Talk:Transylvania/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unio Trium Natiorum

• After the suppression (1437) of a peasant revolt (the "Bobâlna revolt"), the political system was based on Unio Trium Natiorum (The Unity of the Three Nations), in which the serfs (including the vast majority of Romanians) were implicitly excluded. - just what is this ? when were the serfs included in a political system in Transylvania so that the "nation of nobles" to feel the need to make a pact of "unity of three nations of nobles" and exclude the "nation of serfs" ? Scott Moore, you are simply copy-pasting propaganda here. If you intend on representing the "hungarian opinnion" on Unio Trium Natiorum you have to represent the "romanian opinnion" also. lol, the "three nations of nobles that included the vast majority of hungarians saxons and szeklers excluded the nation of serfs that included the vast majority of romanians" lol lol lol -- Criztu 10:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, I didn't even write this! I suggest you check the history next time. If "Romanian opinion" (you, I assume) believes that the Saxon burghers were "nobles" then it needs to do some more research. Where is your evidence that the vast majority of Hungarians were nobles? How come three of the six captains who led the peasant revolt were Hungarian peasants? Scott Moore 12:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In order to better understand the "Unio Trium Nationum" and the situation in Middle Age Transsylvania, one should know that after the completion of Hungarian conquest (abb. 1120) the population of the area was relatively stabile under several social and ethnic frames until the fall of Hungary at Mohacs (1526). The population make-up was: - 75% Romanians (60% Romanian serfs; 15% Romanian free peasants-mostly highlanders and a negligible proportion of Romanian nobles which accepted Roman-Catholicism and became assimilated to the Hungarian nobility) - 10% Germans (1% German serfs; 6% German free-peasants and 3% German town-dwellers) - 8% Hungarians (5% Hungarian Serfs; 1% Hungarian free peasants; 1% Hungarian town-dwellers and 1% Hungarian nobles) - 7% Szeklers (all of them free-peasants, until the 16th century) Therefore, the "Unio Trium Nationum" provided the legal status only for abb. 19% of the population of Transsylvania (German free-peasants and town-dwellers; Hungarian free-peasants, town-dwellers and nobles and Szeklers). The bulk of the population (81%): Romanian serfs and free-peasants (75%), the Hungarian serfs (5%) and the German serfs (1%) had no rights, citizenship and protection. The situation changed only after 400 years, in the decades after 1526, when many ethnic Hungarians arived as refugees from war-thorn Hungarian Plain and the religious Reform altered the old paths of Transsylvanian society. Transsylvanian

listen Scott, you edited the text i quoted with italic font. you changed the the political system was based on Unio Trium Natiorum, in which the ethnic Romanians were implicitly excluded to the political system was based on Unio Trium Natiorum, in which the serfs (including the vast majority of Romanians) were implicitly excluded. -- Criztu 13:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Re some of your comments above on the issue of sources:

• I don't list individual sources because there are too many. Pal Engel's book has 30 pages listing sources.

what i've asked you is simple: which are the primary sources that your Pal Engel uses for this "gyula of Transylvania baptised in Constantinople" ? historians work with primary sources and list as reference, you know that. so you should be able to quickly list those primary sources for this "gyula of Transylvania" -- Criztu 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Primary sources: the approach you suggest is impossible in the context of Wikipedia. There are simply too many sources. For example, have you any idea how many individual documents there are from the medieval Kingdom of Hungary? Over 300,000. Many of these have not yet been catalogued, let alone published. Researching these documents is the lifetime work of specialists. Even for periods with a lack of written documents, there is archeological evidence and don't see how that can be presented here in Wikipedia.

the Origin of Romanians uses exactly this approach. listing quotes from primary sources. see other articles too, like Dacia and Galerius. -- Criztu 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

listen, i'll write "according to Gesta Hungarorum and De Administrando Imperio, a certain dux Geula/Gyyla/Gyla/Jula was ruler in Transylvania during the Xth century. His dukedom centered around Alba (now Alba Iulia) was conquered by the Hungarian crown in 1002". i make refference to primary sources. If you are not satisfied with making reference to primary sources only, but to also reflect the view of contemporary historians, i'll add "It is possible that this dux Geula/Gyyla/Gyla/Jula to have been a romanian, a theory supported by romanian authors; evidence supporting this theory being: placenames and names in Romania preserving the name Geula (Giulesti, Gilau, Giulita, Julea, Iuliu, Gelu, Alba Iulia); his domain layed in place of an earlier domain, that of Gelou, that GH cals "a ruler of the vlachs"; his domain was centered around a daco-roman settlement Apullum, called by hungarian gestas by a latin name - Alba ('alba' in romanian means "white" just like in latin); the name of Geula/Gyyla's daughter, Sarolt, points to the river Olt(Alutus in roman times) in what later became Wallachia, the original home of this Geula, etc.. The hungarian authors propose a different theory on Geula/Gyyla/Gyla/Jula, namely this Gyula mentioned in GH and De Administrando was a title, not a name. evidence supporting this theory being: (you fill in the hungarian arguments)" -- Criztu 19:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Secondary sources: you seem to be suggesting that all secondary (and, indeed pimary) sources should be treated equally and all of their viewpoints presented in the article here. I don't agree with that approach. Or, to put it another way, I believe some sources are reliable and some are not.

put it this way, some theories are more apealling to your judgement. that doesn't mean you can't be herroneus in judging other's words (example: you quickly jumped to the conclusion that i don't pay attention to the history page or to the wikiarticles itself, that i can tell you I'm contemplating since your last addition with "gyula of Transylvania"; we discussed the issue of gyula on the gyula talk page a lot, and i shown you that you edited the passage with Unio Trium Natiorum about "the serfs excluded from the political sistem" -which is kind of weird, to have serfs in a political system, that could be excluded- so how can you get to such herroneus conclusion ?) -- Criztu 19:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've used a number of reliable and seemingly unbiased sources (most of them published by UK universities). I could have used other (including Hungarian-language) sources, but some of them present views which are not widely accepted, some are biased, so I regard them as less valid (less reliable sources). If we don't pass a value judgement on these secondary sources (if we say "my sources are just as good as yours and just as good as his"), then we have no reason not to include, for example, the following material:

• • Gyula Laszlo: "The Magyars: Their life and civilisation". According to Laszlo, the Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin in two waves (Dual Conquest Theory). I've read some texts on the web which follow this to the conclusion that the Szeklers in Transylvania were from this first wave ie they had been living there since the 7th century AD.

i like your formulation, that i also use when i know something is not beyond dispute. "according to (source)", which means the source is not 100% reliable. which offers the reader the option of doubt, and leaves the dispute open until definite evidence closes the topic. -- Criztu 19:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Istvan Lazar: "A Short History of Transylvania". Personally, I regard this as very biased. But its another source, and I'm sure some people would defend it. Someone even put a link to it on the Transylvania article.
  • Quotes from the other (Simon of Keza's) Gesta Hungarorum. He writes that the each of the seven Magyar chieftains erected a wooden fortress in Transylvania. That seems a pretty sure sign of conquest to me. But historians view this source as unreliable, so I've ignored it.

Scott Moore 17:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from my part you can write "according to Simon Kezai, the 7 magyar chieftains erected 7 wooden fortresses in Transylvania". If you can also provide a wikisource for Simon Keza's Gesta, pls do so. But if you'll formulate "The conquest of Transylvania by 894 is supported by Keza's affirmation" i will rectify to "According to Keza, seven magyar chieftains built 7 wooden fortresses somwhere in Transylvania sometime during the 9th century. By the 12th century, the territory of Transylvania was completely under Hungarian crown's authority, with autonomous szekler and saxon lands" -- Criztu 19:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gelou, Glad, Menumorut

I think this section could use a little more clarification. I do not speak Magyar or Romanian, and this information is entirely new to me. This is how it currently reads:

According to Gesta Hungarorum, a chronicle dating from 12th century, the states of Gelou - ruler of the Vlachs (Romanians) in Ardeal (Transylvania proper), Glad in Banat, and Menumorut in Byhor (Bihor and Bihar counties), were defeated by the Magyars in Transylvania during the 10th century.

Gesta Hungarorum uses the term "blacos/blachi/blacorum", the name by which were called in the chronicles the vlachs in the empire of the Asenids in 1185 in Bulgaria, the vlachs of Great Wallachia in Thessalia in 1000, the vlachs of the principality of Wallachia of Basarab I in 1330 and the vlachs of Moldo-Vlahia(Moldavia) of Stephen the Great in 1500 in Romania and Moldova. People might want to read about vlachs or romanians after reading this article, so linking to both Vlachs and Romanians should make it easier for whomever wants to access the Vlachs and Romanians articles -- Criztu 10:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should be THE Gesta Hungarorum (see how the Book of Kells and the Nibelungenlied are mentioned). How is the term Vlach used in the text? Does it refer to the general Vlach group (Romanians, Aromanians etc.) or specifically to Romanians/Vlachs? If the former, I do not think a link to the specific ethnic group "Romanians" should be included.

info from Gesta Hungarorum was replicated in later Gesta of Keza, and in Chronicon Pictum. there is a wikisource for Gesta Hungarorum(it's by that iceberg thumb, pretty bad placed, but you'll notice it after a while)where By the time of Gesta Hungarorum, there was no clear distinction between the Vlachs from Transylvania and Vlachs from Thesalia, at least in the chronicles -- Criztu 10:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I do not think simply "Banat" should be used. Banat did not exist at this time, but the lands which would become the Banat did. The current wording suggests (to me at least) that Glad was the ruler of Banat, which is not true. Through the English Yahoo I found only 8 links to "Byhor"[1], and 162 for "Biharia Menumorut"[2]. Biharia seems to be the better term to use. Finally, I agree with Scott Moore's interpretation of the Unio Trium Nationum. Olessi 20:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad was a ruler in Banat, not a ruler of Banat. perhaps rephrasing as ruler in the region later known as Banat ? Byhor is how the wikisource lists the name of Menumorout's state. i don't know how was it written in the original Hungarian Gestas -- Criztu 10:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what Criztu wrote is correct. According to the Gesta Hungarorum, Glad was the ruler in Banat. This is one of the problems with the GH - it uses the names of regions which existed in the 12th century to desribe what happened at the time of the Magyar conquest. Scott Moore 12:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I take back what I wrote above - the GH doesn't even mention Banat (just checked the Latin original). Nor does it mention Ardeal but rather terre ultra silvane (lands beyond the forest). And Gelou was a ruler of vlachs and slavs. Scott Moore 12:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6 names for a city or river

what's the point in keep writing in paranthesis the magyar or german old names of a city that is currently known as let say Cluj ? You can read about how it was called in german and hungarian, slovac, jewish, ucrainian, serbian, polish or bulgarian in different times in history in its own Cluj article. Currently it is Cluj and that's it. imagine mentioning the bulgarian version of river Tisza (since bulgarians once controled Transylvania), and the slovac serb ucrainian and polish versions (since all these people once controled the aria adjacent to Tisza) then the saxon version or even turkish (they controled Transylvania too); say Romanian advanced halted on Tisza (Tisa, Theiss, Tisia, Tisa, Tesia, Tissza, Teiza, etc.) and reached Sighetu Marmatiei (Marmoros Sziget, Sihota, SszigetMarmat, Sigyet Mormat, Seged Marmato, Mermetseget, etc.) in Transylvania (Erdely, Ardeal, Sieben Burgen, Erdel, Siedmogorod, Transilvanija, Sedmohradsko, etc.) -- Criztu 11:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree about cities. In the body of an article, let's stick to the current official name. This is the only consistent way of avoiding heated discussions about what was the most common name of a city at a given time in history. However for rivers, if the context where they are mentioned involves multiple present countries, I think we should list all the names used in these countries, and these as equal (so for example, "Ipel' / Ipoly" when referring to the river between Hungary and Slovakia). Naturally, if there is a commonly used English name, it should be used instead of all other names, like for example "Danube". -- KissL 28 June 2005 11:04 (UTC)

Criztu, your trick is so childish and transparent. Why do you try to make us look at a flea through a lens to compare it with an elephant? If once a Korean passed through a transylvanian city, do you think he'll require that we use his language for the name everywhere? A very large part of the written historical documents of Transylvania came from Hungarian period, and that's not something you can minimize as "an insignificant episode among many others". I wrote a related comment on Talk:Harghita#English encyclopedia or Encyclopedia for the english page. No, KissL, that's not the way to avoid heated discussions. Look at Talk:Gdansk, and the vote that ensued. We could reuse experiences of others instead of repeating history. Akiss 28 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)

hungarian names vs. romanian names

• imagine this situation: a war betwen HU and RO breaks out in 2010. and a HU general named Mihaly the Brave unites Transylvania with Hungary. and he wants to enter the city of Alba Iulia with ceremony. After 400 years (that is 2410), Hungary and Transylvania are still united, everything is just fine. the Wikipedia will write the history of Transylvania like this: "Mihaly the Brave(perhaps with a hungarian version for Brave in parantheses) united Transylvania with Hungary and entered Gyulafehervar victorius". Then, one of my descendants, will read this and won't be satisfied. He will reformulate the article to "Mihaly the Brave united Transylvania with Hungary and entered Alba Iulia (later renamed Gyulafehervar) victorious" -- Criztu 30 June 2005 06:35 (UTC)

point is, since Alba Iulia is known to hungarians from 2010 as Gyulafehervar in hungarian, does it mean the city will be "renamed" or "change" its name after it will become part of Hungary ? -- Criztu 30 June 2005 06:35 (UTC)

To be historically correct, Hungarian place names (and German names for Saxon towns) should be used for localities in Transylvania for the period 9 AD to 4 June 1920. As is well known, Romanian nationalists have done their utmost to prevent the official use of Hungarian place names for localities with Hungarian majority or minority populations. This encyclopedia, however, should provide unbiased information, which in this context means providing the relevant name for a specific period in history. Considering that several nations have shared and still share the territory of Transylvania, it may however not be a bad idea to add German and Romanian place names in brackets up till 1920 and Hungarian place names after 1920.

Please read about the encyclopedic convention, Montreal or Montréal. --Vasile 30 June 2005 18:16 (UTC)

To comment on the above, as Romanian became the only(!) official language of Transylvania after the Romanian take-over, the Romanian state's official name of the town known as Gyulafehérvár was changed to Alba Iulia.--Pali 30 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Alba Iulia was known as Alba Iulia by the romanians, so why using the Hungarian name Gyulafehervar when we write "Romanians gathered in Alba Iulia and proclaimed Union of Transylvania with ROmania" ? ... just lol when i read "Romanians gathered in GyulaFehervar and proclaimed union of Erdély with ROmania", like they were tourists or something lol. -- Criztu 30 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)

historicaly correct is Erdely and Siebenburgen between 12th century and 1920

I expect a campaign for the replacement of the term Transylvania in Wikipedia with Erdély, when reffering to the timeframe between sometime during 12th century and 1920 when it united with ROmania. Officialy, Transylvania was "known" as Erdély during Kingdom of Hungary and as "Siebenburgen" during Habsburg Empire, now wouldn't this be a tremendous task ? -- Criztu 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)

There is a precedent of paralel wikipedia "something" entity: moldoveana. --Vasile 1 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)

What happened to the odd 400 years preceeding the 12th century? Rewriting the history books? Transylvania was the first place in the Carpathian Basin where Hungarians settled, with the conquest completed no later than 900 AD, not to mention the Székley-Hungarians who arrived even earlier. Regarding the name - In fact, Siebenbürgen was the name used in large parts of Europe before Romania began custodianship of Transylvania, and is still the preferred name in some corners of the world. And, in the English language we're after all using the spelling Transylvania, not the Romanian Transilvania. Still, if anyone wants to say Erdély, that's fine by me.

Romanian name is Ardeal -- Criztu 30 June 2005 21:14 (UTC)

12th century: 1101-1200; -400; 701-800. No, rewriting the arithmetic books. --Vasile 1 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)

Who knows why Romanians chose Gyulafehérvár, but that was the official name of the place. Just as you wouldn't say the "Peace of Satu Mare" instead of the Peace of Szatmár for that particular historic event, why change history in this case?

Erased paragraph

• 1) First of all, it is not certain that the events described in Gesta Hungarorum refer to the beginning of the 10th cent. (ca. 900 AD), many scholars admit the possibility that they could have happened around 1000 AD. It is furthermore unclear whether the Bulgars lost their control over the Carpatian basin at the time of the Magyar invasion, or much later - during the Pecheneg invasion in the 940s or around 1000 AD. Considering that around 900 AD Bulgaria had its strongest and most belligerent tsar ever, Simeon I, I personally don't believe in the 900 AD version. However, irrespective of what anyone believes, there is a lack of agreement between scholars as to who had control over Transylvania in the 10th century and this should be reflected in the article.
• 2) The section you quote refers to the history of Transylvania after 1000 AD, when the region was indisputedly part of the Kingdom of Hungary. The time of the arrival of the Szeklers is, however, again unclear. They might have settled in the Carpatian basin during the first migration, or they might be later settlers.
• 3) Inasmuch as the paragraph includes only information about the lack of clarity as to who ruled Transylvania in the 10th cent., as well as information about the Szeklers, I don't see an objective reason as to why you keep erasing the paragraph. Let me again remind you that when there are controversial/unclear issues, articles here are supposed to include all possible angles which can cast light upon that controversiality/lack of clarity. VMORO July 2, 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Alternate names

Do we really need to have so many alternate names in the intro? We should have the Romanian, Hungarian, and German names followed by a link to List of European regions with alternative names to cover the miscellaneous other names. Olessi 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. bogdan | ^Talk 20:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion

The anonymous IP user 84.92.70.37 has removed factual information about Transylvania Proper and the table listing the historical populations of the region. I have restored those, as I see no reason to not include them. I have changed a map caption to "Map of Romania with Transylvania Proper in yellow"; at this immediate time images are not loading on WP for me, but IIRC that best describes that map.

German settlement in the Kingdom of Hungary began when Bavarians/Austrians began settling in the western Hungarian lands (today's Burgenland) around 1100. However, German settlement in Transylvania began under the reign of King Géza II (middle of the 12th century), not the 11th century mentioned by the IP user. The city website for Satu Mare states that "Teutonic colonists brought in 1006 by queen Gisela have settled around the city core". Although it is possible that Queen Gisela (a Bavarian) brought German retainers with her, I have found nothing indicating colonization on a scale large enough to merit inclusion here. My research indicates, like the Transylvanian Saxons, that the Sathmar Deutsche began settling in the 12th century, with a second wave arriving after 1683. Regardless of the timeframe, the Germans of Satu Mare are culturally regarded as Danube Swabians, not as Transylvanian Saxons. Additionally, Satu Mare was not part of Transylvania during the period in question. Likewise, the Banat was not settled by Germans until the Habsburgs recolonized it after 1683. For reference I refer to Wilfried Krallert's Atlas zur Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung, page 9 and map 5.

I personally believe that only having the Anglicized names for captions is best. Romanian/Hungarian names for individuals have been a flashpoint in the past; as this is the English wiki, I support only having the English names when available. The native names are available in full articles for the individuals for those interested. Olessi 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To the same anonymous user who said, "Moved the Hungarian historical data to the corresponding historical section. Why mix the historical Hungarian data in the section about present-day Transylvania? Are you trying to make a point?" No, I was not making a point. I was merely retaining information. Yes, the historical Hungarian provinces make more sense in the History section. However, it seems more useful to include the information in the wrong section than to delete it outright as you had done. I have now re-added the historical population information (which you deleted again) into a relevant spot. Olessi 00:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)