero adopted by the Romanian nationalist. Same as Drakula who is clearly a Slavic personage. But this country ( founded in 20th century) must adopt history and personages from the neighbors in order to consolidate his population ( like FYROM this days) For Romania, Krakra is romanian hero, Silistar Dobritch and Vidin are ex Romanian towns because Burabista took them 2500 years ago. Hyniadi and Stephen The Great are romaninas and many many more.

84.232.208.99 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC) A comment with so many factual errors (Romania formed in the 20th century, Stephen the Great - Musat - is not Romanian, etc) and misspellings (Hyniadi, Drakula, Burabista) is quite unconvincing. And no Romanian ever claimed Vidin, we just like the place because of our war of independence from way back in 1877 - 19th century. It is also good to state your starting position/bias in such situations.

Respectfully, a Romanian convinced by the article's sources about John's origin.

Walachian is not equal to Romanian

Who protected this article is an idiot and afraid of something Why this article writes that "Walachian (Romanian) ancestry"? Let's be precise: "Walachian (present day Romanian)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.245.214 (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cuman, Walachian, Hungarian - Who cares?

In this article, please consider that NONE of the theories are proven. No one can prove he was Cuman, Walachian or Hungarian! For this reason, the only way for us with this article is to inform readers about ALL the possibilities. The kodex cited az a pro for the Walachian origin is widely known as an unreliable source. Somewhere I saw Walachian theory is supported by a Canadian (!) scholar. Excuse me, but anyone can pull out a "scholar" like this. Until historians decide, we should be objective and list all the possibilities, in the order of possibility:: Cuman, Walachian, or Hungarian. And I tell you here also: Walachian is not equal to Romanian. Vlachs are just one part of the many ethnic groups that are part of the present day Romania. Romania exist since 1868. To state that Walachian=Romanian is like saying that Apache indians has always been US citizens. Please correct this. But in the end: it is not worth fighting for him, because he fought for ALL of these nations. It doesn't really matter, what family he came from, he treated himself as a Hungarian, but would have died for Walachians, Serbians, Slovenians, Bosnians, doesn't matter. He fought for the whole Carpatian Basin, and for all of its nations, he was a hero for all of the people of these nations.. This is exactly the MOST IMPORTANT reason, why we NEED to list ALL of the possibilities and not trying to press down other theories on a nationalist base. Thank you. 81.183.245.214 (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You should read WP:WEIGHT 79.117.189.121 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please...you are everywhere? Your IP is from Craiova, Romania...if it was from Scotland or so, I'd believe your intentions are clear and your approach is scientific. But tell me the truth, is there an official team in Romania, keeping an eye on important WP-articles? It seems to me thats the case...and you cite me and hide behind WP-rules?...I'd give a lot if you understood, what I was talking about. Nationalism is what stands between these nations. I wanted this change in the article for all of us. For you also. Just for your sake: Hunyadi was never heard speaking Wallachian, even on his death bed he was talking Hungarian. He was called "Olah Janko" only as a mocking nickname by his enemies, because he was from Havasalföld (like now in Hungary a lot of uneducated people calls Szekelys as "the Romanians"). Secondly, his "father" was a cumanian "kenez". Show me one single kenez in histroy who was Wallachian. You won't find one, because they were Cumans. But let's imagine the impossible, and pretend he was not Cuman, but Wallachian. In this case, explain me, why his father was given a whole county (Hunyad county) from Hungarian king Sigismundus, when Hunyadi was 5 years old? Can you imagine a Hungarian king, who gives a county to a Wallachian guy, known by nobody in Hungary (only his second name "Vaik" is known)? The only explanation for this is: Hunyadi's father was Sigismundus (and you can find many contemporary legends about that). You can say it's only a legend, but if you can tell me an other reason, why his father was given Hunyad county, I'd accept it. The only chance for you is to prove he was PARTLY a Wallchian (but this is still not equal to Romanian), if it was proven his MOTHER was Wallachian. And I tell you, that could easily be the truth, because her name was "Morzsinai" that really sounds as a Wallachian name. So he might be a half Wallachian (on his mother's side) and half German, Hungarian, Saxon on his father's side(I don't know the ancestry of Sigismundus, but his genes were mixed pretty much). But we are not here to argue, we are not scholars. One can live in a lie for long, one can shout lies louder than truth, others can hide behind WP-rules. But this won't change the truth. You can believe in what you were said in a Romainian book and school, next to Dako-Romanian theory. But think about it: I'd bet if you search, you'll find a Hungarian ancestor of you. And if I'd search, I'd find a Wallachian ancestor for myself. So, does it really matters, what origin Hunyadi had? I think he fought for Wallachians and for Serbians and for Hungarians, everyone. I think my approach is peaceful. I don't want to be written in the article: Hunyadi had Hungarian ancestry. I wanted to be written: Cuman, Wallachian, or Hungarian. And thats the truth. WE DON'T KNOW. But look at your approach: you say that, he was not just simply Wallachian, but one of you added in brackets: Romanian. Why was that neccessary, what do you think? If anybody is curious, what "Wallachian" means, you think he cannot click on the word "Wallachian" and look it up for himself? No, you want it to be written "front page": Romanian. Can you feel the difference between my point and your point? Peace. 81.183.245.214 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I will answer for now only to your request to show "one single kenez in histroy who was Wallachian" by gving you a link to a chapter of a Hungarian book called "Romanian Voivodes and Cnezes, Nobles and Villeins": [11] 79.117.167.31 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Name

His Serbian name is given as Janko Hunjadi on the plaques at Kalemegdan and the Belgrade Fortress. --93.86.40.222 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative names in the lead section

@User:Surtsicna : Ten name versions in two rows before even saying who he was! Not to mention that a person reading English language sources is highly unlikely to encounter any of those except for János. Copy-editing accordingly. - no policy says that we should include only alternative names that can be found in English-language sources . According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_alternative_names, we may add "significant names in other languages". For sure at least some of the ten alternative names are relevant enough (for instance the Romanian one, as he had Romanian origin and is regarded as an important hero in Romanian historiography; as a bonus, Iancu de Hunedoara is also used in English-language sources: [12] [13]) 79.117.178.181 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How would you decide which of the ten are significant enough? The only objective (non-arbitrary) criterium would be usage in English language sources, and only the Hungarian name passes that criterium. Not including the Romanian name does not mean that he is not significant to Romanian history. As for the usage of the Romanian name, it is hardly surprising that Romanian authors use the Romanian name even when writing in English. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"The only objective (non-arbitrary) criterium would be usage in English language sources," - Is this criterion your own invention? Cause I can't find it anywhere in wiki rules.

English language sources written by Romanian authors still count as English language sources 79.117.178.181 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's choosee an article recently edited by you: Smederevo Fortress. In which English-language sources does the name Cмeдepeвcκa твpђaвa (that is mentioned in the lead section) appear? 79.117.178.181 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest native (Hungarian), Latin and Romanian name variants into the lead section. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I can agree on that, with the only remark that the Romanian name is the native name 79.117.178.181 (talk)

Fortunately, academics and historians do not share your misconception. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known." English-language sources written by Romanian authors are indeed English-language sources, but they clearly represent a tiny minority. I am not going to discuss a completely unrelated article here. Other stuff exists. If you don't like it, go argue against it; I don't care about it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hunyadi in Romania

I suggest to User:Fakirbakir the addition of the following idea to the Legacy section: " Romanian historiography adopted the Transylvanian voivode but was not able to assimilate him fully; at any rate it did not imprint him in the national consciousness to the extent that Hungarian historians did" - from here

Also I am not sure if the current text gives the impression that National Communism is still actual in Romania 79.117.179.45 (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the problem. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Borsoka what do you think about the recent addition: "John Hunyadi, a Hungarian hero, was subordinated to the ideology of National Communism in the era of Ceausescu and transmuted into a hero of Romania" ? 79.117.188.3 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that his life should be first described in the article instead of his role in historiography of certain nations. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hunyadi's role in Romanian historiography (especially in Communist Romanian historiography) is an interesting and valuable information. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. However, first the text of his life should be improved. Maybe he is well-known in Central Europe, but I think those who were born thousands of kilometers far from here would like to get information on his life, before reading of his role in the historiography of this or that nation. :) Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That is why we mention it (only) in the "legacy" section as an interesting additional information. I do not really see any valid reason for deletion. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to delete it. It is not a priority for me. That is all. Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The mention of ethnic origin

Why was the text The Hunyadi family were a noble family in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary from Wallachia and had Romanian origin according to the majority of sources. removed here? Isn't the Romanian ethnicity worth mentioning in the article body? I don't understand the edit summary. Queen Elizabeth II was the male-line great-great-granddaughter of a German prince while John Hunyadi is presented himself as a Romanian by different sources (I can cite for instance Pope Pius II, who wrote: John was a Vlach by birth - [14])

Thr lead contains the phrase According to most contemporary sources, he was son of a noble family of Romanian ancestry, and the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. (MOS:INTRO)

PS Offtopic remark: I've found a very interesting passage in the Pope's book, which seems to suggest that Hungarian was still spoken in present-day Western Russia in the 15th century: [15]86.127.22.113 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(1) There are references in the main text to the family's Wallachian origin and to his "Vlach" name. Of course, the Pope's reference to his "Vlachness" could also be cited - based on reliable source. (2) Is the above statement "according to majority of the sources" based on a reliable source? Borsoka (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The text "according to majority of the sources" may be WP:ORIGINALSYN, I don't know. I just noticed that the Romanian ancestry is mentioned in the lead and it is not referred at all in the article body. 14:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

| father = [Voicu]]

5.13.175.130 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Antun Vrančić

I think this quote by Antun Vrančić could also be referred: the Romanians, who are easily equal in number [to the others] but have no liberties, no nobility, no rights of their own, with the exception of a small number who live in the district of Haţeg, where Deceballus is believed to have had his capital, and who were ennobled during the reign of John Hunyadi, a native of those parts, because they relentlessly fought against the Turks. (src: [16]) Avpop (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Aurel Pop

User:Borsoka, are you sure that the phrase Ioan-Aurel Pop says that Voyk was a native of the wider region of Hunyad Castle is precise? The text found by me affirms that John Hunyadi came from a modest family of ennobled Romanian knezes from Haţeg-Hunedoara (original text: provenea dintr-o familie modestă de cnezi români înnobilaţi din Haţeg-Hunedoara). No mention about Voyk or Hunyad castle. And I am not sure that he states that it was a native Transylvanian family. It could say just that in that moment (when John was born), the family lived in that region. Voyk was probably already a Hungarian citizen when he served as a court knight. I mean he started working for the King and married Elizabeth after migrating to Hungary. Avpop (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not understand your concern. The cited work says: "He [=John Hunyadi] came from a modest family of Romanian ennobled knezes from Hateg-Hunedoara: his great-grandfather was probably called Costea, his granfather names Serbu, the father Voicu, and uncles were named Radul (two of them) and Mogos. Voicu dead before 1419) married Elisabeth of Margina (Marzsinai), also from a family of petty nobles from Hunedoara, likely to have origin is the Romanian borough of Margina (south of the Mures river, on the border between the counties of Hunedoara and Timis) and converted to Catholicism." (1) Hateg-Hunedoara is the wider region of Hunyad Castle (2) Costea, Serbu and Voicu are mentioned as ancestors of Hunyadi who "came from a modest family of Romanian ennobled knezes from Hateg-Hunedoara" (3) Voicu's wife is mentioned to have been also (=like her husband) from a family of nobles from the region of Hunyad. Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

I know that many editors claim that the spelling of his father's and mother's names and the etymology of his relatives' and great-greatgrandparents' names are the most important issues in connection with Hunyadi. I think we should not destroy this article with debates about these issues. Instead, we should develop and improve it. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hero in Romania

Look, I know that John Hunyadi's ethnicity by 19th-20th cent. standards in in some dispute but it's a fact that Romanians believe he was of Romanian descent and it's a fact that we love him. It's not just communist propaganda, that phrase is misleading. The guy is, whithout a shadow of a doubt, considered a national hero. Also Kinizsi Pál (Paul the Knyaz / Pavel Chinezul). Also we respect Hunyadi's son (King Mátyás).161.9.110.14 (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Boring. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

Is the tomb effigy original? I think it would be a better lead image than the current unidentified sketch if it is. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the tomb effigy would not be useful: his face was destroyed by Ottoman soldiers. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any contemporary likeness? I don't think the current lead image is particularly useful. It is quite different from, e.g., the image at right (from 1488). Srnec (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not know, but the lead photo is the same as the cover photo on a monography dedicated to Hunyadi (Muresanu's work cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

His mother's name

Are the Hungarian (or Romanian, Slovak, etc.) forms of an unidentified Vlach lady's name are relevant in the English version of the article about her son? Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What form do you suggest then? As her origin is uncertain, alternative name variants may be interesting. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither her first name nor her family are known. Consequently, I think the best solution if we do not list a series of assumptions about her names in an article about her son. Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but many sources name her Elizabeth Morzsinai (or some variant of this). Do you think that this name is just a speculation and that in reality her name is not known? The current text in the Childhood (c. 1406–c. 1420) section looks fine to me. I assume that you want to remove her (perhaps hypothetical) name from the infobox. Is this your suggestion? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Elizabeth Morzsinai is an assumption, because she may have lived in Morzsina, consequently she may have been named Morzsinai. Furthermore, Elizabeth was always more popular than Leocadia, consequently she may have been baptized Elizabeth. Sincerely, the stupid debate in the infobox whether a lady whose name is unknown should be properly named as Morsina or Morzsinai is out of my scope of interest. This edit was my concern: ([17]). Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no information about the particular reasons why many sources call her Elizabeth Mor[z]sina[i/y], but hopefully it's more justified than you describe. On the other hand, I agree with you that discussing all the potential variants of her name is a bit out of scope for this article and I am fine with leaving them out. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, all known facts about her are actually mentioned in the article. :) Borsoka (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka, I don't think any "stupid debate" would have been initiated, simply I've met many inconsistencies in different pages/sites, on the other hand also the variant of Mar[z]sina[i/y] caught my attention that I did not met in Wiki as often than the other two versions. As KœrteFa {ταλκ} also have shown some interest investigating this. However I agree it is a bit out of scope of the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC))

I did not say, you initiated any debate. I only said that any debate about her name is stupid, because her name is totally unknown. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Bonfini and Heltai ... do not name her, but Pop writes that she was called Elisabeth". This phrase is quite strange. It looks that scholars that lived 50-100 years later do not mention her name, but Pop, who lived ~500 years later, knows the name. That gives the impression that Pop had the retrocognition ability and acquired this information by paranormal means. 123Steller (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear 123Steller, your argument is nonsense. It's based on a reasoning like if person X lived closer in time to event E than person Y, then X must necessarily have more information about event E than Y. That's a clear absurdity and, for example, would make historical studies mostly superfluous. The neutral way is to mention the significant statements about the topic, like X claims A, while Y claims B. We should let the reader decide. Therefore, in my opinion, the current formulation of the section is more or less okay. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

KœrteFa {ταλκ}, I understand what 123Steller wanted to refer of, I think you misunderstood a bit each other. Regarding Wiki policy or as a general scientific approach, Koertefa has right, I don't even think Steller would debate this, he just wanted to pinpoint that Pop has really some other "paranormal" "annunciations" regarding i.e. Hungarian-Romanian history matters, that I have also met.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC))

Koertefa & KIENGIR, the works of Heltai and especially the one of Bonfini are very close in terms of time to the age of Hunyadi. Bonfini was the court historian of the grandson of the lady we are talking about, his work is a genuine WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Is it absurd to think that Bonfini had more info than Pop, who lives today? He could have personally asked Matthias: What's the name of your grandmother?

It is not correct to say that "Pop writes that she was called Elisabeth". In fact Pop cites primary source X which writes that she was called Elisabeth. We should find primary source X and rephrase the text to "primary source X writes that she was called Elisabeth". 123Steller (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that the statement that "Pop writes that she was called Elisabeth" is not correct, if Pop writes that she was called Elizabeth? Why do you think Pop cites a primary source if he does not refer to that primary source? Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

123Steller, if you did not misunderstand me, I gave in a way both of you right. As a scientific approach Koertefa has right on his argumentattion, since even it is very probable what you refer of, it does not mean all cases it may be true. On the other hand, I practically agreed with you that many contemporary sources or information are sometimes more correct and accurate then late inventions or new approaches. Especially, many of Pop views are also debated in Romania. However, I reffered not necessarily the current "Elisabeth" case with this.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC))

Should we suppose that Pop checked another manuscript (written by somebody else than Bonfini and Heltai) where the name Elisabeth is present? 123Steller (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, we should not as per WP:NOR.Borsoka (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

The article claims: "According to most contemporary sources, he was the son of a noble family of Romanian ancestry."

What are those contemporary sources? Why there is no source marked for such a definite statement? 89.176.197.149 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

See the "Childhood" section immediately following and also the Hunyadi family article linked form that section. This sentence is from the lead section. Lead sections are intended to summarize the rest of the article and the references to support claims are made in the body of the article. It is up to the reader to read on further. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

change John Hunyadi to Iancu de Hunedoara. He is Romanian, and his real name is Iancu de Hunedoara. Mspiotti (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - On the English Wikipedia we use the Common Name in English as per WP:COMMONNAME - his name in Romanian is given in the top line. - Arjayay (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Iancu de Hunedoara is a redirect to this article, so anyone searching under that name will end up at the right article - Arjayay (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

89.176.197.149 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The article claims that John Hunyadi had a Romanian ancestry. This is wrong, since: -there was no such thing that Romanian that time, as we speak about times way before the Romanian ethnogenesis. -sources claim his father, Vajk was not Vlach, but Cuman/Tatar, see link below: https://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=V-l5TannFomFhQe2p53pBg&ct=result&hl=hu&id=kNkTAQAAMAAJ&dq=Cuman+origin+Hunyady&q=Tatar-Cuman#search_anchor

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Morphdog (t - c) 18:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Romanian ancestry is supported by WP:RS. 123Steller (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

He is Romanian. Romanians lived in Transilvania, Wallachia and Moldova. They were all Romanians, and all spoke Romanian. How about of Transylvanian decent, whose native language was the Romanian language, which was widely spoken by all nations in all three Romanian regions of Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspiotti (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

change "John Hunyadi (Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Romanian: Ioan de Hunedoara; c. 1406 – 11 August 1456) was a leading Hungarian military and political figure in Central and Southeastern Europe during the 15th century. According to most contemporary sources, he was the son of a noble family of Romanian ancestry. He mastered his military skills on the southern borderlands of the Kingdom of Hungary that were exposed to Ottoman attacks. Appointed voivode of Transylvania and head of a number of southern counties, he assumed responsibility for the defense of the frontiers in 1441.

to

John Hunyadi (Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Romanian: Ioan de Hunedoara; c. 1406 – 11 August 1456) was a leading military and political figure in Central and Southeastern Europe during the 15th century. According to most contemporary sources, he was the son of a noble family of Romanian ancestry. He mastered his military skills on the southern borderlands of the Kingdom of Hungary that were exposed to Ottoman attacks. Appointed voivode of Transylvania and head of a number of southern counties, he assumed responsibility for the defense of the frontiers in 1441.

explanation He is not a Hungarian military and political leader. He is Romanian, and descending from a noble family of Romanian ancestry. There is no point in stating he is Hungarian. He is not Hungarian, and there are many reliable sources that can prove this statement. Mspiotti (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

please change Although, Romanian national consciousness did not embrace him to the extent that Hungarian national conscience did. to However, Romanian national consciousness did not embrace him to the extent that Hungarian national conscience did. I think that the adverb However would be a better choice in this context than Although. 82.137.12.222 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We should see the original quote from the source, because like so as well it may sound tricky, since we don't know even he had any Romanian national consciousness....(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

 Done {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Unneeded inclusion of Hungarian

I believe the inclusion of Belgrade's Hungarian name is not necessary. The article is written in English, and the city is known in English by that name. I believe this is in line with Wikipedia naming conventions.

Wikigreenwood (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikigreenwood:,

naming conventions allow to use historical names in a relevant context, as the Hungarian one is relevant that time, so complete elimination is not supported.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

"According to most contemporary sources, he was the son of a noble family of Romanian ancestry." add [Citation Needed] Valenpa (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done:, the lead usually don't need to cite sources, but summarize the body.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

Romanian ancestry vs Wallachian ancestry

Searching the edit history, it seems that since 2014 the formula "Romanian ancestry" was in use in the lead section. For 7 years the editor Borsoka, a main contributor at the article agreed with this form. It is strange that they changes their her mind now. 77wonders (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not strange. In 2014 I reverted an edit suggesting that he was of Cuman ancestry. I am always happy when new editors have deep knowledge of an article's editing history. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka You were obviously aware of this phrasing ("Romanian ancestry") and you agreed with it for 7+ years. In 2021 out of nowhere you decide that interpreting the adjective "Wallachian" as "Romanian" is a PoV. Below are some quotes from the body of this article and Hunyadi family article:

Voyk's son, John Hunyadi, bore the nickname "Olah", meaning "Vlach", in his youth, which implied that he was of Romanian stock.[2][3] The court historian of Voyk's grandson King Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini, explicitly stated that John had been "born to a Vlach father".[6][7] Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III likewise knew that King Matthias had been "born to a Vlach father", and a Venetian man, Sebastiano Baduario, referred to the Romanians as King Matthias's people.[8][9]

"a Vlach by birth, not highly born"[13] by Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini.[10][11]

Pope Pius II writes that Hunyadi did not increase so much the glory of the Hungarians, but especially the glory of the Romanians among whom he was born.[222][223][224][225]}}

It is sad that you try to hide his ethnic origin, and also Jingiby joins and ignores these contemporary sources. 77wonders (talk)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hunyadi janos pecsetje es cimere.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hunyadi is not a Romanian

I have been trying to edit this article since it states that he was a Romanian, but at that point of time the idea of Romanian identity didn't not exist, in fact it didn't exist till the end of 18th century. He may have had a ROMAN descent through the ancestry of one of the parents but even then Roman and Romanian are not equivalent. Boris (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody states that he was a Romanian. He was descended from a family of Romanian origin - this is what is stated in the article. Yes, possibly the reference to a Vlach ancestry might be better. Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to edit this as well. I suggested the removal of the word Hungarian, as he was not Hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspiotti (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And I suggest as Boris has recommended, not to attribute any kind on national identitiy to Hunyadi, as 1: there was no such thing as national identity back then, and 2: stating one or the other stirs up a nationalist hornet's nest as we can see. It would be better just to remove this untrue and unsettling statement. --Marci von Heves 09:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

National identity is an existing thing since at least the 12th century in Europe. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

He was a romanian. But all this articles are botted by hungarian nationalists. Vlach is a exonym given by the germans to the romanians.

John Hunyadi, bore the nickname "Olah", meaning "Vlach", in his youth, which implied that he was of Romanian stock. The court historian of Voyk's grandson King Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini, explicitly stated that John had been "born to a Vlach father". Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III likewise knew that King Matthias had been "born to a Vlach father", and a Venetian man, Sebastiano Baduario, referred to the Romanians as King Matthias's people.

The court historian of Voyk's grandson King Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini, explicitly stated that John had been "born to a Vlach father"

The court historian of Voyk's grandson King Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini, explicitly stated that John had been "born to a Vlach father"

The court historian of Voyk's grandson King Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini, explicitly stated that John had been "born to a Vlach father"

Wikipedia is a sad place full of brigated admins. They restrict anything that doesent fit their agenda. Like this article cannot be eddited because the hungarian mod is aggressively edit protecting it, and reverse any changes that doesent fits his agenda. there is no proof he was a hungarian, there is no writing he was a hungarian. But because he was the king of hungary the wikipedia mod makes him a hungarian, because doesent fit their nationalist agenda of faked history. Just another proof hungarian mods on wikipedia are the worst. They only fake history and asumes one that comes from a romanian noble family wich was called a vlach is a hungarian . How does that even makes sense? Well it doesent but because this wikipedia articles is agresively faked by the hungarian nationalists, it cannot be writen with any history proof that doesent fits their agenda.

WP can be edited by anyone who can understand and apply basic principles. Instead of sharing your quite strange personal views with other members of our community, you should read and apply the basic policies. I suggest you should seek assistance at WP:Teahouse.Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As well, this user should make a little investigation about what is the meaning and/or the difference between nationality, ethnicity, identity or origin, and similar concepts...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC))

References

Borsoka and KIENGIR as usual hand in hand. Your activity on Wikipedia means nothing, in the academic world your Hungarian chauvinism only amuses... Bran (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not sure to understand well, what kind of "Hungarian chauvinism" are you talking about? As well, you wish to say you'd represent/speak the/in the behalf of the academic world?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC))

Hello!

John Hunyadi and his son King Matthias of Hungary played a great and very important role in the life of the Kingdom of Hungary. The father of John Hunyadi got a huge estate from King Sigismund of Hungary. The father of John Hunyadi was called Voyk, the pagan Turkic name of King Saint Stephen of Hungary was also Vajk 400 years earlier. The mother of John Hunyadi was called Elizabeth a Catholic Hungarian name. The sister of John Hunyadi, Klara had also a Catholic Hungarian name. John Hunyadi was born and raised in the Kingdom of Hungary, Hunyadi became very quickly a high-ranked member of the court of King Sigismund of Hungary. King Sigismund entrusted the military upbringing of young John to his main confidant. King Sigismund took John Hunyadi with him everywhere in Europe and also to Italy for one of the most significant events of his life, in Rome at the Imperial Coronation. John Hunyadi married a Catholic Hungarian noblewoman, Hunyadi considered himself a Hungarian nobleman, Hunyadi was a leading Hungarian military and political figure, Hunyadi was the Voivode of Transylvania (part of the Kingdom of Hungary). John Hunyadi was a great Hungarian warlord and sole regent with the title of governor of the Hungarian Kingdom. John Hunyadi considers a great Hungarian hero and clearly a main character in Hungarian history and not in Romanian history.

I see, ironically mostly anti-Hungarian nationalist Romanians like to repeat: “Hunyadi is Romanian!”. After this, unfortunatelly they are unable to speak more things about Hunyadi. But I really do not understand why Hunyadi is so important for the Romanians. What did Hunyadi do for Romania or for the Romanians? Hunyadi loved Hungary, he had a lot of estates everywhere in the Kingdom of Hungary, he fought with all his money and in all his life for Hungary. Why do anti-Hungarian Romanians like a Hungarian hero who loved Hungary? Does somebody understand this?

Thuróczy: “There was a big-hearted knight in the country at the time. It originated from a noble, famous family of Wallachia: John Hunyad; a warrior man, born for the fight, to lead armies. Like water to fish, deer to the shady forest: his life was a weapon and warfare.”

We know the Hungarian Kingdom was not a pure 100% Hungarian ethnic country in medieval times like many other countries had many ethnic groups. I do not know why the Romanians think that Wallachia was a pure Romanian country in medieval times. We know very well many folks moved and lived in that region, for example before Wallachia this region called Cumania. Many noble families were Cuman origin in Wallachia and Thuróczy say Hunyadi came from a famous family. If somebody came from Wallachia this does not mean he should be only Romanian.

We cannot see the Hunyadi's coat of arms in Wallachia, what would be very unusual that the son has a different coat of arms than the allegedly “Romanian” father.

Elizabeth is a popular name in Hungary, but not in Romania. Elizabeth Morzsinai was the mother of John Hunyadi and Elizabeth Szilágyi, a Hungarian noblewoman was the wife of John Hunyadi, she was the mother of Matthias Corvinus.

Bonfini mentions many kinds of origin, but the Romanians ignore the others. Bonfini on the other hand wrote that John Hunyadi's mother was an unnamed Greek woman who was related to the Byzantine Emperors. Bonfini also created a Roman (not Romanian) descent, in the form of a tracing to Marcus Valerius Corvinus, this Roman hero was helped to victory by a raven against a mighty Gaul. Bonfini also mentioned that a nice Transylvanian girl became pregnant from King Sigismund.

By the way Bonfini and Thuróczy writes cleary and very detailed that King Matthias won the Battle of Baia against Moldavia, however, Romanians say this was a decisive Moldavian victory against Matthias, nonetheless Moldavia some months later became again a Hungarian vassal. In this case why Romanians refuse Bonfini, but they like if Bonfini mention a Vlach father among many theories? What is this double standard?

According to other the contemporary sources (Szerémi György, Liszti János, Heltai Gáspár...) Hunyadi's father was King Sigismund, whose concubine Elizabeth Morsina was married to Vajk, who became his foster father, only for the sake of appearances. Vajk was rewarded by the king for this deed and silence with the Hunyadi estate, through which he quickly became a very wealthy landlord. That is why two years old John Hunyadi got a huge estate with a castle and a coat of arms nonetheless the Hungarian nobility did not oppose it.

http://adattar.vmmi.org/fejezetek/765/01_szeremi_gyorgy_emlekirataibol.pdf "The Buda soldiers took Laszlo, son of Hunyadi to St. Martyr's Square. He was a famous man; the governor's son, the grandson of Sigismund."

Coat of arms of King Sigismund of Hungary from the book of Conrad Grünenberg "Ritters und Bürgers zu Constanz Wappenbuch" (1483). We can see the raven with the ring, why would use Sigismund the same coat of arms as Hunyadi if it would be not a family connection? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Conrad_Grünenberg_Sárkányrend_1602_-_1604.jpg/800px-Conrad_Grünenberg_Sárkányrend_1602_-_1604.jpg

We can see this fresco in the Hunyadi castle what describes the same story. The Matthew Loggia-fresco detail, Elizabeth with the ring: https://mapio.net/images-p/46611780.jpg

King Sigismund with John Hunyadi. The contemporary fresco located in Italy near Milano in the church of Castiglione d'Olona. The customer was Cardinal Branda Castiglione, who also served in Hungary as a confidant of King Sigismund for many years, he served in Veszprém as papal legate 1410–1425. Hence, he was personally familiar with the young knights, including John Hunyadi, who escorted the king to Italy in 1431 at the supposed time of the completion of the fresco. The artist is Masolino di Panicale, the title of the artwork is "Feast of Herod", in the form of Herod we can recognize Emperor Sigismund. Masolino painted the portraits of his famous contemporaries - the client, as well as his guests - on the faces of the biblical characters in his painting. This was a custom among Renaissance artists. King Sigismund has Hungarian Arpad dynasty blood in his vein in three maternal lines. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cc22dd4e2ca80d4df84128ba7611d026 https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5447466bbc73aae0417241358d788f13

Hunyadi had a younger brother who also named John, and such naming was customary only if the two brothers came from a different father. According to the contemporary sources and artworks John Hunyadi and his son King Matthias of Hungary had blonde hair, this is also not a typical feature in Wallachia (old Romania).

If Matthias would be Romanian, why Thuróczy, Bonfini, Ranzano would call him "second Attila" and "Scythian"?

Noel Malcolm: Useful Enemies: Islam and the Ottoman Empire in Western Political Thought 1450-1750 https://books.google.hu/books?id=GCKQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&dq=matthias+king+second+attila&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV39_do9juAhUplIsKHQNtD7UQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=matthias%20king%20second%20attila&f=false

The armies of Hunyadi mostly consisted of Hungarian and Székely (Hungarian subgroup in Transylvania) warriors. If Hunyadi would have been Romanian why did his armies consist of Hungarians?

If Hunyadi would have been Romanian why did he have a lot of problems with the Romanians during his life? During the battle of Varna, the Wallachian army left the battlefield and plundered the Ottoman camp while the Ottoman and Hungarian armies fought each other. The Wallachians were busy in plunder than to help the Christian forces in the battle. After the Battle of Varna, thousands of Hungarian survivors tried to flee home to the Kingdom of Hungary, the road led through Wallachia, the Vlachs began to beat, plunder, and hand over the survivors to the Ottomans. The Hungarian commanders like John Hunyadi and Michael Szilágyi were captured by Vlad II Dracul the Wallachian voivode. The Second Battle of Kosovo was the last chance to push out the Ottomans from the Balcan and save Constantinople, but in the battle, the Romanians betrayed Hunyadi and changed side thus Hunyadi lost this important battle.

A book from a Turkish historian: Mesut Uyar Ph.D., Edward J. Erickson: A Military History of the Ottomans: From Osman to Ataturk https://books.google.hu/books?id=Ud90CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=battle%20kosovo%20wallachian%20changed%20side&source=bl&ots=LxC157zi89&sig=ACfU3U0hAQZlPI9sLo4_dd38WdNiYPZnIA&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPrbnQo5P0AhUkRuUKHSTACloQ6AF6BAgqEAM#v=onepage&q=battle% "The Ottoman wings were pulled back as if to reorganize after the previous day's attacks, and the center was left alone on its original position as a ruse to lure the enemy. Hunyadi tried his chances and attacked. The concealed wings of the Ottoman army encircled the attacker, the Wallachians changed sides at this crucial moment."

Laonikos Chalkokondyles (1430–1470), contemporary Byzantine Greek historian: Demonstrations of Histories “As for the Hungarians, when they first saw the Wallachians detaching themselves, they wondered about their intentions. But when they realized that they were negotiating with the sultan, they were angry with them and hated them for utterly betraying their allies. But when a little bit later they saw them all being killed by the sultan for no apparent reason, they were astonished again and understood the sultan's thinking, namely that he had no need for such allies.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Boring and shamefully narrow minded. You should stop this. WP is not a forum for publishing our own original research. Borsoka (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for that, just I saw this discussion about the origin of Hunyadi in this talk page, that is why I responded, I thought I could share more details about this topic to provide more theory, but only in the talk page. I am not intend to vandalize any content and do things against the Wikipedia rules. By the way some info what I mentioned I see it is already in the Wikipedia page of Hunyadi, and I think providing more details and questions is better way than to say just "he has X origin". Anyway a DNA study of the Hunyadi family is in progress, so we will know more details later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

DNA-research

According to recent research Hunyady is closer to hungarian population than romanians. See Neparaczki Török et al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.193.159 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

John Hunyadi identity

It is very wrong to say that John Hunyadi, how you called hem, it was a Hungarian. Also wrong to say he was Romanian. He was from Romanian acestors' father wich actually was by Kumans origin( Kumans were Turkic people) and Greek's origin mother. He was not a Hungarian emperor but the ruller of Transilvania and Severin. Transilvania was under the Hungarian influence but was not Hungary. This name Hunyadi brings also confusion. It is made up to be like this. And what Hungarian forget always to mention it from where they came , when and that on that place Transilvania, before they came existed Dacia with the centrum in Sarmisegetuza. I have a simple question. Why the majority of the people from Transilvania speak same language and minority Hungarian? Because they were always there? This has no logical meaning. Hungarian are a mix of nomadic people( North nomadic, mongols and turkic).They won because they followed the Katholic Church. It was about religion and power, not about trues neighther about people. Gaciu.oana (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

John Hunyadi being Vlach/Romanian and his mother being unknown, Morzsinai Erzsébet first appearing in Hungarian legends and was added in 1575 by Gáspár Heltai

John Hunyadi'S father was Wallachian/Vlach. Wallachian and Wallachia come from Vlach (exonym from German that means Romance/Latin language speaker). Vlachs called themselves Romanians.

@Borsoka left my last edit alone before @OrionNimrod changed it. He can ask her. I already talked with her about the topic. Not about John Hunyadi's mother though. That I didn't talk about it with her but if you search about it you would know that John Hunyadi's mother is unknown, contemporary sources don't mention her. If she were Hungarian, they would have mentioned her but they didn't. John Hunyadi's mother is unknown according to contemporary sources. Only that she was born before 1400 in order to give birth to John Hunyadi. Gáspár Heltai notoriously reworked Antonio Bonfini's Ten Volumes of Hungarian Matters (written between 1488 and 1497) which Heltai published in 1575 as "Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds" and added his own text to it: https://corvina.hu/en/corvina/virtual-corvinas/codlat542-en/

Including adding Erzsébet Morzsinai as Voyk's wife and John Hunyadi's mother: "Many legends and stories about Erzsébet Morzsina have survived in the traditions of the Hungarian and surrounding peoples. The Hungarian Chronicle of Gáspár Heltai , the first surviving written record from 1575, also relied on these oral traditions, in which János Hunyadi is mentioned as the natural son of King Sigismund of Hungary." https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morzsinai_Erzs%C3%A9bet Taken from Erzsébet Morzsina's Hungarian wikipedia page. I used google translate because I don't know Hungarian. So even the Hungarian wikipedia page says she's a fictional character that first appeared in Hungarian legends that were added in 1575 by Gáspár Heltai. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)