Jump to content

Talk:History of Transylvania/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

No Romanians in the 8th century?!?

Ethnolinguistic groups in central-eastern Europe 8th century

This image was placed in the top of the Middle Ages chapter. I wonder about its reliability since I think represents the outcome of the Rosler theory (because it actually confirm the absence of the ethnic Romanians from Transylvania in the 8th century), which of course is disputed. Should be presented here or not, since it represents only one point of view? Aleodor (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the map. I am not sure who placed it here. It was made primarily to illustrate the Slavic tribes in eastern Europe, c. 8th century. It is not designed to have a stance on the 'Romanian Origins" issue. Nevertheless, all the named tribes in the map are based on historic sources and is a good illustration of the political situation affecting (future) Romanian lands at the said time (ie Avar & Bulgar rule, surrounding Slavic tribes, etc). I can well place Vlachs somewhere in Transylvania, Moldavia, or wherever, however, it might be anachronistic given that no source mentioned them at that time Hxseek (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, imho, writing or not writing in Romanians there is automatically a stance. Although, the mainstream hisotians' view (view, not definitive proof) is that Romanians were there (from as north as Maramures to as south-east as outer curvature Carpathians to as south-west as Banat touching Danube, i.e. only about 1/2 of the modern territory of Romania, excluding all plains). I would suggest to add the name in brackets: (Romanians). This way it would be clear that the map does not take a stand on any side.
Second, I would like to specifically mention one particular good thing about the map: it places correctly Ulichians (Dniester-Siret area) and Tiverians (Southern Bug area), unlike many other instances on WP. Unfortunately many people wrote about these 2 tribes on WP, and did not know properly what they talk about, thus more often they simply interchanged them. There exists numerous evidence that Romanians (specifically the ones east of the Carpathians) have borrowed very specific Ulichian customs (some claim that the Ulichians were in fact culturally and lingustically assimilated into Romanians, in the process adapting numerous Ulichian traditions), and no evidence about links with Tiverians. Dc76\talk 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. For example this map is wrong: Ulichians and Tiverians are interchanged. It's a small detail in the big picture, of course, but the accumulation of such small detials is what makes a map eventually questionable or qualitative. Dc76\talk 08:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha. I made that map also ! Yes, Romanian historiographers have given a lot of attention to the 'contrubution' of SLavs to the formation of Romanian ethnos, ranging from those who saw Slavs as a crucial 'third element' to those who try to minimize the impact of 'savage' Slavs upon the 'refined' Roman heritage of the Vlachs. Apart from the biological, of course there is orthodoxy and ruling structure which made its way via Bulgaria. I can have a dabble and see what map I can come up with for theorize places of origins for Vlachs in the Balkans. Hxseek (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Transylvania as part of the Austrian Empire

All references, except some hungarian pages point to the fact that Transylvania had a special separate status within the Habsburg Empire, and its association with the Kingdom of Hungary was a mere formality. In practice, by namig governors and declaring it a Grand Principality, the Habsburgs handled their Transylvania possesion separte from their Hungary possesion.Gamlastan (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my point too. Also, in some articles in the Enciclopaedia Britannica it is explicitly written that 'Transylvania was [...] severed from Hungary' [1]. It is precisely the same source which states that ' Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary'[2] and which is used by some hungarian wikipedians to support the ideea that Hungary had some type of control over Transylvania between 1711 and 1867.Octavian8 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, >>>Austrian Empire<<< did not exist until 1804. Please use the correct and faithful term: Habsburg Empire.--Celebration1981 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The core of this discussion, which you seem to miss completely while concentrating on paying the smart-one here, is that Hungary had no control over Transylvania after it was incorporated into the Habsburg Empire and until the end of the Austrian Empire and the appearance of Austria-Hungary. Please stick to the point.Octavian8 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Dear Toroko please STOP vandalizing the article by deleting referenced text that is not in line with your view of history. The current form of the text reflects also your opinions but weighted by the number and importance of the corresponding references -- the fact that they are very few should actually make you wonder if your opinions are correct. If you do not stop behaving like a vandal and return to being a good wikipedian, I'll be forced to report you. Regards Octavian8 (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Gesta Hungarorum

Gesta Hungarorum has an article of its own, that is also referenced in this article. I belive that commencing a new discussion on the reliability of this source here is redundant. If no contrary opinions appear here in one week, I will deleate the corresponding paragraph in this article. If you have additional references concerning this subject, please add them at the proper place, i.e., in the Gesta Hungarorum article.Octavian8 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph deletedOctavian8 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Gesta Hungarorum = Hungarian Lord of the Rings.--Celebration1981 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts of user Celebration 1981

No, Habsburgs were not ethnically Austrians and they didn't considered themself as austrian or german. In all western countries where the western civilization existed ( the non-Orthodox countries) kings monarchs hadn't national identity and origin. Remember , the political dynastic marriages were exclusively determinant from the beginnings. Therefore France hadn't "national monarchs" England hadn't "national monarchs" Holy Roman Empire hadn't "national monarchs" in most of their history. Also the last truly "national" monarchs of Hungary was Stephen I of Hungary (997-1038).

The parliament of Transylvania retained its position under the Habsburg era. And the majority of this assembly was always Hungarian (only 1/3 part was Transylvanian Saxons). Of course, Hungarian and Transylvanian parliament were not united. Habsburgs rule Transylvania as a very autonomous territory, but under the formal name of the Holy Crown of Hungary.

And look the governors nationality under Habsburg Monarchs: Majority of governors were Hungarian, only one was Austrian, others were local saxons, or from non-austrian (non-Habsburg) parts of German states. But there were not romanians!

  • Stephen Haller, 1709-1710
  • István Wesselényi , 1710-1713
  • Zisgmond Kornis, 1713-1731
  • István Wesselényi, 1731-1732
  • Francisc Anton Wallis, 1732-1734
  • John Haller 1734-1755
  • András Hadik 1765-1767
  • Carol O'Donell 1767-1770
  • Joseph Maria von Auersperg 1771-1774
  • Samuel von Brukenthal 1774-1775, 1776-1787
  • Samuel von Brukenthal 1774-1775, and 1776-1787
  • György Bánffy II, 1787-1822
  • Jósika János 1822-1834
  • Ferdinand Este 1835-1837
  • János Kornis, 1838-1840
  • József Teleki, 1842-1848

--Celebration1981 (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And look the European maps from the 18th century.

You write "western countries where the western civilization existed (the non-Orthodox countries)" do you even know what you are talking about? To me it seems that you just throw with words around whose meaning evades you... What does it have to do with our discussion? For the rest of the post... do you know when the idea of nationality first appeared? Do you know that the Romanians were eliminated from the transylvanian political life since the XIV century? Please don't answer me, post here something only if it has to do with this discussion, otherwise start a new section.Octavian8 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


You didn't know the therm: western world? Please, read about western world and "western culture" , Orthodox countries are not part of western culture or civilisation.

About Nationality ethnicity identity existed from the beginings. Only the "nationalism" as ideology and way of thinking did not existed in old times. Nationalism appeared in the end of the 18th century. Until this day, the Hungarian historians considered Vlachs as immigrants and refugees in Transylvania, their first waves arrived to Transylvania after the Mongol attacks (1241-1242) the second huge waves started to immigrate in the age of Ottoman conquest of Hungary (from XVI-XVII century) --Celebration1981 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not worth any more of my time.Octavian8 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, dear Octavian, you got a checkmate :) --Celebration1981 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you talk about checkmate and don't even know what chess is and I have better things to do than teach you the game.Octavian8 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(Habsburgs originating, as far as I know from Switzerland. You Know the Williams Tell story. The bad guy in the tale is Hermann Gester, now he was Habsburg. Later they were driven out, to their lands outside the cantons, nowadays somewhere in Austria. Some Austrians could help us where.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.109.237 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture captions

Picture captions should be descriptive for the picture, details should be given in text. For the particular case of the picture of Michael the Brave, details about the time he was ruler of the three Romanian Principalities belong in the article about him. In this article there should be (and it is) a link to the latter and eventually a very short description of the facts, but in the text, NOT in the caption. Octavian8 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the picture about the Principalities, the text makes the situation clear, also the word 'united' is a LINK to the article about the 'Personal union', which further clarifies things. Also the caption reads '... united under Michael's authority' and not the 'united Principalities.' Octavian8 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Others

[1] I did this rv, b/c in my humble opinion, we are not allowed, when citing, to change the meaning of sentences. It is ok (f it is a verbatim citation, even that is not ok) if we interchange "x's y" to "y of x", etc, because such things do not change the meaning, not a single bit. About the scholar's work, I don't know how he did it, I am not a historian and i am not familiar with his work, but I assume his professional reputation is at stake when signing scholarly work. He never said he used the data from some census in or around 1600. He might have used other ways to arrive at his conclusion. He never mentions that his sources are Romanian. On the contrary, what kind of Romanian sources in 1600 could have given him such information? Most probably, he is more familiar than we are with History of Transylvania in 1600. I doubt he would have written things made up, I believe he had knowledge of 16th and 17th century Kingdom of Hungary including probably from Hungarian sources at the time (what else?). If you read more form the book, you will notice that the author is very unkind to Romanians, criticizes their Romantic nationalism very harshly; I don't expect him to have a pro-Romanian POV. The sentence represents the scholarly understanding of one scholar, and is directly attributable and traceable to that scholar. Nothing more and nothing less. Dc76\talk 21:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There weren't census about ethnic groups in Transylvania before the 19th century, but it is well-known that the mention of "60% ratio" before the 1700s era is a Romanian practice. According to Hungarian historians, the Romanians or their old original ancestors the so-called "Vlachs" appeared in Transylvania after the Mongol genocides (1241-1242) and they became majority around the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century.

Here is a book: Transylvania - The Roots of Ethnic Conflict

Table of contents http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/

1. The Multiethnic Character of the Hungarian Kingdom in the Later Middle Ages: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy05.htm

2. RUMANIANS, VLACHS OR WALLACHIANS http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy06.htm

The medieval and early modern section of the article seems balanced objective until the mention of the "60 percent" sentence. This is very hurtful for an English Wiki article if it contains biased (national) viewponts (the Romanian or the Hungarian viewpoints) about ethnical ratios. Therefore: Please, don't refer to ethnical ratios and percentages (Saxon Romanian and Hungarian etc...) about Transylvanian poplution until the 19th century. Thanks --Celebration1981 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you blaming me for this? Blame the scholar that wrote that book. If you want, let's add According to ..., ... But why do you jump to the conclusion that that scholar has used "Romanian practice"? For an author who just pages apart dismantles everything about Romanian romantic nationalism to use the very "Romanian practice" that he so sharply criticized? This is not a national viewpoint, or biased, as you call it. It is simply a scholarly consideration.
There are also a number of other inconsistences in what you say:
  1. The first available census is from 1740s, not 19th century
  2. Vlach= Romance people from Eastern Europe. In the context of Transylvania, Romanians=Vlachs. Vlacks are not the "old original ancestors" of Romanians. In Transylvania, they are the Romanians.
  3. The book/website you provide claims that the roots of ethnic conflict in Transylvania lie at least at the beginning of 16th century. But what kind of ethnic conflict before the raise of romantic nationalism in early 19th century? It is 300 years difference! When someone makes such a gross mistake (to talk about ethnicity in 16th century), it is very difficult to believe stronger claims.
  4. The scholarly work I used perhaps regards as Romanian everyone who speaks the Romanian language as native. That is something one can do in 1600, and in 1200, and in 200, one can use available data to put forward an idea about how many poeple spoke a language in a region. But in the 16th centruy, there were no ethnicities. People did not associate any nation-state concept with their language. Moreover, most people did not even know to properly write in their own language. Another possibility to estimate the numbers, is to use religious affiliation, since it is known that Romanians were Orthodox at the time, while Hungarians were Catholic, later also Protestant. But it is not the language they cared then, but the social conditions. They did ont have any national consciousness b/c of their language. The religion, too, did not mean anything, b/c according to the religion, they were living in the "Eastern Roman Empire", which politically was long since defunct. :)
  5. The book/website you give doesn't seem to me (maybe I am mistaken, pls correct me) to be attributable to some (or several) scholar(s). A scholarly work is a secondary source, a webpage is a tertiary one. Secondary sources are the most valued in WP. While it perhaps does present the Hungarian viewpoint, the scholarly work I cited from does not represent any, let alone the Romanian one. I am sure one can find Romanian "sources" claiming 90% of Transylvania were Romaians, including the Szekely, but that wouldn't be anywhere close to a scholarly source. That would be rubbish.
  6. I do understand that some Hungarian historians conclude that "Romanians appeared in Transylvania after the Mongol genocides (1241-1242) and they became majority around the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century." But you don't expect someone to believe that when neutral scolarly sources say otherwise, do you? Moreover, as far as I know, the Hungarian/Romanian divergences are about the Origin of Romanians, namely where the group formed its unity: south or north of Danube. But I did not know the number of Romanians or Hungarians was important. Is that something that Hungarians historians disagree with Romanian ones, or Hungarians who love history disagree with Romanians who love history? We have to attribute everything to scholars, not to our own personal opinions. We can only edit for English and clarity. Dc76\talk 13:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There are also a number of other inconsistences in what you say:

1) The first really (comprehensive) cenzus was Ordered by Emperor Joseph II on July 16. It had result in 1887, it based on christian churches. 45% was Protestant, 44% was Orthodox, 10% was Catholic, and 1% was Jewish (the Romanians were not in majority yet )
There were other cenzus in 1850 and in 1857.

2) 3) Please don't confuse the two terms! Etchnic groups existed (from the ancient age) long before the born of nations. You confuse the civil nationalism with ethnic nationalism. The appearance of Ethnic nationalism is earlier and more various in timeline. (especially very early phenomenon in Orthodox states where the secularization happend very late. In most European (look: >>>Western culture<<) countries the Civil or Liberal nationalism appeared around the age of French revolution. The cultural the societal-system and the economical civilizational (technological) differences between Orthodox countries and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries were similar great, as the differences between Western Christian world and the Mohamedan world. Medieval Orthodox World was very very shocking backward and poor civilization. (only City of Constantinople was the exception in medieval age) Therefore the build up western theories for the Orthodox Romanian society by analogy with the historical/cultural events of western civilization is very harsh.

4) Nation state concept did not existed before the 18th century, it is well-known. I used a religious affiliations in my previous quote.

5) There are no writen documents before the 1850's about romanian majority in transylvania, the author simply copied a former romanian source, which based on Romanian supposition about ethnic ratios in the 16th century without any written documents/cenzus/data. Regardless of author of the source, the (controversial) speculation about ratio of 60% is speculation, and speculations remain just a speculations. But the readers of this article will think that this ratio of 60 percent is a incontestable fact.

6) Read about the contributors here: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy01.htm Contributors

PAUL BõDY is a specialist in nineteenth-century Central European revolutionary and social movements. His published works include Joseph Eötvös and the Modernization of Hungary, 1840-1870.

JOHN F. CADZOW is the director of the Ethnic Heritage Program at Kent State University and organizer of the conference from which the present volume emerged. He is the author of The Lithuanian Americans and Their Communities in Cleveland.

ISTVAN DEAK is professor of history at Columbia University, former director of Columbia's Institute on East Central Europe, and past chairman of the American Association for the Study of Hungarian History. Among his books on East European topics is The Lawful Revolution: Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians, 1848-1849.

LESLIE S. DOMONKOS is professor of history at Youngstown State University. His specialty is medieval and renaissance history, and he has served several terms as visiting senior scholar at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

LOUIS J. ELTETO is chairman of the Department of Foreign Languages at Portland State University. His research in religious movements and church history have particular emphasis on the Unitarians in Transylvania. He is editor of Itt-Ott [Here-There], a bilingual periodical of social and literary criticism.

STEPHEN FISCHER-GALAtI is professor of history and director of the Center for Slavic and East European Studies at the University of Colorado. He is the author of numerous books and articles on Eastern European history and international affairs and is editor of East European Quarterly and East European Monographs.

JOSEPH HELD is former chairman of the History Department of University College, Rutgers University and, at present, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Camden. His latest book is The Modernization of Agriculture: Rural Transformation in Hungary, 1848-1949.

ELEMÉR ILLYÉS, now living in West Germany, is a frequent contributor to Hungarian language periodicals in Europe, largely on topics of minority problems in East Central Europe. His major work is Erdély változása (Metamorphosis Transylvaniae), a study of nationality policies in present-day Rumania.

STEPHEN D. KERTESZ is professor emeritus of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Before emigrating to the United States in 1947, he served in the Foreign Ministry of the Hungarian government and was for a time first secretary of the Hungarian legation in Bucharest with responsibility for the Hungarian minority in southern Transylvania. He has published extensively on Eastern European political questions.

BÉLA K. KIRÁLY took a leading role in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Now professor of history at Brooklyn College, he is also chairman of the East European Section, Center for European Studies of the Graduate School at CUNY. He has written and published widely on Hungarian history and Eastern European politics.

ANDREW LUDANYI is professor of political science at Ohio Northern University and associate editor of Itt-Ott. His research and writings have dealt with ethnic relations in the American and Eastern European settings.

PETER PASTOR, professor of history at Montclair State College, is the author of Hungary Between Wilson and Lenin: The Hungarian Revolution of 1918-1919 and other works in modern Eastern European history.

EDSEL WALTER STROUP, author of Hungary in Early 1848: The Constitutional Struggle Against Absolutism in Contemporary Eyes, is currently working on his dissertation on the government of Count Lajos Batthyány at the University of Akron.

STEVEN BELA VARDY, current president of the American Association for the Study of Hungarian History, is professor of history at Duquesne University. He is the author of a political biography of Joseph Eötvös and several works on Hungarian historiography.

BULCSU VERESS holds a law degree from Eötvös University of Budapest and a degree in international relations from Columbia University. He is presently staff assistant to Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and has written numerous position papers on Eastern European ethnic relations.

--Celebration1981 (talk)

1) I did not say comprehensive census. I said fist available census results. And I am referring specifically to 1740s (I forgot the exact year, but it shouldn't be difficult to google), and in particular I recollect quite detailed data is available for Banat. If we wait until the most comprehensive census, then it might come only 200 years in the future from now. For example, people 200-300 year in the future, remarking that toady we don't know how many people exactly live at any given moment, would consider us very far from comprehensive. To know how many people are every 10 years is one thing, but 300 year from now, they would know how many are every single day. So, let's also not apply 21st century standards for 18th century. 270 years ago they did an extraordinary job given the technology and length of communication 270 years ago.
2)3) You said: "Medieval Orthodox World was very very shocking backward and poor civilization." I am reading this as a personal attack. Please, refract it, or our discussion here is over.
You said: "The cultural the societal-system and the economical civilizational (technological) differences between Orthodox countries and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries were similar great, as the differences between Western Christian world and the Mohamedan world." What is your point? You want to prove to others you are superior or inferior? Such discussion is outside the scope of WP. Period.
You said: "The appearance of Ethnic nationalism is earlier and more various in timeline. (especially very early phenomenon in Orthodox states where the secularization happend very late. In most European (look: >>>Western culture<<) countries the Civil or Liberal nationalism appeared around the age of French revolution." No, the nationalism appeared everywhere in 19th century, in the wake of the development started by the French revolution. Please, read scholarly works, not anti-Orthodox propaganda. Also do not forget that Romanians have been the most open and closed tied to the West Orthodox people. Some anti-Western Orthodox and some anti-Orthodox Westerners obviously have their propaganda that they believe, that helps them feel superior to Romanians.
4) which quote do you refer to?
5) No, the readers of this article would think that a scholar wrote that, and is cited here. Apart from that I would not try to convince you to change any of you opinions. For what it is worth you can believe that Romanians do not exist even today.
6) 15 such distiniguished people. I am honestly impressed. If 15 people write a text together, surely some of them have written something about that subject before. Then, it shouldn't be difficult to find a citation in their scholarly works, if you like to. Dc76\talk 00:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1) I did not say comprehensive census. I said fist available census results. And I am referring specifically to 1740s (I forgot the exact year, but it shouldn't be difficult to google), and in particular I recollect quite detailed data is available for Banat. If we wait until the most comprehensive census, then it might come only 200 years in the future from now. For example, people 200-300 year in the future, remarking that toady we don't know how many people exactly live at any given moment, would consider us very far from comprehensive. To know how many people are every 10 years is one thing, but 300 year from now, they would know how many are every single day. So, let's also not apply 21st century standards for 18th century. 270 years ago they did an extraordinary job given the technology and length of communication 270 years ago.


Banat is a very little territory as compared with Transylvania, therefore it is an ineptitude for the Transylvanian ethnic composition. It's no more than an unfounded embittered strain of the nationalist part of Romanian historians.

2)3) You said: "Medieval Orthodox World was very very shocking backward and poor civilization." I am reading this as a personal attack. Please, refract it, or our discussion here is over.


MAny times, the mimic pipque is just a form (and reason) for escape from the defeat.
It is not a secret in history, that countries civilizations are/were not in the same level of development. It is well-known that Western and Central Europe, the Western civilization was always more developed than Orthodox or Eastern European.

You said: "The cultural the societal-system and the economical civilizational (technological) differences between Orthodox countries and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries were similar great, as the differences between Western Christian world and the Mohamedan world." What is your point? You want to prove to others you are superior or inferior? Such discussion is outside the scope of WP. Period.

Byzantine Empire became a decadent civilisation from the 9th century. After the 9th century, there weren't inventions , the fine-arts and the structure of the society stiffed ,similar to their technology. Only city of constantinople had industry, but all provincial towns and cities of the Bz. Empire remained totally agricultural and therefore backward which caused significant economic decline from 9-15th century. The biggest city of Europe was Constantinaple until the end of the 11th century. By the 13th century there were 3 bigger Western European cities, and by the early 14th century there were 9 huge Western European cities which were bigger than Constantinople. From the end of the 12th century in Western Europe, there were more than 12 large gothic cathedrals which were bigger (in all dimensions) than "legendary" Hagia Sophia in Constantinalple, and they were brighter and much more complicated buildings. The lack of economic power determined the possibilities of Constantinople to civilize the distant non-greek Orthodox territories.

MEMENTO:

Western things which were not existed in orthodox world Medieval appearance of parliaments (the dietal-system), self-government like status of big royal/imperial cities, medieval appearance of banking systems and social effects and status of urban bourgeoisie, medieval appearance of universities and the medieval appearance of secular intellectuals, Philosophy: Scholasticism and humanist philosophy,the knight-culture and the effects of crusades in the Holy Land, medieval usage of Latin alphabet and medieval spread of movable type printing, The medieval western theatre: Mystery or cycle plays and morality passion plays, The architecture and fine-arts: Romanesque Gothic and Renaissance styles.


The Orthodox church wanted to preserve its exclusivity in all sphere of cultural and intellectual life. Therefore secular intellectuals did not existed in orthodox world until the 18th century (in Russian Empire) and until the 19th century in Balkanian territories.


There are 4 main historic development levels for every counry. 1. nomad half-nomad (sepherd the majority) 2. feudal- (agricultural) 3.industrial 4.post-industrial.


All Western-Christian states arrived to the 2. development level (feudal-agricultural) from year 600 to 1000AD. In Balkanian Orthodox countries (except Greeks) most people lived pastoral sepherd lifestyle in the balkanian mountains until the 14th (!!!) century. In romanian territories the half-nomad sepherd lifestyle remained more important than (the more civilized) agricultural lifestyle until the the 16th century.


Have you ever read books about the history and developments of fine arts and architecture? Don't forget that the successor of the true Byzantine fine arts and architecture is the Middle-Eastern Islamic World. But the motive of onion-dome appeared foremost in Islamic word. In the Orthodox Balkan , average people wore Kaftans (clothes from Islamic world) and primitive sandals (instead of shoes) until the 1860's.


_______________


About Orthodox Pan-slavism and the key-role of Orthodox churches in ethnocentrism:


(it is true for the so-called Pan-Romanian movements which based on Byzantinism and Orthodox Church ): The greatest problem is that it is not felt in Europe that in the appearance of 19th century nationalism Orthodoxy in fact gained new determinant momentum by the Panslav (or Pan-Romanian) Movement.


Have you ever heard about >>>Byzantinism<<< ? Byzantinism is a cultural effect on orthodox countries, which cannot dissolve even with the decline of the importance of religion.


Read about: Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality


The "baggage" of Byzantine tradition is used to explain the delays in developing democratic institutions, the preference for the strong, even autocratic governments, people's distrust of businessmen and elected politicians, and overall, to explain the difference between the West and South-East and Eastern Europe. The word "Byzantinism" and related, like "Byzantine", have acquired negative connotations in several West European languages, including the English language


There is a well known historical reason for this. Byzantium was always in close contact with the absolutism of the Eastern peoples, the ideas of despotism derived from there.

In Byzantium they could never separate religion from Imperial politics. The religion began under the patronage of the emperor, interwoven with the empire, with the realm, with the political power. The Orthodox Church's servility derives from here. This situation has not changed during the last one and a half thousand years, it produced the state-church in all Orthodox countries, executing the power of government administration and supervision, almost as an organ of police. In such a political system, the clergy cannot progress and remains on a low level, the state does not develop either, life becomes rigid. (...The history of the Byzantine empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude. similar to an Asian country) This is the cause of the amazing primitiveness one notices when crossing the border of Orthodoxia.


The Byzantines wanted to dominate the world. They elevated this concept to the rank of messianism in the Balkans and later in Russia, where the Greek Orthodox faith was gaining ground. Ever since, in the ethos of Orthodoxia, the East is the incarnation of morality, perfection, truth, it is itself the light, as opposed to the West, which is the nest of sin and decay. The West has to be conquered. In the New Testament the chosen people are the Byzantines whose duty it is to guard the Ortho-dox faith and to prepare the redemption of humanity.


Professor Hans Kohn writes in his book Pan-Slavism (New York: Vintage Books 1960): "Khomyakov (1804--60) a leading Slavophile thinker was convinced by the events of 1848 that hope resided only in Orthodox Slavdom. He predicted in 1848 the end of Austria and of the last Charlemagne's Empire, and the disappearance of papal power 'in the archives of history, followed by Protestantism and by Catholicism... Now it is the turn of Orthodoxy, the turn of the Slav races to enter the stage of the world...'."

In the East, religious ceremonies are held in each country's language. Today this sounds quite natural, but during the Middle Ages when the Church (of Rome) had a definite role in uniting and reconciling people, the Latin liturgy played a great part in making it possible for the Church to became universal and international, and without doubt, this lead to the develop-ment of European spirituality. In the Balkans the Greek-language Church was established and with its assistance the Gothic- the Armenian-, the Syrian-, the Coptic-, and the Slavic national Churches arose. However the uniting strength and authority over individual nations and churches was missing from this system.


The revolutionary nature of Slavophilism was pointed out by Prince Ivan Sergeyevich Gagarin (1814--82). In his pam-phlet La Russie sera-t-elle catholique? (Paris 1856) he wrote: "In their foreign policy, they wished to fuse all Orthodox Christians of whatever nationality, and all Slavs of whatever religion, in a great political unity, in a great Slav and Orthodox empire..." (Hans Kohn -- Pan-Slavism).


In the middle of the Twentieth Century, led by Bolshevik Russia, Slav nationalism conquered Central Europe, but that was all it has achieved: it could not give more than what is its essence: hardly anything more than Byzantinism manifested as Bolshevism. The Slav-Orthodox "salvation of Europe" was foredoomed to failure, it compromised even the Panslav idea of unification of all Slavs.


You said: "The appearance of Ethnic nationalism is earlier and more various in timeline. (especially very early phenomenon in Orthodox states where the secularization happend very late. In most European (look: >>>Western culture<<) countries the Civil or Liberal nationalism appeared around the age of French revolution." No, the nationalism appeared everywhere in 19th century, in the wake of the development started by the French revolution. Please, read scholarly works, not anti-Orthodox propaganda. Also do not forget that Romanians have been the most open and closed tied to the West Orthodox people. Some anti-Western Orthodox and some anti-Orthodox Westerners obviously have their propaganda that they believe, that helps them feel superior to Romanians.

There were not serious ties between Romania and the west before 18th century.You call it anti-Orthodox or whatever anti***** etc... If something is unflattering for you. It's childish.

As I said, It is not superiority feeling. The cultural/technologian economic societal differences between Orthodox Europe and Western cultured countries in Europe are similar to the differences between latino-Americaan South and English Speaking (USA Caanada) parts of the American Continent. But Average American people are open minded and they don't despise/contemn for bacwardness the Latino-Americans.


4) which quote do you refer to?

Please don't confuse tha civic nationalism and ethnocentrism. As I said :Civic nationalism was born in the 18th century.Ethnocentrism is much more ancient


Social Studies: Medieval - Ethnocentrism by Michelle Bell on April05,1999 Plural Societies 18, 1989 "Ethnicity in East and West" (Auszug) rise of medieval ethnocentrism) medieval ethnocentrism was accelerated by the intrusion of a foreign enemy. Kalckhoff is of the opinion that an ethnic community becomes a nation, when the commonwealth of a people is no longer considered to the purpose, but the result, of a shared destiny. University of Minesota, about medieval ethnocentrism: http://www.morris.umn.edu/~deanej/World%20History/PowerPoints/19-Ethnocentrism%20in%20World%20History.ppt


5) No, the readers of this article would think that a scholar wrote that, and is cited here. Apart from that I would not try to convince you to change any of you opinions. For what it is worth you can believe that Romanians do not exist even today.

Romanian as a country name or name for an ethnic group is young. It was born just in the modern period.

6) 15 such distiniguished people. I am honestly impressed. If 15 people write a text together, surely some of them have written something about that subject before. Then, it shouldn't be difficult to find a citation in their scholarly works, if you like to.

No, it was just a short citations from 15 people. Many of them write books about history of Transylvania. I dont want to give a link about "The history of Transylvania" which contains more than 3,000 page, because you can't read it until months.

I have filed this [current link], because it is difficult to keep a dialog with you. BTW, for the third time, please DO SIGN your comments, and at least don't use my signature in the text of your reply, as it suggests that your words belong to me.
I would like to list a few things that I believe you misunderstand:
  • "The Orthodox church wanted to preserve its exclusivity in all sphere of cultural and intellectual life. Therefore secular intellectuals did not existed in orthodox world until the 18th century (in Russian Empire) and until the 19th century in Balkanian territories."
  • "There are 4 main historic development levels for every counry. 1. nomad half-nomad (sepherd the majority) 2. feudal- (agricultural) 3.industrial 4.post-industrial. All Western-Christian states arrived to the 2. development level (feudal-agricultural) from year 600 to 1000AD. In Balkanian Orthodox countries (except Greeks) most people lived pastoral sepherd lifestyle in the balkanian mountains until the 14th (!!!) century. In romanian territories the half-nomad sepherd lifestyle remained more important than (the more civilized) agricultural lifestyle until the the 16th century."
    • There were also sedentary populations that were not nomad. Also it is very difficult to explain how a people has managed to create two independent principalities in 14th century and for over a 100 years successfully defend against Ottoman Armies of up to 150,000 strong, while apparently "half-nomad sepherd lifestyle remained more important than (the more civilized) agricultural lifestyle until the the 16th century".
  • "Have you ever read books about the history and developments of fine arts and architecture? Don't forget that the successor of the true Byzantine fine arts and architecture is the Middle-Eastern Islamic World. But the motive of onion-dome appeared foremost in Islamic word. In the Orthodox Balkan , average people wore Kaftans (clothes from Islamic world) and primitive sandals (instead of shoes) until the 1860's."
    • no comment. IMHO, this borders an attack on one's ethnic group.
  • "Read about: Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality"
    • It's about Tsarist autocracy, not about every Orthodox nation. I have somehow to explain that there were also other Orthodox countries except the 19th century Russian Empire.
  • "There is a well known historical reason for this. Byzantium was always in close contact with the absolutism of the Eastern peoples, the ideas of despotism derived from there."
    • Don't you think you are generalizing to much and pushing it too far?
  • "it produced the state-church in all Orthodox countries, executing the power of government administration and supervision, almost as an organ of police. In such a political system, the clergy cannot progress and remains on a low level, the state does not develop either, life becomes rigid. (...The history of the Byzantine empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude. similar to an Asian country) This is the cause of the amazing primitiveness one notices when crossing the border of Orthodoxia."
    • It is always very hard to justify you are not "primitive"...
  • "In the middle of the Twentieth Century, led by Bolshevik Russia, Slav nationalism conquered Central Europe, but that was all it has achieved: it could not give more than what is its essence: hardly anything more than Byzantinism manifested as Bolshevism."
    • There was much more to Bolshevism than a manifestation of Byzantine tradition. It's like saying Fascism is a manifestation of Protestantism. Try to explain this logic is not true. The falsity of this is supposed to be evident.
  • "Romanian as a country name or name for an ethnic group is young. It was born just in the modern period."

If this can help toning down the language, possibly placing on a formal notice (making aware of) would help? (Obviously, only an admin could do that.) Dc76\talk 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello gentlemen. I saw this discussion listed at WP:THIRD so I've come here to help out. I have no affiliation with Transylvania and, indeed, virtually no knowledge of the place and its peoples. However I think I may be able to help bring the discussion to a positive end for the article.
I have read the arguments thus far. But I confess you appear to have lost track of what it is you are trying to achieve here. So I will start by asking a question. Is the central point of disagreement here that you cannot agree that the statement "Romanians constituted more than 60 percent of the Transylvanian population around the year 1600" is true or false? --bodnotbod (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. They were arguing about that. If you want to understand this, I suggest to you to read/check these articles: Origin of the Romanians (lead text is enough), Transylvania, Treaty of Trianon. Cheers,--B@xter9 06:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bodnotbod, Thank you very much for dropping here and for taking time to read through this. I think you are right when you say that we have lost track of what we are trying to achieve here. Personally, I am only a minor, occasional contributor to this article. I admit openly that I have not taken time and effort to try to work this article as a whole, but just dropped here occasionally. The central point of the disagreement at this stage is indeed the statement: "Romanians constituted more than 60 percent of the Transylvanian population around the year 1600". I agree with Baxter9 that the 3 articles he mentions would help understand the background, or rather the reasons why this issue is disputed:
  • Origin of Romanians explains that there is no unanimity among historians. While Romanian and most western scholars agree that modern Romanians are descendants of Romanized Dacians admixtured with many other elements over another 1700 years, Hungarian historians and some others, claim that both Dacian continuity theory and Roesler's theory are plausible. This however does not have direct relation on the Transylvania in 1600 because even Roesler's theory claims Romanians were in modern Romania well before 1300. (The central point of continuity-Roesler disagreement is whether Romanians were or were not in Transylvania in ca 1000, when Magyars started to conquer it.) The two issues (who were first, Romanians or Hungarians; and how many Romanians were in 1600) are of course of the same flavor: generally people stick to the same "side" in both issues. My point I would like to emphasize here is that unlike the origin question, historians (with exception of some, not all, Hungarian historians) do not consider minority and 60% in 1600 equally plausible. This is where this issue differs from that of the origin of Romanians.
  • While scrolling through Treaty of Trianon, pleas also note Magyarization, and Union of Transylvania with Romania (also some context can be gained at Transylvanian School). With the advent of romantic nationalism in 19th century, Transylvania, which was in Hapsburg Empire at the time (called Austria-Hungary since 1867) was the prime target of the policy of Magyarization. The counter-reaction to this came in 1918, when Austria split apart: Romanians (55% of population at that time) voted for Union with Romania, supported two weeks later by Germans (15% of population at that time), while Hungarians (30% of population at that time) opposed that, and largely refer to 1918 Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary as "the country we lost". In the context of Hungarian romantic nationalism of 19th century, it was important to make it clear that Romanians were a minority in Transylvania up until as close to 19th century as possible. In the context of Romanian romantic nationalism of 19th century, it was important to make it clear that Romanians were continuously in Transylvania since the dawn of history.
  • In the context of modern Transylvania, there is a political issue: Hungary and Hungarian minority in Romania ask for territorial autonomy of ethnic grounds (practically that can refer to the Szeklers in Harghita and Covasna Counties, where they represent a majority, since in the rest of Transylvania the Hungarian community is largely urban - albeit they make 5%, 10%, 20%, or even 30% in some of the cities, they are a minority due to the size of the population in cities - with much fewer rural communities), while Romanian officials and Romanians in general cite Article 1 of the Constitution of Romania, which says that the country is a unitary state, thus disallowing autonomy in one part in a way different from another part (it is a common belief that the local autonomy nowadays is by far insufficient, but Romanians believe that local autonomy should be granted to everybody, not only to areas with Hungarian majority, in the same degree).
As I said, however, and I think Baxter9 would agree, these are 3 major, but context things. The question disputed is pin-pointed to the sentence "Romanians constituted more than 60 percent of the Transylvanian population around the year 1600". Apart from that, any thought about overall improvements to the article (even if it would be about only 1-2 (sub)sections) would obviously be highly appreciated, as we seldom get third opinions. Dc76\talk 11:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Your argument on Hungarian population only in towns are not true. There are parts Kalotaszeg, Mezöseg, in the Partium Bihar, Szatmar where there are pure or majority Hungarian villages. I assume you were never in Transylvania, only in the capital.

For ethnic ratios in the 16th century, there is no census, but there are lots of written records Hungarian, Latin and German and Foreign traveller records where you can derive something.

But I would propose one thing, easy one, if you really looking for the truth and not only want to shine the "glorious Romanian Past in Transylvania". Get into your can go through the villages and look for the churches. If the Orthodox church is brand new and you have a Calvinist church (star on the tower) old that indicates, Romanians are new. (I assume the old Romanians visited the churches diligently as did Hungarians or Saxons), if you see Lutheran church (globe on the Church)they were Germans, if you see Roman Catholic cross on the tower again Hungarian, the Orthodox you recognize (watch out there are many old Armenian churches, they are not Romanian). Who built the church that lived in the village for 400 years - that easy.

In my experience the Romanian churches are new (this year your government again supported 80 new Orthodox churches to build and 0 Calvinist&Lutheran&Unitarian&Catholic)and the Gothic or Romance and Baroque ones are Hungarians, and many Saxon ones. But do not belive me, go and look yourself. --Vargatamas (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No old romanian churches implies romanians are new to the land... This just shows you don't know that much about the history of that piece of land (have you even been there?). Do you know that the orthodox religion (the religion of most romanians) was only 'tolerated' there and the 'nobility' was redefined to exclude orthodox (starting xiv century). This means, no possibility to get finance to build big lasting stone churches (if I remember correctly the orhodox were even forbidden to build stone churches).Octavian8 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Vargatamas,
Yes, you are right, and I was wrong about the following: I forgot about the area between Oradea and Carei, including such towns as Marghita and Valea lui Mihai. That is indeed a majority Hungarian area, both urban and rural. It is situated on the Romanian-Hungarian border, and has about 100,000 inhabitants. It is in Crişana (Partium). When the border was drawn in 1918, there was a problem: Arad - Oradea- Satu Mare was ethnically mixed, and a correct ethnic border would have to cross the tranportation link several times. In fact, while south of Oradea, only Salonta in Hungarian, if you go 30 km north of it there is an entire Hungarian region, which ends basically at the outskirts of Satu Mare. I am sorry I oversimplified in my previous comment. I should have excluded not only the land were Szeklers live (which contains also some smaller areas in Mureş County, while for example Topliţa area in Harghita is not Szekely), but also the Oradea-Carei area. Only in the rest, the Hungarian population is predominantly urban.
You said: "For ethnic ratios in the 16th century, there is no census, but there are lots of written records Hungarian, Latin and German and Foreign traveller records where you can derive something." I totally agree with that. This is what I told to Celebration1985 all along, that despite not having censa in 16th century, historians can infer some information (obviously not super-precise).
Allow me however to disagree with "glorious Romanian Past in Transylvania". We were mostly peasants, and though we had some people we could be proud of, that is no match for the Hungarian nobility which retreated mostly to Transylvania (partially to modern Slovakia) after the Battle of 1526. Yes, we can be proud of people of the Transylvanian School, or Avram Iancu, of people of the late 19th century. Yes there are occasionally noblemen such as a couple short-lived governors of Tranylvania in 16th century, such as Dragoş of Bedeu (whose family was Magyarazed and became Dragfy several generations after him), such as Nicolaus Olahus, primate of Hungary in early 1500s, such as John Hunyadi, whose ethnic background is disputed, but nevertheless he was a hero for everyone. But that pales to the 100 or so Hungarian noble families in Transylvania which ruled it for hundreds of years.
Now, if we look at old churches in Transylvania, we notice several features:
  • There are no more than 20 in the whole of Transylvania built before 1600. If you look at those, you should factor in also the Romanian churches in Maramureş, Râmeţ Monastery, as well as the Saxon churches. Romanian and Saxon churches dominate Hungarian ones if you look at before 1600.
  • Between 1600 and 1900 you have most of the nice churches. And they indeed are first of all Saxon (despite being only 15% of population, over 1/3 of architecture, if not 1/2 is Saxon), then Hungarian Calvinist and Catholic. But, as Ocatavian8 said above, what do you expect of peasants during Unio Trium Nationum? Compare for example Poland's domination of Ukraine in the same period of time, and you see the same phenomenon.
  • Now, restrict to Romanian churches, and please note that the Greek-Catholic ones are by far much more beautiful than the Orthodox ones (I am referring to before 1900). Many orthodox ones were wooden, or contained a lot of wood, and eventually had to be teared down and rebult recently, while Greek-Catholic ones are very beautiful. This is despite the fact that Greek-Catholics were fewer than to Orthodox (they almost got equal at one point, I believe the difference was only 4%, 33% to 29% or something like that). Again the problem is money and political empowerment.
  • Persoanly, I haven't traveled much through Transylvania, and I've seen only very few Hungarian areas. I know Cluj, Alba, Hunedoara, Maramureş, and Sibiu Counties. A little bit also, Braşov, Salaj, and Mureş. Through friends also I know about Bihor, Timiş, and Covasna. I have never been in the Hungarian villages in Crişana/Partium, and only half a day in Harghita (Gheorgheni). Dc76\talk 09:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry I've not attended to this for a few days, I've not been feeling too great and so have busied myself with easier work here on Wikipedia. Obviously there is, quite literally, a lot of history here and I may return to the subject of Transylvania and do more reading in future, as it's rather interesting.

But as to the matter in hand, I suggest we must return to first principles. The statement ""Romanians constituted more than 60 percent of the Transylvanian population around the year 1600" remains contentious, I suppose? Here are some suggested remedies:

1. Assuming that an editor feels it is of importance to include this statement and that it can be referenced, it should be made with an inline reference which, when clicked on, takes the reader to a listing of the source (as do all such inline citations on Wikipedia) but... and here's the novelty, within the reference tags other editors can address problems they have with that source. So anyone who clicks the inline reference number will be taken to a listing of the source accompanied by notes that also question the validity of that source. It would be required that questions regarding the source be, in themselves, referenced too.

2. Again, assuming that an editor still feels strongly that the statement must be included and that it can be referenced, follow that with something like "(but see section 'Romanian population' below)" which should link to a section in the article which discusses the various estimates of the Romanian population at this - and perhaps other - times.

3. Alter the statement to say "estimates of the Romanian population at this time vary, x puts this estimate at 60% whilst y gives z%" all with inline citations to the figures given.

In all this, please accord with WP:VERIFY and WP:Reliable sources.

I foresee that you may still have problems, in that it may be very difficult to find your sources. However, that is the crux of the matter. It is obvious that there are very knowledgeable editors here. However, Wikipedia applies the principle that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". So, as frustrating as it is, even if you feel yourself that you know something to be true, unless you can include sources you cannot assert your knowledge.

For anybody that this does frustrate, I can only advise that you return to your bookshelf (or Google Books) and go that extra mile to find sources that back you up. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you again,

I only intend to add few answers for the one two before:

I do travel there few times a year. I only want to open your mind a bit. Only stated read the sources, not the historians. In Hungarian there are many sources, half originally Hungarian, half translated from Latin for the period 16-17th century (contemporaries: Forgach Ferenc, Baranyai Decsi Janos, Bethlen Janos, Bethlen Miklos, Bethlen Farkas, Szamosközy Istvan, Georg Kraus, Eszterhazy Pal, Heltai Gaspar, Kemeny Janos, Istvanffy Miklos, Verancsics Antal, Zsamboky Janos, Gianmichele Bruto, Cserei Mihaly, Szalancy Janos, David Teutsch, Bernardo de Aldana etc, but you do not speak Hungarian.

Second, for churches, there are more than 20, since I consider a church increase, renovated in baroque but having at least one romanesque or gothic window from that period (windows were build rarely alone) so from this type there are few hundred.

Further, a Reformed / Calvinist church in today only by Romanian populated village can not only mean the Hungarians magyarized in the middle ages the poor Romanians, butr maybe there were Hungarians living there.

There are anyway few Orthodox stone churches build for Orthdox, not formerly Calvinist or Catholic, so your argument for surpressed Orthodoxy is not really valid. The problem was rather that Orthodox paid no tithes, which was a revenue for the nobility and therefore they did not like them not because "national hatred" before nationalism emerged

For the allegedly Romanian nobility: 1) they were not Orthodox as all Romanians (although they might have Romanian routes) 2) they wanted to be Hungarian (see, Sarközy also thinks he is French not HUngarian (better so) and French think he is French (despite Hungarian father), as any immigrants/people with assimilation needs/ whateveryou like or define.. )ce la vie, do not want them noth worth

--Vargatamas (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A highly dubious map

The map added to the article under the title "Migration routes of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Pechenegians, Cumanians and the great Tartar invasion on Romania's territory" is totally misleading, because:

1. The map’s title refers to “Romania’s territory”, but Tisa was never the border river of Romania, and the territory between the Prut and the Dniester rivers is now an independent republic.

2. The map describes a situation which never existed at the same time: e.g., between c. 610 and c. 1002, and after 1187 the Danube was the northern frontier of the Bulgarian Empire and not of the Byzantine Empire, while the supposed "voivodates" (if ever) existed in the 9th century or in the 13th century.

See, for example, John V. A. Fine, Jr.: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelth Century (ISBN 978-0-472-08149-3) pp. 33-37., 187-188., 197-199.

3. The “Voivodeship of Gelou” and the “Voivodeship of Menumorut” (if ever existed) had been occupied by the Hungarians by 910s even according to the only source which refers to their existence (Gesta Ungarorum); therefore, the reference in the map to the 9th-11th centuries is misleading.

4. Although in the 13th century the Gesta Ungarorum refers to the three voivodates of Gelou, Menumorut and Glad (and only the Gesta Ungarorum refers to them), earlier sources refer to other polities in the territory, for example:

  • ♦The Bavarian Geographer in the 9th century listed the Bulgars and some Slavic tribes (e.g., Meheranos) living in the territory presented by the map.
  • Around 950, Constantinos Porphirogennetos wrote that the territory on the rivers Tisa, Cris, Mures and Timis had been part of Great Moravia before the Hungarian conquest (around 896), but he also mentioned that at his time the same territory was part of “Turkia” (=Hungary). Moreover, he added that 4 Pecheneg tribes lived around 950 on the territories between the rivers Danube and Dnieper east of the Carpathian Mountains, and the Pecheneg’s territories bordered “Turkia” (=Hungary). Similar descriptions can be found in contemporary or nearly contemporary Muslim writers’ works.

See, for example, Kristó Gyula: Kristó: Early Transylvania, 895-1324 (ISBN 963-9465-12-7) pp. 63-65.

5. The Bolohoveni never lived in the territory where the map locates them.

See, for example, Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5) pp. 93-97., 161-162.

6. The “Principality of Transylvania” was formed around 1570 as a consequence of the Peace of Speyer.

Consequently, I think that the map should be radically changed or deleted. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


(in Romanian)Înţeleg nemulţumirile dumneavoastră, eu nu sunt un specialist în istorie, sunt grafician. Am preluat harta din cartea unui istoric român recunoscut cel puţin la nivel naţional(vezi sursa)(ROMÂNIA) şi autorul unei enciclopedii a istoriei românilor. Modul în care puneţi problemele începând de la punctul 1, 2, 3, 4, (if ever), mă face să înţeleg disputele referitoare la Transilvania dintre etnicii maghiari şi români. Dumneavoastră nu puteţi şterge această hartă sau să o modificaţi după cum vreţi sau vă imaginaţi, această hartă este publicată în cartea specificată în sursă. Puteţi să faceţi alta după o altă sursă pe care va trebui s-o specificaţi, nu este permisă cercetarea originală la wikipedia. Nu hotărâţi dumneavoastră cine a scris bine despre subiect şi cine nu, lăsaţi cititorii să aleagă adevărul dintr-o mulţime de hărţi făcute de diverşi autori de-a lungul timpului.Asybaris01 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Borsoka, that map is awful. The map contains non-existent borders and non-existent persons. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The borders are indeed problematic, as is the placing on the map of polities that in certain cases existed only centuries apart. At least this is the case for the SE quarter of the map. (my area of "expertise") Anonimu (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Britannica

If someone is against this edit, please let me know

Transylvania was not an administrative part of the Kingdom of Hungary, otherwise, the declaration of their Union would not have led to a sort of civil war in 1848/49 (Iaaasi (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

De iure Transylvania remained part of the lands of the Holy Crown of Hungary after the Habsburgs repelled the Ottomans in 1686-87. Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania "by the rights of the Holy Crown". However, in the practice, (or "De-facto") Transylvania was administered/governed separately by the Habsburgs.--Blankepage (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Gyula and Pallas lexikon

The very first Rumanian nomadic states were born in the 14th century (Wallachia & Moldavia) according to Encyclopedia Britannica and German Brockhaus encyclopedia.


Original Pallas lexikon is awaiable in the internet. http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/lexikon/pallas/html/bongesz.htm 


However it depict Gyulas as Hungarian leaders.

The Gyula article: http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/lexikon/pallas/html/043/pc004395.html#1

The lexikon is very old, therefore its texts are free:

"Gyula 1. Horka fia s Erdély meghódítójának, Töhötömnek unokája, 950 táján utazott Konstantinápolyba, hol csakhamar megkeresztelkedett, patricius lett és vendégbarátja Konstantin császárnak (Kedrénosz görög iró Gulaz-nak, a Névtelen Jegyző Geulának nevezi őt). Hogy hazájában is terjessze a keresztény hitet, Hierotheos szerzetest, kit Turkia (Magyarország) püspökévé szentelt Theophylaktos, magával vitte Erdélybe, hol az nem sikertelenül térített. Maga Gyula vajda mindvégig megmaradt a keresztény hitben, kiváltott és felszabadított sok keresztény rabot s őrizkedett a kelet-római birodalom határainak háborgatásától. A magyar krónikások (a Névtelen s Kézai), kik az Arpádok genealogiáját meglehetősen ismerhették, Sarolta nevü leányt tulajdonítnak neki és ezt csodálatos szépségünek mondják. Saroltát Géza fejedelem (l.o.) vette nőül s ebből a házasságból származott szt. István. 2. Gy., vajda, az előbbinek unokaöccse, Zombor fia, a pogányság és a törzsszerkezet érdekében 1002. fegyvert fogott szt. István ellen. Kán v. Keán moldvai besenyő fejedelem szövetségében egészen a Tiszaág nyomult. István személyesen ment ellene (1103), legyőzte s feleségével és két fiával, Buával (Bolya, Baja?) és Buknyával (Bonyha, Bajna?) együtt elfogván, a kereszténység fölvételére kényszerítette s a róla nevezett Gyula-Fehérvárott Erdély számára püspökséget alapított. Gy.-t azontul olytiszteletben tartotta, mintha csak atyja lett volna. Gy. volt az utolsó magyar törzsfőnök.

3. Gy., magyar főur, 1030. Ajtony levágott fejével sietett szt István udvarába, hol nagy kitüntetésekkel fogadták; midőn azonban Csanád vezér bebizonyította, hogy ő vágta le Ajtony fejét, a király elüzte udvarából Gy.-t.

4. Gy., 1075. nádor

5. Gy., 1134 nádor.

6. Gy. Keán nemzetségéből, 1191-1234 közt a legnagyobb méltóságokat viselte. 1201. már vajda, azután udvarbiró, bán s több vármegye főispánja, 1219 - 1222. s ismét 1224-26. nádor. IV. Béla őt, mint felségsértőt elitélte s a hatalmas főur 1240 előtt börtönben végezte életét. Gy. nevü fiától származnak a Siklósyak.

7. Gy. vagy gylas, Konstantin görög császár szerint a magyarok főbirája, Ibn Rosztéh (Dasta) szerint ellenben (dsila néven) hadvezér, kinek minden magyar engedelmeskedni tartozott. Magyarosan kétségkivül gyulának ejtették s a birói és hadvezéri egyesített hatalmat értették alatta, körülbelül abban a mértékben, ahogy az a gylast a keresztény korban fölváltó nádori méltóságban egyesült. Emléke fenmaradt az ugyszólván alkirályok gyanánt szerepelt erdélyi Gyuláknál (l.o.), kiknél ez a méltóság alkalmasint a nemzetségben maradt s azért lassankint nemzetség-névvé vált, mint p. a Király, Herceg, Kenéz stb. Számos családviselte, s eredeti v. összetett alakjában ma is 22 magyar helység viseli ezt a nevet."--Blankepage (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


According to the "Erdély" (Transylvnia) article of the Pallas lexikon, Romanians came to Transylvania in the 13th century. http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/lexikon/pallas/html/032/pc003255.html#2 It is not a "good" source for Romanian users. If I were you, I wouldn't use it :-)))

Please give a modern (at least after the era of the fall of Communism) high ranked scholarly (Academy edition/press books) counter-argument about the origin of Gyula. For the cause of preservation of the quality of Wiki atricles: Until you can't do that, the more scholarly version will remain.--Blankepage (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Early medieval censuses

What exactly is the source for the 1241 and 1600 "censuses"? The refs only appear to source the post-1700 data (as I don't speak Hungarian, I didn't check whether the source are truthfully represented).Anonimu (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source:[2]Fakirbakir (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Still can't see any ref to 1241, 1033 or 1330.Anonimu (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a Jean W. Sedlar estimation about 1241 (66% Romanians), however Hungarian demographers state the opposite.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tag

I was asked by Koertefa to discuss the changes before making them. So: what is wrong about this edit? [3] Dobitocilor (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't just simply delete "citation needed" tags, even if you think that the sentence in question states a fact. You should come up with reliable, scholarly references - which I guess is not hard to find if the sentence indeed states a well-known fact. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Problematic phrase

Starting then [the end of the 17th century], Transylvania was in name attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary, though it had a separate status

I find this affirmation dubious, consequently I removed it. As far as I know Transylvania was a completely separate entity before 1867 and was not part of Habsburg Hungary 06:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobitocilor (talk • contribs)

Please read the source. P 152. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I've found the text you are talking about [4], but I don't see how it is relevant here. The effects of the 1565 Szatmar Treaty were not valid in the 17th and 18th century... The current version of the article article says "Starting then [the end of the 17th century]", not "Starting 1565" Dobitocilor (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Usually Transylvania was vassal for the Habsburgs and the Turks simultaneously. It is relevant in the 16th and 17th centuries. Cited p.152 "Peace of Speier returned most of the partium to Transylvania in exchange for John-Sigismund's reaffirmation of vassalage and repeated assurance that Transylvania was part of Hungary"...Fakirbakir (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hostilities ceased during the ensuing diplomatic parleys. On 10 March 1571, Emperor Maximilian got Transylvania's lords to ratify the Speyer peace treaty. The terms of that treaty applied only to the Szapolyai dynasty, and John Sigismund died on March 14, but when Stephen (István) Báthori was chosen to succeed him Maximilian dared not to intervene directly. [5] Dobitocilor (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"Dual Suzerainty...in the 16th 17th centuries"[6] Fakirbakir (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so it accepted Habsburg suzerainty. But I see nothing about being attached to "Habsburg-controlled Hungary". Dobitocilor (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably the phrase was added by Blankepage, who posted the above message: De iure Transylvania remained part of the lands of the Holy Crown of Hungary after the Habsburgs repelled the Ottomans in 1686-87. Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania "by the rights of the Holy Crown". However, in the practice, (or "De-facto") Transylvania was administered/governed separately by the Habsburgs.. However I don't find any source about the legal union between the Principality of Transylvania and Habsburg Hungary, so I will delete this part Mdaaaa (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "legal union"? The text that you have cited also supports that Transylvania was *in name* attached to Habsburg-controlled Kingdom of Hungary, i.e., that is the meaning of the sentence: "Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania by the rights of the Holy Crown". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
By "legal union" I want to say de jure union ("Transylvania was *in name* attached to Habsburg-controlled Kingdom of Hungary"). More exactly I can't find the source for Transylvania being officially considered part of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown. Can you please me point me the source and and the exact quote that contains this information? Mdaaaa (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
What about this: ""for most of its history Transylvania was a land associated with the Hungarian crown" [7] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I find your quote kind of vague. The lifespan of the Hungarian Voivodeship of Transylvania + the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom + the lifespan of the KoHu after the Ausgleich = ~ 500 years, which is more than 50% of the time elapsed since the establishment of Tr. as a political entity. So even notwithstanding the age of the Principality, we have a very long period of association with the Hungarian crown. Mdaaaa (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And this? "in 1690, the Habsburgs gained possession of Transylvania by right of the Hungarian crown." [8] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I've modified the paragraph according to this source. However I don't totally agree with the quote. As far as I know they gained possession of Transylvania through war, and "the right of the Hungarian crown." was only the pretext of the territorial claim Mdaaaa (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Placenames and Demographics

"According to researches based on place-names, 511 villages of Transylvania and Banat appear in documents at the end of the 13th century, however only 3 of them bore Romanian names" - the placenames show in the best case the founders of a settlement. By the way, who is Andre du Nay? What's his competence? 86.127.23.240 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Place names and demographic research

Taking into account that there is little evidence on the population of Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages, place names are often applied for making estimations, as it is demonstrated by reliable sources cited. Please do not remove properly referenced material without discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source? Who is Andre du Nay? The material was added without discussion, so it should not be kept until reaching a consensus. "Place names are often applied for making estimations" - this is original research. Just compare the number of present-day Transylvanian settlements with names of Hungarian origin with the proportion of the Hungarian population 86.127.23.240 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think that the source is not reliable? And what do you mean by "was added without discussion"? Who said that sourced contributions can only be added after a consensus? This is only the case if the contribution is being opposed by some editors, but this one is not a new addition: that information was there for months. Thus, it's removal must be rationalized. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Because Du Nay is in fact a coward hiding behind a pseudonym. How can be such a person reliable? 86.127.23.240 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
He had to have a very good reason to use pseudonym. Think about it! Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, read the source properly: "ANDRE DU NAY is the pseudonym of a prominent European scholar of Romance Philology. The pseudonym is forced upon him by political circumstances in Rumania. His most recent work, The Early History o f the Rumanian Language, appeared in 1977 as part of the Edward Sapir Monograph Series in Language. Culture and Cogni­tion, published by Jupiter Press." Fakirbakir (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Communism had fallen in 1996 [9]... 79.117.178.109 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"phases" map

The Hungarians gained control over Transylvania in the 10th century. The tribal leader Gyula (Gyula the Older) put his seat to Alba Iulia in the middle of the 10th century. The map is meant to be an "ethnic map"? The Szekler resettlement from Bihar county to Szekler Land in the 12th century does not mean that the Hungarian kings lacked of control over the eastern parts of Transylvania..... Fakirbakir (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Pleae consider that there are alernative theories. This article itself presents one of them, according to which the Hungarians conquered Transylvania in five stages:
Are we talking about control over a certain territory or spread of ethnic Hungarian settlements?Fakirbakir (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggested you to read the references. Without proper knowledge anything could be weird or WP:NOR. More laughable than the map is the fact some are pretending to have the knowledge without reading and, more than that, then they consider themselves trustworthy! I suspect there will be a lot of laughs. I'm sure a lot of people have laugh strongly hearing for the first time the Earth was not flat. Saturnian (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you provide proper English translation for the source? Could you answer my previous question ("Are we talking about control over a certain territory or spread of ethnic Hungarian settlements")?. I hope you see that the whole map may be misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not a professional translator so I prefer to avoid creating wrong statements. About the question, as I read it's about both. Perhaps you could find "Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th Century. The Genesis of the Transylvanian Medieval State,Cluj-Napoca, Centre for Transylvanian Studies, 1996, 246 p." of Ioan-Aurel Pop. Interestingly I found on History of Medieval Transylvania that during those stages Saxon colonists replaced Szekelys and the most of Szekelys moved estward. Also it mention that a XI-XII century Romanian fortification (Cetatea Scurtă) from Olat, Sibiu county, was built to protect the Romanian population against the Arpadian expansion. Saturnian (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody denies Szekler resettlement (as I mentioned above), however it does not prove that eastern parts of Transylvania before Saxon and Szekler population migrations were not under Hungarian control.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is a theory in Romanian historiography which claims that the Hungarians conquered Transylvania fighting against Romanians in several stages. Although no documentary evidence substantiates it, it is an existing theory, and it is not the only theory which is purely based on the imagination and wishfull thinking of historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Well dear Hungarian nationalist Borsoka. For your note, you have to many posts on Romanian articles regarding Transylvania to be „neutral”. Second at all, you make confuses between Romanian historians and Hungarian historians. First ones state that from the last records IV-V-VI century's util the XIII century records it should be a continuity. The others claim that it's clear a migration of Romanians in Transylvania, without any records, any evidence. So if you use your brain my Hungarian nationalist, Romanian Historians claim nothing, just assume that nothing special happened if is a lack of evidence stating something big happened. Because i can write a book stating that Maghayrs are space invaders landed north of Black Sea, because there are no written evidence stating something else.

To add to your confusion, your Hungarian historians make maps of Kingdom of Hungary ethnic composure based on land names, where the Romanian core regions are booked as not inhabited areas :)). Of course they are, because some are lived from stone age, Dacians wore a mountain nation, Romanians are a mountain nation and 90% of names are Romanians in high regions, but that is minor flaw in the maps. Also if you can copy that, Romanians language evolution is from N-V to East and South, so your nice theory is rubbish, because Romanians migrated from N Transylvania in Maramureş, South Transylvania and Banat and in time of Hungarian Conquest from Transylvania and Maramureş to Wallachia and Moldavia. A bit strange, and that is confirmed by legend, language evolution and history . Also Bulgarian influence is huge, that would not be possible on a nation who lived century's under Byzantine rule, why on earth to take something which you already have. But is very plausible to a Christian nation isolated for century's, because Bulgarians would be the first Christians in ages to make full contact. And coming to your problem, that map is not based on story's, is based on land names who reveal border defensive systems who wore traditional at that time with the Hungarians(prisăci, gyepu, kapus/fortified gate), also is based on gradual flow of the names related to the Szekely, because is very similar to that of the fortifications move. And if you think that Asian tribes from steppe will take mountains regions, and Hungary was a feudal Kingdom from the start, well my Hungarians nationalist, you are very wrong. Because Maghiar in their first years wore more busy pillaging Europe than making a realm. And the lack of evidence is very clear, because Maghiars lack a writhing and even if they write something you must take in the Mongol factor, they burned down all the kingdom. And stating that your Cronicles from XII-XIII-XIV century are legends is a bit off. Because why on earth they will put Moravians or Khazars in Crisana? Because they wore not there in XIII-XIV century. Why not a Romanian too? And why not a Kingodom in Maramures, (K)Hustus King, , because Romanians in Maramureş wore the most strong ones. Maybe because Maramures was not taken yet? Why to invent story's which have no sense at all in XIII-XIV century. I would not say that some historians from Romania go full retard, but those are at the edge, but in Hungary those are at the front. How on earth to make a ethnic map of Hungarian kingdom in XI century? . Your only prouf is that you settle a lord from the south and a legend from Moldova about Maramureş claims on Hungary who say that Maramureş people saved Hungary from Mongols, and that's why they got Maramureş, they single handed crush the Mongols before Hungarian King. The legend is from the time of religious turmoil against ortodox nobility and it's fiasco. Best regards! Vasile iuga (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

TRANSYLVANIA'S INDIGENOUS POPULATION AT THE TIME OF THE HUNGARIAN CONQUEST

FROM THE HUNGARIAN CONQUEST TO THE MONGOL INVASION Fakirbakir (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Population estimation for the year 1700

"Hungarian scholars in the early 1900s estimated that in 1700, prior to the losses due to Rákóczi's War of Independence, the population stood at 500,000, but more recent estimates put it in the plausible range of 800,000–865,000" (source: http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/280.html)

It would be nice to know more about the recent estimations, because the Manual of Style says that absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on. 123Steller (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Kingsland"

Hi Steller,

You think Kingsland would be a proper English name, did you met somewhere with this word referring to Királyföld? I am very curious.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the name Kingsland is very rarely used (for instance I found it in The Politics of Identity: Transylvanian Saxons in Socialist Romania by Marilyn McArthur from the University of Massachusetts). I don't know which should be the proper English name, but certainly it should exist an article about Königsboden / Királyföld / Fundus Regius. The article already exists in 5 other languages, but the English one is missing. 123Steller (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
123Steller, yes, also Terra Regis was used, and many other alternative names exists. Yes an article should also exist...Borsoka, Fakirbakir, what are your opinons regarding the English naming, you have any other source or possible reference in English? Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
"Their region was called the Szászföld (Hungarian: Saxon Lands) or Királyföld (Royal Lands)." (quote from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Transylvanian-Saxons) 123Steller (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, until now "Royal Lands" seems to be the most suitable in English as it follows the most official and common name...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
I will create an article named Royal Lands (Transylvania), because the name Royal Lands is also used in other sources, like:

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Transylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Transylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

"According to the historian Eutropius in Liber IX of his Breviarum, in 271, the Roman emperor Aurelian evacuated the Roman population from Dacia Traiana and resettled them across the Danube in the newly established Dacia Aureliana inside former Moesia Superior.

However, it appears proven that part of the Vulgar Latin-speaking, Christian Daco-Roman (Proto-Romanian) population remained in Dacia Traiana and flourished in remote communities, evidenced by findings from the fourth to the seventh centuries including Roman coins, sections of Latin inscriptions (such as the Biertan Donarium) and early Christian artifacts.[15]"

Saying all the Roman population of Dacia was evacuated by Aurelian in one sentence and then saying part of the Roman population remained in the original Dacia in the following centuries can create confusion for the casual reader, don't you agree? Eutropius's quote "Roman citizens, removed from the town and lands of Dacia, he settled in the interior of Moesia" itself says that Romans from Dacia were resettled south of the Danube, so shouldn't we reformulate the first phrase to "evacuated Romans from Dacia Traiana", "evacuated some Romans from Dacia Traiana" or "evacuated part of the Roman population of Dacia Traiana"? -Scheianu (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the second sentence should obviously be modified, because it presents a highly debatable POV as a fact. (There are Roman coins and artifacts with Latin inscription from the same period in Scandinavia, but no one claims that a significant Latin-speaking population inhabited the region in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.) Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The quote from Etropius should not be altered, it would be totally false. The second pharagraph is a sourced content, deliberately I read the deatils and yes, it is a POV in the support one of the origin theories, that's why I added "appears proven" that is as well written in the original source. Since the evaluation of the early history of Transylvania goes in at least two patterns, usually both of them are demonstrated in a way, but it does not necessarily mean we may forge an "unified" theory by bending some sentences to it. All in all, what is not clearly a fact, we should be cautious.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC))
The "appears proven" expression does not suggest that this is only a POV. Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@KIENGIR the quote from Eutropius shouldn't be modified, i agree with you. What i meant was, the sentence written based on it should be modified. Eutropius' quote says that Romans from Dacia were resettled south of the Danube. The sentence based on it makes it look like he said all the Romans from Dacia were resettled south of the Danube (the "evacuated the Roman population" part), and he didn't actually say that. @Borsoka Roman coinage from 275/276 (a few years after Aurelian's retreat) to 326 was discovered in the city of Napoca, however the Goths started settling in Transylvania only after 330. The most logical explanation for this is that a Daco-Roman population continued to inhabit Napoca after Aurelian's retreat. The Biertan Donarium is an object that logically, could have only been created by a local Daco-Roman. I don't see what's there to debate. However I too believe that the second sentence should be modified as well, because the neutral German historian who wrote it failed to also mention the post-271 Daco-Roman pottery discovered in various places of Transylvania.Scheianu (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure that only Latin-speaking people could use Roman coins? Please remember that Roman coins were found in many places outside the Roman Empire where the presence of no Latin-speaking population is documented. Are you sure that the Biertan Donarium was made in Dacia? Please read the following article: Madgearu, Alexandru (2004). "The Spreading of Christianity in the rural areas of post-Roman Dacia (4th–7th centuries)". ARCHÆUS. VIII. Centre d'Histoire des Religions, Université de Bucarest: 41–59. ISSN 1453-5165.. It contains a series of more probable explanations (especially, because the Donarium was most probably produced in Illyricum). Yes, pottery was produced in Transylvania, but nothing proves that its producers or users spoke Latin. Please remember that the Goths, Germans and Slavs who settled in the region did not adopt the Latin form of the name of a single river, which suggest that no significant Latin-speaking population survived the Roman withdrawal (I refer to Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [=A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. ISBN 3-486-56262-2.). Eutropius wrote that Aurelian "withdrew the Romans from the cities and countrysid" of Dacia Traiana and "resettled them in the middle of Moesia" (to the south of the Lower Danube) (Eutropius: Breviarium (Translated with an introduction and commentary by H. W. Bird) (1993). Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-85323-208-3, page 59.) Borsoka (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Borsoka, however, you may agree without "appears proven" the content of the sentence could be treated as a simple factual statement...if you have any solution to improve to be interpreted better as a POV, go on...(KIENGIR (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC))

@Borsoka in this particular case the use of Roman coins indicates the presence of native Daco-Romans in Dacia Traiana post-271. Let's take things logically:

-Quite a large amount of Roman coins dating from the reign of Marcus Claudius Tacitus (275-276) was discovered in Napoca

-Aurelian did his retreat a few years earlier

-The Goths began to settle in Transylvania around 330

Since Tacitus's reign was very brief, the circulation of coins from this period some 50 years later when the Goths began to settle in Transylvania is highly unlikely. Therefore, logic tells us that Napoca (one of the most important settlements of the Daco-Romans) was still functioning in the years immediately after Aurelian's retreat of 271. So, who were the inhabitans? Since again, the Goths settled in Transylvania only some 50-60 years later, the most likely possibility is that they were native Daco-Romans who remained in Transylvania after Aurelian's retreat. I need to thank you for telling me about that work of Mr. Madgearu, i enjoy his writting and i was unaware of this work prior to your mention of it. Madgearu mentions the donariums in Illyricum, however i think you might have missinterpreted your source since his conclusion is that those were way too complex to be related to the much simpler Biertan Donarium, so this object wasn't created in Illyricum. The most similar donariums to the Biertan one were the ones uncovered in Pannonia, so if Dacia wasnt the place where the Biertan Donarium was created, Pannonia could have been. However, i find this higly unlikely, as it would imply unlikely explanations:

-Goth warriors taking this object from Pannonia as spoils of war

Goths generally prefered gold or silver objects. If they would have taken the Biertan Donarium from Pannonia, they would have done so only to scrap it for the metal (which obviously didn't happen so this possibility is out of the question), or one particular Christian Goth took the object, carried it all the way to Dacia to use it as an offering (which sounds even more unlikely than the first possibility that we know for sure didn't happen).

-Merchants from Pannonia took such name-personalized objects to sell them to the population of Dacia (doesn't make any business sense).

The most logic and obvious explanation is that a Daco-Roman Christian named Zenovius was thankful to God for whatever reason so he comissioned or personally created the Biertan Donarium. It's interesting that "Zenovie" was a name used by Transylvanian Romanians even as late as the 20th century. The pottery included pottery of late-Roman derivation. I doubt that the Goths and later the Slavs learned this style of pottery east of the Carpathians where the Romans had no influence. They could have done so only from Romanized people in Dacia. "No latin river name survived" Seriously? Mures (latin Maris), Somes (latin Samus), Olt (latin Alatus) don't ring any bells to you? Scheianu (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(1) Hoards containing coins struck during the reign of a dozen emperors (over a period more than 50 years) are not unusual outside the territory of the Roman Empire. Why do you think that the Sarmatians, Vandals and Gepids who lived in the Carpathian Basin did not penetrate to western Transylvania before the arrival of the Goths? Aurelian withdrew the Romans from Dacia because he could not secure the deffence of the province against the neighboring barbarians. Do you think that Sarmatians, Vandals, Gepids, Carpians could not appreciate Roman currency? Do you think that we can take for granted that only those who speak English have dollar bank accounts and use the dollar in commerce? (2) Yes, we can assume that the same design came to the mind of a smith who lived outside the empire and an other smith who lived in a Roman province. However, this is only a scholarly theory, not a fact. (3) The Gepids, Carpians, Vandals, Sarmatians and Goths had close contacts with the Romans even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia. Why do you think they were unable to buy or produce Roman-style pottery? Do you think that French, Pakistanian, Indian or Hungarian taylors are unable to sew blue jeans, because originally jeans were produced in the USA? (4) The present form of the river names cannot be explained from the Latin language. For instance, the consonant [ʃ] at the end of the river names Mureș/Maros, Timiș/Temes and Criș/Körös could hardly be derrived from the Latin form of the name of the same rivers, which ended with [s]. (4) Nevertheless, we can conclude (based on the works referred to above) that the second sentence contains a POV, not a fact. Consequently, it should be modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, moreover these few river names were preserved and adopted by every nation following, and according to the linguistic rules current versions could not be derived from Latin directly, but some from i.e. the Slavic versions and after they were mediated further. However, every etymology has its own particular history.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC))

So after the Aurelian Retreat, all the migratory people that arrived - the Goths, the Huns, the Gepids, the Slavs, the Avars, the Hungarians - adopted these river names, passing them to each other? Leaving aside that the chances of an event like this occuring are very low, from whom did the Goths adopt these names, if not from native Daco-Romans? Also Borsoka may i ask, why did you modify Eutropius' quote? Scheianu (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(1) Yes, the "migratory" peoples, each inhabiting Transylvania for more time than the Romans had held it, adopted the river names from each other: the Gepids from Carpians, the Slavs from Gepids, the Hungarians from Slavs, and the Romanians from Hungarians and Slavs. (2) Because I used the standard English translation of Eutropius' text. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd really love to see if you have any proof to back up that statement. Scheianu (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Which statement? I made 2 statements above. Borsoka (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The first one. Scheianu (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I refer to Schramm's above mentioned work, but Grigore Nandris also writes that only the name of the river Cris was possibly directly inherited by the Romanians from Antiquity.Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Transylvania was not a separate Land of Hungary

Is this addition necessary? The same info was removed by Borsoka from another article because "we do not need to write that it was not this or that". 86.120.179.46 (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Since no one opposed, I made the change. 82.78.61.224 (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

@Johnn Francis:, it's not my quarell. I did not discuss about changing quotes, but what the source says, and it is noting what the proper translation would be, literally, which you cannot delete or alter to according to only. So use the talk page and respect our policies, propose then an appropriate replacement for are noted that or equivavent, the same place in the sentence.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC))

Please believe me when I say that I still don't understand why you accuse me of having changed the meaning of the source. The part in between quotation marks I have left completely unchanged. The edit I've made is a completely benign change that is solely concerned with the phrasing of the sentence and not with its deeper meaning. Judging from your way of writing, I'm assuming that you're not a native English speaker, but do you at least acknowledge that the phrase "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that" is not grammatically correct English? How about the following: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence is:"? It's grammatically correct, and it doesn't include the words "according to" which seem to bother you so much. Is it okay to you? If not, could you please develop your reasons for rejecting it? Yours truly. --Johnn Francis (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Johnn Francis:,
I accept your correction. Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
Okay, thanks a lot. I'm doing the changes right now for both this article and the Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) article. --Johnn Francis (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Oops, never mind. I've just realized that you had done the changes yourself. Glad to see this. ;) --Johnn Francis (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Antonius Verancius' quote

I found the original text and a different translation. "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." Translation: "the Romanians' number is equal with any of these three nations". He did not mention "majority". Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the text does not write of the superiority in number of the Romanians. I refer to the reliable translation of the text which can be read here (and in the reliable sources cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
However interpreting this as a 25% proportion for each of the 4 nations is apparently original research (see here the opinion of Doug Weller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Steller (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, however, I commented on the noticeboard to Doug Weller regarding the problem of his deduction, just to be totally precise.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC))
123Steller, Your reasoning is quite ridiculous. It's simple math. The likely deliberate mistranslation of Verancsics (Verancius) quote by Romanian historians has to be noted somewhere. Do you agree? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It may be simple math, but as long as this calculation is not published in a scholarly work, we are not entitled to make this conversion to percentages by ourselves. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 123Steller (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It was concluded here that is not a good idea to "translate" the phrase into figures. 123Steller (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR, can you please post here the relevant quote from Károly Nyárády's work? 123Steller (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes,
"Felsorolja, hogy Erdélyt „háromféle nemzet lakja: székelyek, magyarok és szászok” – majd így
folytatja: „hozzájuk kell tennünk azonban az oláhokat is, akik száma ezek [ti. a székelyek, magyarok vagy szászok] akármelyikével könnyen egyenlő lehet...” („Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant...”)" ->
"He enlists, that Transylvania is ,,inhabited by three kind of nations: Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons" - then he continues like so: ,,we have to add also the Vlachs, whose number [regarding i.e. the Szeklers, Hungarians, or Saxons] may be equal with any of these..." („Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari,Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant...”)(KIENGIR (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
This is the original quote from Antonius Verancius. I can't see the conclusion that each of them would be around 1/4. 123Steller (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
No, the author refers on the orignal quote meanwhile interpreting it.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
Please post here the exact paragraph where the interpretation is made. 123Steller (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This was the pharagraph almost, this is linked also:
"Pascu, Stefan: Voievodatul Transilvaniei. II. Cluj-Napoca 1979. 443. A latin szöveget helyesen idézi ugyan, de románra elferdítve fordítja. Verancsics szerint ugyanis a románok száma a három nemzet (székelyek, magyarok, szászok) akármelyikével (quamlibet harum) egyenlő lehet, míg Pascu fordításában ez úgy hangzik, mintha ezek együttes számáva (secui, unguri si sasi împreună) volna egyenlő. A románok abszolút többségének bizonyítása érdekében ilyen megtévesztő módszer alkalmazása joggal kifogásolható."
->Pascu, Stefan: Voievodatul Transilvaniei. II. Cluj-Napoca 1979. 443. Perhaps he quotes the latin text properly, but distorting it to the Romanian translation. According to Verancsics the number of Romanians may be equal with any of the (quamlibet harum) three nations (Székelys, Hungarians, Saxons), though in Pascu's translation it is written like it would be equal of the additive number of these (secui, unguri si sasi împreună). Such a deceive method in order to attest the absolut majority of Romanians can be properly disapproved."(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
I am sorry, but there are still no proportions/percentages. I think it is enough to have just the original quote from Verancsics. 123Steller (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
123Steller There are proportions, similarly to also other estimates, here two times the author reinforces with his own words that "Romanians may be equal with any of the three nations (Székelys, Hungarians, Saxons)", moreover he demonstrates the famous misinterpretation of an other author that is cited and advertized everywhere (the famous 60% on the same way of deduction but on the falsified translation). Please be fair and raise no objection to this!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
There are no new premises than the ones that we had at the previous discussion, where the editors Doug Weller, Someguy1221 and Zero0000 were also against including figures. 123Steller (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
123Steller, now there is a new situation, anyway they could not prove their points, only as you had right that on this form it could be considered as an original research, but it is not anymore. Moreover, I checked again, this is also writen before linking of the detailed interpretation:
"Eszerint a románok száma talán valamivel meghaladhatta a népesség egynegyedét" -> "According to this the number of Romanians may be a little bit more than the 1/4 of the population"
So now you cannot raise any objection anymore.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
KIENGIR I still have one little "objection": where does the year 1551 come from? 123Steller (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
123Steller, the year comes from when the referred source was written.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC))
The original text you provided: "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author. LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, that means you don't know Latin properly, many words have more meanings and also depending on context, and not the subject of arbitray choice. Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC))
Yet the context of that sentence doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any", unless out of the reader's arbitray choice.LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
No because if Romanians would have been the overwhelming majority, they would be mentioned at the first place, and not just marginally. On the other hand, again, here quamlibet harum together plays with the grammatical structure and the context, not a surprise given the various examples of Latin words and their various meanings and usage regarding similar manner.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
You are merely making a speculation with no empirical evidence to back it up. The order of mention is no basis for determining whether the Romanians were an overwhelming majority. If you take historical context into consideration, Antun Vrančić's choice of words makes a lot of sense. The 3 nations of Transylvania were made in 1437, the Romanians were not a part of the 3 nations having less rights than the other 3 nations, hence the "however". When saying "however, I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number", Antun Vrančić is explaining why he would list the Vlachs among the nations, therefore he gives his justification after "however". As for the second part, you are arguing against a point that I was not making. I didn't made the argument that the word "quamlibet" doesn't have more meanings depending on context, but that the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any".LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't make any speculation, I answered to your questions, it's not an "empirical" thing, it is the grammar of the Latin language. "The 3 nations of Transylvania were made" -> earlier also lived more nations in Transylvania. No, I explained to you quamlibet harum and about the context as well, by "quamlibet" I just told you what you ignored. By your superficial OR you cannot modify in a way what is not stated, scholars already analized this question and that is represented by the article, so please stop modifications without consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
You answered the question with a speculation, it's the same thing. A grammar that you don't seem to know very well. At the end of the day, I offered you sources for my claims, you did not offer sources for your claim. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. If you can back up your claims I will, but I will not stop modifications based on empty words alone. The way I see it, you also lack consensus, but at the same time lack evidence too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I did not do such. Sorry, the page has a consensus on the current content sourced.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
Yes, you did do such. Sorry, the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
No, your problem is WP:DONTGETIT.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
Perhaps you should read WP:DONTGETIT with yourself in mind, because it seems to apply to you. As WP:DONTGETIT clearly states: "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Your problem is WP:NEUTRALITY, due to personal feelings on the matter, you favor the opinion of Hungarain scholars over the opinion of Romanian, British and American scholars. Your edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear proof of this. Clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hnad, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
If you think I did not read/know the policies I draw your attention, you're mistaken. What you have cited is exactly you failed to do in several pages, as you recurrently inversly accuse other editors in fact you miss. For instance, neutrality. As even recurrently your summarization fails, as it could be seen so far most of your manifestations. Latin grammar and scholarly opinion has nothing to with personal feelings or favoring opinions, no violation of anything you imply. "despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation" is again OR. What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC))
You're projecting. Not much of OR as much as simple Latin grammar. But if you were paying attention to the comment you replied to, you'd realise it's not OR. Yet again, you managed to use a lot of words without or saying anything beyond your personal opinion, in other words, you managed to use a lot of words without saying anything reliable. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think you should stop inverse-accusations, wholeheartedly rejected and very unprofessional. Paying attention would mean you don't continue this behavior. What you did/do is clear original research, I say what realiable sources say (any further details we discussed because you did not or refuse to understand some things, or have a different opinion is another issue, a courtesy to help you mostly).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
It's not inverse-accusations, you really are projecting and should look that you practice what you preach to others. Paying attention doesn't mean that I would do what you want me to do, I am paying attention but at the same time disagree with you. As WP:DONTGETIT states: "Do not confuse hearing with agreeing with". So don't confuse them. Sorry, but what I did is not original research, no matter how clearly you feel about it, and you didn't say what realiable sources say, in fact, that's why we are here, because you said the opposite. Given your style of discussion, I see you expect to be believed simply because you have an opinion, with no arguments or evidence required. Your definition of discuss seems to be: "you tell me something, you provide evidence, then I tell you how it's really like, no arguments or evidence required, and we all do as I say". Since I constantly asked you for evidence but you refused to deliver. I would ask you again if I wouldn't know how pointless that is. But this is not how it works, you have to support your claims, just like before, your accusations are all empty, and what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Until you can actually support your claims, sorry, but I simply won't take your word for it, nothing personal, but you need proof. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, it is, apparently not just here you did. I don't confuse anything, and "dontgetit" is not my problem, and yes, I said what RS states. You simply denying everything, including arguments and evidence, so this essay is completely unnecessary, above I already explained everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
You accuse me of inverse-accusations then you say "you simply denying everything, including arguments and evidence" without a hint of irony. I also already explained everything. Perhaps we should ask a 3rd opinion, which phrase is more neutral:
(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".
Or (B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".
I just realised that you didn't include "they easily equal all of the others" but simply "they easily equal the others in number" in the Romanian translation, as the source states, so the version you want to keep is not only not impartial but also factually wrong.LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Your explanation failed justify your claim, and I did not make any such alteration you suggest. Your summarization are deteriorating from the sources, and the whole case is nominally not a a neutrality issue, but the earlier mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC))
Yet another series of false and empty assertions. If I reply to that, you would only make other false and empty assertions and so on. My explanation succeded to justify my claim, you failed to provide a proper counter-argument and switched to filibustering. This is why I asked for a 3rd opinion to determine which phrase is more neutral, as I have no hope we will reach a compromise anymore. If you want to continue the factual discussion (I highly doubt as we already had this discussion, but I'll give you a chance just in case there's hope), the problem was that the content is interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. Your response was "no, you don't get it", please justify your no.
The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.
So, to keep this short: do you also want to wait for a neutral 3rd opinion or do you want to keep talking about this? LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, if you keep pushing on me what is not my fault and identify the things opposite as their are, it's really useless. There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. This issue has been already discussed with 3rd opinions earlier and editors (including Romanian and Hungarian ones as well) and verified this, even more pages included.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC))
Wanting to keep a version with clear Hungarian bias is obviously your fault, otherwise you wouldn't be here. But I agree with the it's really useless part, which is why I asked for a 3rd opinion. I don't know why you bring up the "there has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized" again, since I already told you that the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way in the very comment that you replied to. See WP:DONTGETIT as your are bringing up arguments that were already replied. There is no OR involved, but simply an attempt to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRALITY policy. An attempt that you are constantly blocking. I just looked at that already discussed with 3rd opinions discussion you mentioned, and it's not related to the wording of this parahgraph, it's another discussion not related to this discussion. It's ludocris how you argue that the version you are trying to keep is neutral with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, WP:DONTGETIT goes to you, apparently and recurrently (and not just here), again you repeat the same points already demonstrated invalid, and as well failed to recognize and as well you fail to understand our policies and not understanding what is OR is as well a problem. There are no false implications, we summarized what the sources tell us.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC))
Why WP:DONTGETIT applies to me? I already explained to you why WP:DONTGETIT applies to you. The least you can do is have more than empty words and vague statements when making false accusations. Where have you "demonstrated" my points invalid? and how are they invalid? Because so far you have 100% talked about how my point is invalid, and 0% proven how my point is invalid. Of course there are false implications, source (A) tells that this version is correct. Source (B) tells that this version is correct. And then the version you try to keep says that however the correct version is source (B) which is not only clearly against WP:NEUTRALITY but it's also historically false. But we're not here to debate the sources, only to maintain WP:NEUTRALITY. Anyway, I know I won't get anywhere with one who won't listen to reason, so unless you have any proper arguments to add I'll just wait for a 3rd opinion on the matter. If anyone sees this, please give your opinion which version listed above is more netural: (A) or (B). LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Your tendetious lengthy wall of text of WP:BLUDGEON-ing is already by far. You were told an explained, more times, read back if not clear. You believe you explained/argued something, you did not and failed to recognize this. Neither sources tell what you summarized, hence your claim on neutrality is fallacious.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
False, both sources tell what I summarized. My version tells what the precious version told, it's the same information. The only thing changed, was removal of the Hungarian bias which falsely implied one is objectively correct. The fault of this was in the poor wording of the editor, not in the sources themselves. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it didn't, you didn't, btw., no need to repeat yout point of view.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC))
Well, that's not quite an useful answer, I could reply 'I did, I did' and we could argue pointlessly like that for hours. But I'm glad we can at least have a factual discussion. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. Let us back read together: Originally, I made the claim that the current page does not comply with WP:NEUTRALITY because it falsely implies that the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Does the actual page imply that the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one? with a wording like "in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation" I would argue yes, you would argue no, best leave a 3rd opinion decide here. You then said that the version I propose is not merely an attempt to reach WP:NEUTRALITY but OR as neither sources tell what I summarized. You made a claim, now its up to you to prove your claim, it is not my burden to prove you wrong since you must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence first. This is why "it didn't, you didn't" is not an useful answer, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Either way, I still believe this would be best solved by a 3rd party. I will repost both versions here and request a 3rd party to look at them.
(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".
(B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.". LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLOG, no WP:BLUDGEON, everything have been already discusssed and demonstrated above, no need to lenghty, repetitive copy-paste material. All the reactions are above, even repetititively.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC))
Yeah... look how you interpret everything the wrong way. The argument why a 3rd party is needed was made and I'm waiting for a 3rd party. I only reposted the (A) and (B) versions so that users won't have to search for them. Even another user slightly changed the version to a more neutral "while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation" but you rechanged it to "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation". The part in between quotation, which is what the source itself says, was left completely unchanged, so you cannot speak of utilizing things the sources did not say. Except that is exactly what you are doing, you are accusing me and also accused him of utilizing things the sources did not say, despite the part that the source itself says being completly unchanged. This is completly unreasonable and there's no point in debating with one who won't listen to reason. A desperate argument. The words "according to" seem to bother you so much because it makes the phrase seem neutral, and this is exactly what you don't want, neutrality, you want to make it sound as if the Hungarian version is objectively the correct one. Which is why I won't reply to this anymore, but I'm not leaving the discussion, I'm simply waiting for a 3rd opinion as it's clear we have a stalemate. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The issue not just reading A or B, this is your approach only, claiming neutrality although there is not such issue (hence your summarization there is not appropriate, to say nothing of the misplaced context). No, the source itself attest as well about the user changed, so anything written and concluded by you after your second sentence was again useless speculation.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
You're starting from a false premise, and you know it's false, there is an issue of neutrality. With all respect, I have no idea what you just said here: "No, the source itself attest as well about the user changed", English may not be your first language, but good luck trying to decipher what you said, the source and something about a user being changed? Regardless of what your point was there, I don't see any arguments to support your stance. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I have nothing to do with false premises (again, on the contrary), and I explained everything, you simply fail to understand what is written in the source, which is summarized appropriately; one of the sources notes what would be the appropriate translation. And really don't claim English and mind reading when you recurrently even deny things/diffs which may be checked by a few clicks, despite you're pushing the same hypothetic scenario of yours.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC))
Yes, you have everything to do with false premises. You didn't explain, you merely stated your personal opinion with nothing to back it up, you are a long way from explaining. What you fail to understand is that one of the sources could be wrong and it's not our place to pick sides so a neutral language has to be used. Please read WP:NEUTRALITY for further information on Wikipedia's policy. I never said you claim English, I said I have no idea what you said previously because it made no sense in English. Oh my god, so much nonsense... which things/diffs I denied? You may be confusing this discussion with another argument you have. And which hypothetic scenario? Are you running out of accusations and start fabricating things? LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Repeating the same things whch have been already demonstrated not to be true with a tendentious verbiage does not save you, here diffs talk. Again, please don't preach about WP policies which you are not familiar with, despite it has been explained many times, here both of the sources are neutrally summarized, just you don't like one's summarization and wish to alter/hinder it's content, that fails NPOV. WP is a set of consecutive diffs, which contain evidence, many of these and their content you recurrently deny by your argumentations, in more pages (like when you denied sources was presented, or fail to check what was written somewhere, and then you construct hypothetic scenarios by your fallacious description of the situation in which in fact I receive invalid accusations and this is going on and on). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC))
Sorry, but since you keep making the same false accusations, I'll keep telling you the truthful answer. What do you expect? That if you say "the sky is red" over and over again, eventually I'll agree with you? You should first take a look at yourself before looking at me, because you've been making the same argument over and over again. And of course the same argument has the same response. If that can be called an argument, since an argument requires logical reasoning and evidence behind it. You provided no evidence and have no reasoning, you only bragged about how you have without actually doing it. It is merely an opinion, a declaration, as all your stances are in general, not an explaination as you fancy yourself. Apparently, I know the WP policies better than you. You keep denying things that have been proven and switch to false ad hominems instead of having a truthful discussion. I realise at this point that it doesn't matter how many times I explain it to you, you WP:DONTGETIT. Either you don't know any better, you're that unreasonable or you are fully aware of your bias and fallacious reasoning but simply don't care as you don't care about truth and reason. The cause does not matter, the effect is the same, lies and not listening to reason. So, just like on other topic, I'll wait for a 3rd opinion, one that is more reasonable than you are. Because I can't argue with you in the same way you can't play chess with a pigeon. We already have a discussion more educated than this one at the neutral point of view noticeboard. I'll stop replying here from now on but I'm not dropping the discussion, I'll only reply there from now in hopes of solving this discussion, as it has become clear there's no hope on solving this discussion in one on one with you. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WALLOFTEXT, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTFORUM, fail WP:LISTEN and no casting aspersions. Enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC))

Recent edits

Iconian42,

just because I highlighted a few problems, it does not necessarily mean the agreement with other contributions, if reverted.

- the lead currently mentioning surely existed entities in history, while Gesta has a debated credibility, which is anyway mentioned in the body - the other additon that Transylvania would became de facto independent in a short personal union... is simply erroneus - your description about the 12 points and the force is as well erroneus, the Kings action were not made by "force", etc. - again I disagree simply grabbing out one statistical date, because we have for this a chart - such like second class citizenship did not exist in the country, the rights of the nobles were different than the peasants, regardless, of ethnicity, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Only you reverted my contribution, so the agreement of other editors is implied until other editors argue otherwise.

- It's debated credibiltiy is why I stated "According to Gesta Hungarorum (Latin for The Deeds of the Hungarians)".
- why is it erroneus? I already provided an argument in the edit summary, of why it was made by force. If you want to use an alternative word instead of "force" that's fine by me, but he didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart of love for Hungarians.
- Again, I already provided an argument in the edit summary, I did not grab a random statistical date but the earliest statistical date, the one that is most relevant. Your second complain from the edit summary that the summary has a duplicate is nonsense. A summary is supposed to well.. summarize.. the main points of the main text. So it goes by definition that the main points of the main text are going to be repeated in the summary, that's what the summary does. Arguing that there are duplicates in a summary is like arguing the architecture prototype is just like the building but smaller.
- No, they were not. Romanian peasants didn't had the same rights as Hungarian, German and Szekely peasants. They weren't even judged by the same standards, and I mean legally not social discrimination. In order to become anything more than a peasant, a Romanian had to convert to Catholicism and Hungarian culture. John Hunyadi and his son are such examples. Iconian42 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way (implied agreement). Gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Yup, Transylvanians did not see Michael the Brave as a liberator, the same as Romanians did not see the Red Army as liberators. That's a purely anachronistic reading to Michael's temporary conquest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

:::My point was that originally he listed no specific reason for why he removed my whole contribution, so I asked him about it, he listed 3 reasons although my contribution added more than those 3 things. So even if he were to be correct on those 3 points, there was more to my contribution, so his removal of the whole contribution because of that is not justified, it would be more reasonable to only remove the parts that he deemed wrong or edit them to how he believe they are right. The simple back and forth edit is not good, but there was nothing for me to say when he removed the whole contribution without any reasoning. Now we're good. I'm not denying what you say about Michael the Brave, but how is that related to my contribution? I never said otherwise. Iconian42 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

- We don't have to mention everything necessarily in the lead, which should be a concise summarization
- I explained, such way you described is simply erroneous, the Hungarians did not force him, but negotiated with his appointee
- The situation of the Romanian peasants differed mainly by obligations or concessions connecting to religion, what you refer about John Hunyadi, is meaning becoming part of the nobility, which is again another issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

:- The lead already mentions all owners of Translyvania except for Michael the Brave and the 3 voivodships.

- I would argue that he was forced by the cirtumstances to negociate, but very well, we can use "negociate" instead of "force".
- That was a factor too, but it wasn't limited to that part. This information is present in the article as well as other Wikipedia articles. Iconian42 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are you still opposing my contribution? Iconian42 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Michael the Brave was not an owner, as none of the her rulers indeed, the Habsburg affiliation is mentioned anyway
- such like negociate (sic) no means, unless shortly mentioning the union, but no need anymore details in the lead
- I don't know exactly what you refer
- yes.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC))

:- If you want specific semantics, fine, ruler. The point still stands, simply replace "owner" with "ruler".

- What do you mean by "such like negociate (sic) no means"?
- The treatment of Romanians in Transylvania. Iconian42 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- None of such are listed there, unnecessary
- such word like negociate does not exist in English
- well, if such would be described like second-class citizens or similar it would have same problems addressed before, these sections indeed are not reviewed appropriately everywhere.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

:- Yes, none of such are listed there, which is why my contribution listed them there.

- "neogicate" is a perfectly valid English word.
- What same problems addressed before? Iconian42 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Roman coins as so-called "proofs" for Daco-Roman theory

Some people want to use the simple existence of Roman coins after the Roman withdrawal as proof of Daco-Roman continuity theory. Roman coins have found large numbers even in Sweden, which was not part of the Roman Empire. 70 000 pieces of Roman coins were found in Sweden Denmark etc.., due to the commerce in the late antiquity period. Link: https://journals.openedition.org/histoiremesure/886?lang=en --Longsars (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be the truth.
Verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due weight.
My take - This means that our job as editors is not to determine what is true/false (as in our personal opinion) but to determine what was published or not.
WP:NPOV content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
My take - This means that it doesn't matter whether you believe that the coins found doesn't prove the Daco-Roman continuity theory. According to NPOV, both sides must be presented, including this one, as long as its published previously in a reliable source, even if you disagree with it. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

What does it mean "not reliable source" for you? Does it mean that you personally don't like its content? The article was written by professor Alexander Bursche. http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/team/prof-dr-hab-aleksander-bursche Denmark, Sweden and Poland all have a lot of Roman coins. So according to your logic, they were all "daco-Romans" (these territories were not even part of Roman Empire) If you watch the reference list of the article, you can see it is superb. I have never seen such rich and high quality references in Wikipedia articles. It is clearly visible that it was written by a professor and not by amateur Wikipedians.--Longsars (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, both versions should be posted. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Does a Latin inscription in church wall mean automatically "Daco-Romans" ?

We all know that the Christian church language, the liturgical language in early medieval period and late antiquity were either Latin or Greek in Europe (and in N-Africa and Near East.) Church LAtin or Church greek in the Church building does not means LAtin or Greek speaking population at all. Church Latin appeared in inscriptions in Ireland (what was not part of Roman Empire) sice the fifth century. https://www.encyclopedia.com/international/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/latin-and-old-irish-literacy Ireland had more early medieval (post Roman) era latin text and inscriptions than Romnaia.

England also have more remained Latin inscriptions from early medieval period: https://ebin.pub/language-contact-and-the-origins-of-the-germanic-languages-13-routledge-studies-in-linguistics-1nbsped-0415355486-9780415355483.html

Quote from this work. "filius, but this knowledge was not accompanied by an ability to make the name and filius agree.’ On the basis of texts such as these, Adams concludes: ‘By the time when these inscriptions were written Latin was all but a dead language. Parallels . . . can be cited from the Roman period itself for the attempt to keep a dead language going for the writing of funerary inscriptions, because it was felt to be appropriate that a respected language should be used for epitaphs even after genuine knowledge of that language had been lost.’ In a nutshell, the medieval Latin inscriptions of Britain offer no evidence for the survival of spoken Latin in Britain, but rather the opposite: they show that spoken Latin had died out amongst the writers who carved the inscriptions. This is certainly a possibility, but it is useful to ask oneself how compelling the idea is. Let us compare a parallel situation in the history of the Irish language."

--Longsars (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

How does this fit with the article? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That we can not consider it as a proof for the existence hypothetical Daco-Romans neither can we consider it as a proof for of Early medieval Latin speakers in the area. Non-Roman territories Poland Denmark Sweden have a lot of Roman coins due to extensive and intensive commerce, and IReland also have early medieval Latin religious inscriptions, but we don't consider Irish people as Latin speaker population, neither Roman descendants... I've just pointed out, these are not reliable proofs in the article, and it does not matter who wrote the citation.

The main question: What can we do in this article? Since it is a reaction for Historian Konrad Gündisch citation, we can also shortly mention in one sentence after that citation, that the use of Roman coins was very wide spread due to intensive commerce in Northern European territories, like present-day Sweden Denmark and even in Poland since the late antiquity. Or we can mention that Ireland or England laso have old post Roman era Latin inscrpitions since the 5th century.--Longsars (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Falsifying family origins

TheLastOfTheGiants, can I ask why did you revert my edit in History of Transylvania? It calls Hungarian or immigrant Vlach families indigenous without any source. It doesn't say literally that these families are indigenous but how could a family Magyarize to keep its positions when it had no positions in Hungary before the Decree of Torda? (Also no source that the decree forced anyone to change religion.)


Bedőházi - Székely family.


Bilkei and Ilosvai - Hungarian families deriving from the same Arpadian tribe.


Drágffy - Moldavian Romanian (=immigrant) family.


Dánfi and Dobozi - The same families with no sources of their origin. If we can't accept that Hungarians exist, my idea would be that they are of Saxon origin, since Germans were sometimes called Danes. An example would be Hincmar's writing in 862.


Rékási - I doubt that this would be a Transylvanian noble family, I found nothing about it.


Mutnoki - Nagymutnok was their estate, no more data.


Dési - Székely family


Majláth - Hungarian family in Upper Hungary. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, user OrionNimrod keeps reverting my edits, I figured it was easier to restore to a previous version rather than manually change everything to the version it was before, your edit must have been cought in the middle. Please, continue with your edit. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Trajan's Column correct picture

Hi Aristeus01, can we settle the disagreement here about whether or not people can recognize what is happening on the full and unedited Trajan's Column, and that is it better than the previous image ([10])? I don't understand the logic in your revert reason ([11]), but we can make that happen by summoning an RfC, if you consent. What do you think? Gyalu22 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

hi @Gyalu22! Sounds like a good idea. Aristeus01 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, what do RS say, issue solved. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Can readers recognize what is happening on the illustrations of the full and unedited picture of Trajan's Column or should we break it up to edited version(s)? See the chapter § Ancient history. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Undefined ref

@Netpartizán: please fill in a source for the ref that you named "kypos". -- Fyrael (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1459175/Diploma-Leopoldinum
  2. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/603323/Transylvania
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Transylvania/Archive_3&oldid=1249168078"