This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Although the historical study of place-names is not practised to the same extent in all countries, it is a recognized branch of historiography. It encompasses the etymology of geographical names as well as cultural and chronological variations in the naming of places. To facilitate their study of Hungarian place-names, István Kniezsa and Géza Bárczi developed an analytical framework that blends etymology, typology, and chronology. The validity of this triple approach has been amply demonstrated, thanks not only to the expertise of the two scholars but also to the peculiarity of Hungarian toponymy, which is readily distinguishable from that of any other culture. Most of the early Hungarian toponyms are derived from the names of people, clans, and ethnic groups, or from occupations, and used in the nominative case singular (e.g. Árpád, Megyer, Cseh [Czech], Ács [carpenter]). This type of toponymy appears in the earliest documents, dating from around 1000 AD. The pattern holds well into the 13th century — until the 1220s in western Hungary, and the 1270s in the eastern parts, including Transylvania..."(László Makkai, TRANSYLVANIA IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARIAN KINGDOM (896–1526), IN: Köpeczi Béla (General Editor), HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-88033-479-7)"
Kniezsa's map is still cited in scientific papers. It is NOT outdated. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You ignore Hungarian academics!!!! Fakirbakir (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
And he/she also ignores his/her own proposal . Borsoka (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My collegues, I do not "ignore Hungarian academics". I requested for sources and they were not provided even after several months. I also made a constructive recommendation how to fix the pronlem, but the uploader of the map did nothing to fix it, he did not followed it and he did not (after several months) did not provide any feedback. And when I wrote what is already properly sourced (the map is not compliant with the modern research) you have tried to revert it, to reformulate and to relativise it and to present it as some opinion of the Slovak historian instead of the serious research result. What you have not tried is to provide proper sources for your opinions.Ditinili (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Upload your own map to represent the "Slovak scholarly POV" on Wikimedia Commons. Makkai's quote (above) is more than enough to prove that Kniezsa's study is not an outdated fringe theory.... "did nothing to fix it" ---> After our conversation I tried to fix the problem.. Anyway I have no idea why you didn't like my last contribution . Fakirbakir (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not "more than enough". We have already discussed this on 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)."Laszlo Makkai: died in 1989, he can hardly react on results of the modern research or to take them into account. Not a reliable source for challenging current state in archeology. More, the quoted sentence is also only a general statement and the book is about Transylvania, not Slovakia." Your "fix" unfortunately did not mention any criticism and you did rather opposite - you whitewashed any critical view  with a very poor reasoning that this is your map and you are not obliged to preserve them in the description. I do not like your "last contribution " because again, you did not provided any new source, only relativized research results. I persist in opinion that it must be stated very clearly that in the case of Slovakia, the later research refuted this theory.Ditinili (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Kniezsa's views are not criticized only by Slovak authors, but also by the Hungarian historian Gyula Kristó in his paper "THE PEOPLES OF HUNGARY IN THE DAYS OF SAINT STEPHEN". Gyula Kristó's paper provides a criticism of Istvan Kniezsa's paper published in 1938 on the question of ethnicity in Hungary in the 11th century. The author states that Kniezsa, despite his own intentions, depicted the peoples of the late Arpád era, i.e., 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, instead of the early Arpád era, i.e., 11th century.. (the quote is from Századok, Volume 134, Issues 1-3, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2000 - Hungary) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Kniezsa's map has nothing to do with archaeology, he was a Slavist, his work is based on toponyms. His view is not unanimously accepted by historians, however his theory is still widely used today and a basic theory of Hungarian population history. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, only your statement without any source. Basic theory of Hungarian population history => Ditinili (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You should learn some Hungarian population history...."The verifiable name layers from the early period of the conquest were subjected to study in Hungary from the 1930s and 1940s, resulting in early historical place-name typologies (Moór 1936: 110–117, Kniezsa 1938, 1943, 1944, 1960, Kertész 1939: 33–39, 67–77, Kristó 1976), the results of which are still to this day largely accepted by the research community without reservation."
It seems that this "acceptance without reservation" has serious limits, because the list contains also the author (Kristó) who demonstrably criticized Kniezsa  and on the same page there is also a very sharp refusal of Kniezsa's conclusions from another Hungarian author. Your second source (however it is easy to demonstrate that some of "Hungarian" areas were ethnically mixed) references to the 15th century, not to the 11th. Ditinili (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing restrains us on Wikipedia to demonstrate Kniezsa's POV. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing restrains us on Wikipedia to demostrate Democritus POV in the right context. If you are interested in the history of settlement, you can take e.g. "The sources for the history of settlement of Slovakia from the late 5th to the 13th century" in several volumes and hundreds of pages, last edition from 2008, with long lists of archaeologic findigs, written sources, etc. The peer revievewed collective work published by the local academy of sciences, instead of the work published dozen years ago. I don't know why do you re-open this topic. Ditinili (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just hoping that the person who decides which one is the "right context" won't be you. You simply hate this map because it counters your view. You don't understand that it does not really matter if Kniezsa was right or not. His work represents a POV which is still cited in modern scholarly works. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Be polite and prevent personal attacks. Ditinili (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, Kniezsa's map is still cited in scholarly works. Consequently, it can be cited in WP. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, also Democritus can be cited, if it is clear that his is not a modern physics and his views are compared with newer theories (until they are not presented as historic views).
The question is, if you are really interested in the current knownledge on the settlement history or you only want to use map for every cost, even if they are much better sources.Ditinili (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No, the question is why we should not use the work of a scholar whose studies are regarded valid by a relevant group of 21st-century scholars. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Use whatever you want, until you properly mention that the work is from 1930s and also the criticism.Ditinili (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The term "pagans", used in the Background section to describe the pre-Christian Hungarians, is vague. A more specific label would be helpful, because "pagan" has been used to describe an awfully broad collection of cultures and religions. Folklore1 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Folklore1, thank you for your edits and your above comment. I think that "pagan Hungarians" is the proper term - this is applied by most historians (for instance, Engel). Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am about three-quarters of the way through the article, copy-editing in response to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I see both British and American date styles and British and American spelling. Usually, I go back to the first version of the article after the stub to see what style was first used. However, I see that there may have been a split, so I don't know at what point I should be looking. It doesn't matter to me which style is used. Could someone please decide the style and let me know? Then I will edit for consistency. Corinne (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Corinne, thank you for your hard work. I think American date styles and American spelling are preferred by more users, so I also prefer them. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka That's fine with me, but I'm not sure the decision should be based on what we prefer; it is usually based on the style used in the first version after the original stub, or the connection between the subject of the article and a particular country. See WP:ENGVAR. I could not find the original stub, but I found the point right after the article was split, and in that version, American date style was used, so I guess that style is fine. Corinne (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear anon, please summarize the reasons of this edit here (), because there are two editors who do not understand your concern. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Anon, would you summarize why do you think that all attempts by the Holy Roman Emperors to expand their authority over Hungary were unsuccessful if Henry III managed to put Peter on the throne in 1044 and Solomon in 1063? Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Was Hungary part of HRE? or Vassal of HRE Emperors?
Can the HR.Emperors conquer it from Pozsony to Transylvania?. So their attempts remained unsuccessful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you really say Peter Orseolo, the vassal of the HRE Henry III, did not rule whole Hungary ("from Pozsony to Transylvania") between 1144 and 1146. What is the source of your suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, during the reginPeter Orseolo there were a civil war, there were Hungarian forces on both side, so it was not a clear Hungary vs Germany war, but civil war.
High medieval German Emperors proved to be weak to fight against a politically united Hungary as a whole country.
Or do you deny the following facts?
Just see the conflicts of Pure Hungary VS. Germany line-up.
1030 German defeat Hungarian king: Stephen I, German Emperor: Konrad II
1031 German defeat Hungarian king: Stephen I, German Emperor: Konrad II
1051 German defeat Hungarian king: Andrew I, German Emperor: Henry IV
1053 German defeat Hungarian king: Andrew I, German Emperor: Henry IV
1074 German defeat Hungarian king: Solomon I, German Emperor: Henry IV
Sorry, I do not understand what you want to say. What is the subject of the debate? Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The subject is the unsuccessful attempts of HR. Emperors to make Hungary as vassal state of their Empire. They proved to be weak for that.
Based on a reliable source, the article says that Peter accepted the emperor's suzerainty. Is there a reliable source stating that he did not accept the emperor's suzerainty, or that there was an other king during Peter's rule who did not accept the emperor's suzerainty? Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
IS there any reliable source which state that Peter used only the Emperor's forces? No, it was a civil war. The Emperor simply used the anarchic situation as his advantage. Second: The gathered army of the Emperor's army did not dare to cross the border to help King Peter, which is not strange, because medieval Holy Roman Emperors had not huge armies. We can cite all wars of medieval Holy Roman emperors (with the estimations of their armies from books of academic scholars ), and it is clearer than the sun, that the medieval HR. Emperors were unable to mobilize large armies, thus their influence was weak. So Emperor Henry III had to realize , that he lost within 1y and some months all of his influence in Hungary. No huge army ===> no power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I highly appreciate your research, but you did not cite a single source stating either that Peter did not accept Henry's suzerainty or that Peter was not the sole monarch of Hungary at that time. Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
When Peter lost the power in 1046, the imperial army did not dare to cross the border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes (at least for some years). And? Sorry, I have been lost. Do you want to say that Peter did not accept HRH Henry III's suzerainty? If you say "Yes, he never accepted Henry III's suzerainty", please refer to at least one reliable source which subtantiates this claim which contradicts to the reliable source cited in the article. If you say "No, he accepted Henry III's suzerainty during his second rule", there is no point in continuing this discussion, because we agree. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll take up this review, reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). I've had experience reviewing a number of historical articles, including about Árpád. I will take 2-3 days to familiarise myself with this article and then provide a review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Overall an extremely well-written and thoroughly researched article. I will do a second thorough read-through, check images, for plagiarism & copyright problems, and check sources before I finish. I do not anticipate any major problems. I've had a skim through the previous PR and FAN to see what other editors have thought. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Calvin999 many thanks to your edits to this article. It's very well-written and cited. I will see if I can access the sources on google books to verify your thorough research. I have one or two questions about the content of this article:
Firstly, it's very easy to read, comprehensive and well-sourced
In the article, it states that after the Cuman chieftan was massacred, they left Hungary - this is at odds with the Hungary page which states they were ultimately assimilated
Yes, the Cumans returned to Hungary after the Mongol invasion (which is mentioned in the fourth sentence under the subtitle "Last Árpáds (1242–1301)"). Their assimilation began only in the 14th century. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it be worth mentioning anything about the use of Latin at all in Hungary at the time as a national language?
Sorry, I do not understand your above suggestion. It is probably because I am not a native speaker of English. I do not understand the expression "national language". Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry - this is not important. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Other than that I have no qualms about this article and am just trying to find the sources. I'm sorry this review is taking so long, as I am going through a period of business in real life :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Addit - the good article criteria are met in that this article is verifiable but as I cannot access the sources I cannot state it to be verified - requirements beyond the GA criteria. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
LT910001, thank you for your comprehensive review. Please find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a very good article and I have very little to add. Good luck at WP:FA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I should add a more thoughtful conclusion :). This is one of the few articles that I've reviewed which I have nothing to add. It meets off the bat all the criteria required for a good article - well written, very well sourced, well structured and with no copyright or image problems. Well done do you Borsoka and good luck in your future editing! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. If it is well written, it is due to the thorough copyedit by Corinne. I would like to thank it for her again. :) Borsoka (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Cumans were not really assimilated, they got a medieval version of reserve area like Native American Indians in the USA, and they got some medieval privileges, which they could only in their reserve area, the so-called Kunság. Cumans were decimated by Christian and Hungarian forces during the Ottoman wars. They were sytsematically replaced by Serbian Albanian and Romanian migrants during the Ottoman wars, this colonization was supported by the Ottomans. Moreover Cumans did not survive the Great Turkish war, they were exterminated in the 1680s by the Crimean Tatars ( the ally of Ottomans) and Habsburg and Hungarian forces. After the Ottoman wars, a mixed pan-balkan population and newly arrived Hungarian population started to claim the rights and privileges of the former "cumania" (Hungarian Kunság) reserve area (the rights of the extinct ancient Cuman population). Cumans had the right for free election of judges, free election of clergymen, they were free from taxes, they were also free from the power of feudal landlords and feudal taxation and they can avoid of manorialism and the serf/ villein status, they have right for land ownership. Thus the newly migrated population started to call themselves as cumans, to get the privileges of the extinct cuman people in Cumania/Kunság area. Later the descendants of the migrant population believed that they were the real descendants of ancient Cumans. Here is a good article about Cumans in Hungary, you can use the Google Transaltor. http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
KIENGIR, is there a significant scholarly POV, claiming that Croatia (and Dalmatia) accepted Ladislaus and Coloman's rule without force? In the reliable sources, cited in the article there is no doubt that both rulers only became the rulers of the two realms, because they invaded the territory and occupied it. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, please check the sources in the Croatia in the union with Hungary article, where is more details and aproach about that (Background->Succession Crisis)
"Some Croatian nobles around Helen, possibly the Gusići and/or Viniha from Lapčani family, contesting the succession after the death of Zvonimir, asked King Ladislaus I to help Helen and offered him the Croatian throne, which was seen as rightfully his by inheritance rights. According to some sources, several Dalmatian cities also asked King Ladislaus for assistance, presenting themselves as White Croats on his court. Thus the campaign launched by Ladislaus was not purely a foreign aggression nor did he appear on the Croatian throne as a conqueror, but rather as a successor by hereditary rights."
"Coloman, as was the case with Ladislaus before him, wasn't seen as a conqueror but rather as a pretender to the Croatian throne."
So I see the "truth" is on the half-way, although I know unfortunately it does not matter here. You should agree it is not identical with a classic military occupation and forced annexation, since along with the information presented here it is better an emerging campaign following a sucession crisis and they were recognized as Kings and Croatia kept it's sovereignty (of course we could present many different approach what exactly it is - i.e. personal union). So we should agree in a solution that complies with all of this. If you consider, you may add some of this sources to article's core if you see it will create the needed coherence.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC))
Thank you for your remark. I added further sources (among them one you cited above, Bárány) which were published in English. The new sources (including the one cited above) also apply a language reflecting the military nature of the action ("conquest", "resistance"). Consequently, I think we cannot use a neutral language ("became a king"). We can, of course, refer to the fact that part of the local population supported Ladislaus and Coloman. Furthermore, we cannot make a connection between the succession crisis in Croatia and the occupation of the Dalmatian towns, because they are not directly connected. Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, however I think the lead should also contain that they became kings. Check me if it's ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC))
What is the source of the statement that "they were crowned king"? Borsoka (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
For Coloman, "Coloman was crowned king of Croatia in Biograd na Moru in 1102.", For Ladislaus as I see he was not crowned. So it is better to use "became kings" os similar.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC))
Both monarchs had been kings years before they occupied Croatia. What is the source of the statement that Ladislaus whenever styled himself king of Croatia? Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, I never said Ladislaus was not a king or did not style himself as a king, I just said he was not cowned in a classic way as i.e. Coloman regarding Croatia. Would you please add in a proper way to the lead that they became the Kings of Croatia? Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC))
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. I did not say that Ladislaus styled him king of Croatia. I asked you to add a source that verifies that he was king of Croatia. Borsoka (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Well everywhere in his biographies, even here in Wikipedia his title is also King of Croatia. However, these source may imply it, this tell us exactly: 
-"He also expanded the country's holdings by claiming the throne of Croatia in 1091."
-"By 1091, Hungary had recovered enough to begin looking for other opportunities to expand. With the death of the Croatian king, Zvonimir, in that year, László claimed title to the neighboring kingdom as the dead king's brother-in-law. The annexation of Croatia, which among other benefits provided access to ports on the Adriatic Sea, signaled Hungary's arrival as a powerful new dynasty in Europe."
Or, this is better since explicitly tells he acceded: The De Wit Collection of Medieval Coins, 1000 Years of Coinage 
"Yelena's brother, Laidislaus I then asserted his claims to he Croatian throne. A Hungarian army defetated King Petar in 1097, whereupon Ladislaus acceded."(KIENGIR (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC))
The last source is obviously wrong, because Ladislaus was already dead in 1097. The first and second sentences do not say that he styled himself king of Croatia. The second source confirms that Croatia was annexed. I still do not understand why should we say that they were kings of Croatia, Dalmatia. We neither do mention that Béla II and his successors were kings of Rama, Andrew II and his successors were kings of Halych and Lodomeria, etc. The important pieces of information are already mentioned in the lead (the kings occupied Croatia and Dalmatia, they were supported by parts of the local communities, and both realms preserved their self-governemnt). Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then just for curiosity, how may we prove with a source in any onther case he was the king of Croatia? Since this title he held...maybe it is automatical as Croatia got under the Hungarian Crown?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC))