Talk:Țara Amlașului

Articles

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus!

[1] Here I see this name "omlási hűbérbirtok" or "omlási uradalom", by a mainstream historian https://abtk.hu/rolunk/in-memoriam/3324-miskolczy-ambrus-1947-2023 , I see the German word is same as the Hungarian one "lehen=hűbérbirtok" https://nemet-magyar-szotar.hu/lehen.htmlOrionNimrod (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. "omlási hűbérbirtok" gives me zero results in Google Scholar and on Google Books, and only the page on Amnaș in Hungarian Wikipedia in Google. "omlási uradalom" is used in a couple sources in all of the three. I guess I will go with the last one but if it does not have a specific name in Hungarian I prefer not to force it. Are you able to find any other name? It is strange because Țara Făgărașului does have a Hungarian name, Fogarasföld, used by dozens of sources. Super Ψ Dro 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The sourced historian is a well respected in the Romanian-Hungarian history things, https://ceupress.com/contributor/ambrus-miskolczy and lot of result "[2]", you can see the academic source is from 2021. It is just a simple name, same as the German one. You know this estate with some villages is not important in Hungarian historiography, that 100 years long this Hungarian estate was donated as fief land for Wallachian vassals, like many other Hungarian estate was owned by many nobelman vassals of the Hungarian king. That is the feudal system. And the estate owners everywhere always changed, this depended on the king favor. I think this can be mentioned in a big list somewhere in the archives, which lists all estates and all owners centuries long, probably historians know this. Fogaras was more important, that is why more sources about it. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw the Miskolczy book says 9 villages, while you mentioned 8. What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about the agreed Wikipedia naming convention? That medieval land and villages was part of Kingom of Hungary, Hungarian crown land, and Wallachian nobles got the estate as fief for 100 years, like other Hungarian estates everywhere in the country were given to many kind of noblemen, frequently changing owners. There are today Romanian names, but the contemporary medieval name was Hungarian of those villages and estate. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's really pointless and will look bad visually but I won't oppose if you add Hungarian names as long as the Romanian ones stay somewhere. About the nine villages I have removed the four Saxon and five Romanian villages part so that it doesn't contradict the existing text. Feel free to readd that info (and remove the previous one) if you can find the name of the missing village and add it. Super Ψ Dro 19:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In the provided map I see 9 villages which match with the Hungarian source which also mentions 9, or that map shows only 6 inside the area? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is Orlat mentioned in Miskolczy (2021)? If so, feel free to add it. Super Ψ Dro 21:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This say 7 villages in Omlas estate https://epa.oszk.hu/00900/00979/00017/01draskoczy.htm maybe the area of the estate changed and was different in every centuries or maybe it established more villages. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super! Fast translate: page 352 https://mek.oszk.hu/22600/22639/22639.pdf

He exercised power for almost a quarter of a century. He was born in 1355 and reigned 1386–1395 and then 1397–1418. Only Stephen the Great of Moldavia sat on the throne longer than him, 47 years; and the record was achieved by Charles Hohenzollern (1866–1914) with his 48 years of reign. Still, Mircea deserves the big title, because he was a good general and a good farmer, and as a result of all this, he was the voivode of Wallachia whose power extended to more areas than the authority of his predecessors and successors. His royal title is also the most spectacular: "I, Jo [Ioan=John] Mircea, Grand Voivode and sole ruler of the entire country of Wallachia and the parts beyond the mountains, even towards the Tatar parts, Duke of Omlás and Fogaras, Szörény banate and all of Podunavia the lord of both regions and even the Black Sea and the sole ruler of the castle of Silistra."121 OrionNimrod (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The text doesn't say he was the second longest-ruling leader in Wallachia but the third one in Romanian history or so it seems. Reading the text again gave me an idea of how to reword the text. I'd avoid mentioning "third" because it is not mentioned explicitly in the text. Super Ψ Dro 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Latin "transalpine" in medieval Hungarian documents means "Havas-elve" ("beyond the snowy mountains") in Hungarian, which name became later Havasalföld = Wallachia

Same as "transylvania" = Erdő-elve ("beyond the forest") which became Erdély in Hungarian

The page 227 say in Hungarian: "our Wallachian voivode" = voivoda noster transalpinus

transalpine=Wallachia, we do not write neither Transylvania as "beyond forest" in English, because it is a name so "across the mountains" would be not correct, it means Wallachia, as the Hungarian text say in Hungarian OrionNimrod (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wallachia is the implied meaning, but the literal translation of transalpine is "across the Alps". The current version still leaves it clear that it refers to Wallachia while having a more accurate translation. Super Ψ Dro 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super, I think the "rule" is proper term as it used in all articles related to kings, princesses. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "reign", "govern" and "rule" are all valid synonyms. Feel free to add the term if you want. Though by replacing "governed" and not "reigns", I think "rules" is unnatural. Super Ψ Dro 20:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super Ψ Dro!

I have another feedback regarding the name of Wallachia. We say Principality of Transylvania and not Principality of Land Beyond the Forest, do you agree?

Transalpina = It's not an implied meaning, it's a clear meaning as those times Transalpina was of the official name of Wallachia in the Hungarian documents. Even in the marked academic source it is clearly written as Hungarian that Transalpina means "our Wallachian voivode" page 227 https://mek.oszk.hu/22600/22639/22639.pdf „havaselvi vajdánk” (voivoda noster transalpinus) "Havaselve/Havasalföld" means Wallachia in Hungarian: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havasalföld so the academic source say "our Wallachian voivode" and not "our voivode across the mountains", I think we should use the academic interpletations and not about personal translations, like "our Transylvanian voivode" we do not say "our voivode land beyond the forest". OrionNimrod (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have checked in Google Scholar. It seems to be indeed an old Hungarian form for Wallachia and I see that several sources back this [3].

I am a bit bored of this thread already. It's quite long and has mostly dealt with insignificant prose details. I incite you to voice the rest of your suggestions at once. Regarding the "rule" issue I stand my ground that the wording I employed is perfectly natural. Super Ψ Dro 17:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)