Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/Archive 1

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

Kniezsa's map

"Although the historical study of place-names is not practised to the same extent in all countries, it is a recognized branch of historiography. It encompasses the etymology of geographical names as well as cultural and chronological variations in the naming of places. To facilitate their study of Hungarian place-names, István Kniezsa and Géza Bárczi developed an analytical framework that blends etymology, typology, and chronology. The validity of this triple approach has been amply demonstrated, thanks not only to the expertise of the two scholars but also to the peculiarity of Hungarian toponymy, which is readily distinguishable from that of any other culture. Most of the early Hungarian toponyms are derived from the names of people, clans, and ethnic groups, or from occupations, and used in the nominative case singular (e.g. Árpád, Megyer, Cseh [Czech], Ács [carpenter]). This type of toponymy appears in the earliest documents, dating from around 1000 AD. The pattern holds well into the 13th century — until the 1220s in western Hungary, and the 1270s in the eastern parts, including Transylvania..."(László Makkai, TRANSYLVANIA IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARIAN KINGDOM (896–1526), IN: Köpeczi Béla (General Editor), HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-88033-479-7)"

Kniezsa's map is still cited in scientific papers. It is NOT outdated. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is already [here].Ditinili (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You ignore Hungarian academics!!!! Fakirbakir (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
And he/she also ignores his/her own proposal [1]. Borsoka (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My collegues, I do not "ignore Hungarian academics". I requested for sources and they were not provided even after several months. I also made a constructive recommendation how to fix the pronlem, but the uploader of the map did nothing to fix it, he did not followed it and he did not (after several months) did not provide any feedback. And when I wrote what is already properly sourced (the map is not compliant with the modern research) you have tried to revert it, to reformulate and to relativise it and to present it as some opinion of the Slovak historian instead of the serious research result. What you have not tried is to provide proper sources for your opinions.Ditinili (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Upload your own map to represent the "Slovak scholarly POV" on Wikimedia Commons. Makkai's quote (above) is more than enough to prove that Kniezsa's study is not an outdated fringe theory.... "did nothing to fix it" ---> After our conversation I tried to fix the problem.[2]. Anyway I have no idea why you didn't like my last contribution [3]. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not "more than enough". We have already discussed this on 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC).[4] "Laszlo Makkai: died in 1989, he can hardly react on results of the modern research or to take them into account. Not a reliable source for challenging current state in archeology. More, the quoted sentence is also only a general statement and the book is about Transylvania, not Slovakia." Your "fix" unfortunately did not mention any criticism and you did rather opposite - you whitewashed any critical view [5] with a very poor reasoning that this is your map and you are not obliged to preserve them in the description. I do not like your "last contribution " because again, you did not provided any new source, only relativized research results. I persist in opinion that it must be stated very clearly that in the case of Slovakia, the later research refuted this theory.Ditinili (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kniezsa's views are not criticized only by Slovak authors, but also by the Hungarian historian Gyula Kristó in his paper "THE PEOPLES OF HUNGARY IN THE DAYS OF SAINT STEPHEN". Gyula Kristó's paper provides a criticism of Istvan Kniezsa's paper published in 1938 on the question of ethnicity in Hungary in the 11th century. The author states that Kniezsa, despite his own intentions, depicted the peoples of the late Arpád era, i.e., 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, instead of the early Arpád era, i.e., 11th century.. (the quote is from Századok, Volume 134, Issues 1-3, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2000 - Hungary) 213.229.64.182 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kniezsa's map has nothing to do with archaeology, he was a Slavist, his work is based on toponyms. His view is not unanimously accepted by historians, however his theory is still widely used today and a basic theory of Hungarian population history. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, only your statement without any source. Basic theory of Hungarian population history => [6] Ditinili (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You should learn some Hungarian population history...."The verifiable name layers from the early period of the conquest were subjected to study in Hungary from the 1930s and 1940s, resulting in early historical place-name typologies (Moór 1936: 110–117, Kniezsa 1938, 1943, 1944, 1960, Kertész 1939: 33–39, 67–77, Kristó 1976), the results of which are still to this day largely accepted by the research community without reservation."[7][8]
It seems that this "acceptance without reservation" has serious limits, because the list contains also the author (Kristó) who demonstrably criticized Kniezsa [9] and on the same page there is also a very sharp refusal of Kniezsa's conclusions from another Hungarian author. Your second source (however it is easy to demonstrate that some of "Hungarian" areas were ethnically mixed) references to the 15th century, not to the 11th. Ditinili (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing restrains us on Wikipedia to demonstrate Kniezsa's POV. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing restrains us on Wikipedia to demostrate Democritus POV in the right context. If you are interested in the history of settlement, you can take e.g. "The sources for the history of settlement of Slovakia from the late 5th to the 13th century" in several volumes and hundreds of pages, last edition from 2008, with long lists of archaeologic findigs, written sources, etc. The peer revievewed collective work published by the local academy of sciences, instead of the work published dozen years ago. I don't know why do you re-open this topic. Ditinili (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just hoping that the person who decides which one is the "right context" won't be you. You simply hate this map because it counters your view. You don't understand that it does not really matter if Kniezsa was right or not. His work represents a POV which is still cited in modern scholarly works. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Be polite and prevent personal attacks. Ditinili (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, Kniezsa's map is still cited in scholarly works. Consequently, it can be cited in WP. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, also Democritus can be cited, if it is clear that his is not a modern physics and his views are compared with newer theories (until they are not presented as historic views).
The question is, if you are really interested in the current knownledge on the settlement history or you only want to use map for every cost, even if they are much better sources.Ditinili (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No, the question is why we should not use the work of a scholar whose studies are regarded valid by a relevant group of 21st-century scholars. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Use whatever you want, until you properly mention that the work is from 1930s and also the criticism.Ditinili (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Pre-Christian Hungarians

The term "pagans", used in the Background section to describe the pre-Christian Hungarians, is vague. A more specific label would be helpful, because "pagan" has been used to describe an awfully broad collection of cultures and religions. Folklore1 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Folklore1, thank you for your edits and your above comment. I think that "pagan Hungarians" is the proper term - this is applied by most historians (for instance, Engel). Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review: Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1301)

All comments, suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Which style of English?

I am about three-quarters of the way through the article, copy-editing in response to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I see both British and American date styles and British and American spelling. Usually, I go back to the first version of the article after the stub to see what style was first used. However, I see that there may have been a split, so I don't know at what point I should be looking. It doesn't matter to me which style is used. Could someone please decide the style and let me know? Then I will edit for consistency. Corinne (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, thank you for your hard work. I think American date styles and American spelling are preferred by more users, so I also prefer them. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka That's fine with me, but I'm not sure the decision should be based on what we prefer; it is usually based on the style used in the first version after the original stub, or the connection between the subject of the article and a particular country. See WP:ENGVAR. I could not find the original stub, but I found the point right after the article was split, and in that version, American date style was used, so I guess that style is fine. Corinne (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Edits by IP

Dear anon, please summarize the reasons of this edit here ([10]), because there are two editors who do not understand your concern. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit by IP

Anon, would you summarize why do you think that all attempts by the Holy Roman Emperors to expand their authority over Hungary were unsuccessful if Henry III managed to put Peter on the throne in 1044 and Solomon in 1063? Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


Was Hungary part of HRE? or Vassal of HRE Emperors?

Can the HR.Emperors conquer it from Pozsony to Transylvania?. So their attempts remained unsuccessful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.55.251 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you really say Peter Orseolo, the vassal of the HRE Henry III, did not rule whole Hungary ("from Pozsony to Transylvania") between 1144 and 1146. What is the source of your suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Again, during the reginPeter Orseolo there were a civil war, there were Hungarian forces on both side, so it was not a clear Hungary vs Germany war, but civil war.

High medieval German Emperors proved to be weak to fight against a politically united Hungary as a whole country.

Or do you deny the following facts?

Just see the conflicts of Pure Hungary VS. Germany line-up.

  • 1030 German defeat Hungarian king: Stephen I, German Emperor: Konrad II
  • 1031 German defeat Hungarian king: Stephen I, German Emperor: Konrad II
  • 1051 German defeat Hungarian king: Andrew I, German Emperor: Henry IV
  • 1053 German defeat Hungarian king: Andrew I, German Emperor: Henry IV
  • 1074 German defeat Hungarian king: Solomon I, German Emperor: Henry IV
Sorry, I do not understand what you want to say. What is the subject of the debate? Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


The subject is the unsuccessful attempts of HR. Emperors to make Hungary as vassal state of their Empire. They proved to be weak for that.

Based on a reliable source, the article says that Peter accepted the emperor's suzerainty. Is there a reliable source stating that he did not accept the emperor's suzerainty, or that there was an other king during Peter's rule who did not accept the emperor's suzerainty? Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


IS there any reliable source which state that Peter used only the Emperor's forces? No, it was a civil war. The Emperor simply used the anarchic situation as his advantage. Second: The gathered army of the Emperor's army did not dare to cross the border to help King Peter, which is not strange, because medieval Holy Roman Emperors had not huge armies. We can cite all wars of medieval Holy Roman emperors (with the estimations of their armies from books of academic scholars ), and it is clearer than the sun, that the medieval HR. Emperors were unable to mobilize large armies, thus their influence was weak. So Emperor Henry III had to realize , that he lost within 1y and some months all of his influence in Hungary. No huge army ===> no power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.55.251 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I highly appreciate your research, but you did not cite a single source stating either that Peter did not accept Henry's suzerainty or that Peter was not the sole monarch of Hungary at that time. Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

When Peter lost the power in 1046, the imperial army did not dare to cross the border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.55.251 (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes (at least for some years). And? Sorry, I have been lost. Do you want to say that Peter did not accept HRH Henry III's suzerainty? If you say "Yes, he never accepted Henry III's suzerainty", please refer to at least one reliable source which subtantiates this claim which contradicts to the reliable source cited in the article. If you say "No, he accepted Henry III's suzerainty during his second rule", there is no point in continuing this discussion, because we agree. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


I'll take up this review, reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). I've had experience reviewing a number of historical articles, including about Árpád. I will take 2-3 days to familiarise myself with this article and then provide a review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Source check pending
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Samples checked - no violations found
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Overall an extremely well-written and thoroughly researched article. I will do a second thorough read-through, check images, for plagiarism & copyright problems, and check sources before I finish. I do not anticipate any major problems. I've had a skim through the previous PR and FAN to see what other editors have thought. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Calvin999 many thanks to your edits to this article. It's very well-written and cited. I will see if I can access the sources on google books to verify your thorough research. I have one or two questions about the content of this article:

  • Firstly, it's very easy to read, comprehensive and well-sourced
  • In the article, it states that after the Cuman chieftan was massacred, they left Hungary - this is at odds with the Hungary page which states they were ultimately assimilated
  • Would it be worth mentioning anything about the use of Latin at all in Hungary at the time as a national language?

Other than that I have no qualms about this article and am just trying to find the sources. I'm sorry this review is taking so long, as I am going through a period of business in real life :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Addit - the good article criteria are met in that this article is verifiable but as I cannot access the sources I cannot state it to be verified - requirements beyond the GA criteria. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

LT910001, thank you for your comprehensive review. Please find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a very good article and I have very little to add. Good luck at WP:FA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I should add a more thoughtful conclusion :). This is one of the few articles that I've reviewed which I have nothing to add. It meets off the bat all the criteria required for a good article - well written, very well sourced, well structured and with no copyright or image problems. Well done do you Borsoka and good luck in your future editing! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. If it is well written, it is due to the thorough copyedit by Corinne. I would like to thank it for her again. :) Borsoka (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


Cumans were not really assimilated, they got a medieval version of reserve area like Native American Indians in the USA, and they got some medieval privileges, which they could only in their reserve area, the so-called Kunság. Cumans were decimated by Christian and Hungarian forces during the Ottoman wars. They were sytsematically replaced by Serbian Albanian and Romanian migrants during the Ottoman wars, this colonization was supported by the Ottomans. Moreover Cumans did not survive the Great Turkish war, they were exterminated in the 1680s by the Crimean Tatars ( the ally of Ottomans) and Habsburg and Hungarian forces. After the Ottoman wars, a mixed pan-balkan population and newly arrived Hungarian population started to claim the rights and privileges of the former "cumania" (Hungarian Kunság) reserve area (the rights of the extinct ancient Cuman population). Cumans had the right for free election of judges, free election of clergymen, they were free from taxes, they were also free from the power of feudal landlords and feudal taxation and they can avoid of manorialism and the serf/ villein status, they have right for land ownership. Thus the newly migrated population started to call themselves as cumans, to get the privileges of the extinct cuman people in Cumania/Kunság area. Later the descendants of the migrant population believed that they were the real descendants of ancient Cumans. Here is a good article about Cumans in Hungary, you can use the Google Transaltor. http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.49.45 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Becoming ruler" and "occupation"

KIENGIR, is there a significant scholarly POV, claiming that Croatia (and Dalmatia) accepted Ladislaus and Coloman's rule without force? In the reliable sources, cited in the article there is no doubt that both rulers only became the rulers of the two realms, because they invaded the territory and occupied it. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
Well, please check the sources in the Croatia in the union with Hungary article, where is more details and aproach about that (Background->Succession Crisis)
"Some Croatian nobles around Helen, possibly the Gusići[11] and/or Viniha from Lapčani family,[10] contesting the succession after the death of Zvonimir, asked King Ladislaus I to help Helen and offered him the Croatian throne, which was seen as rightfully his by inheritance rights. According to some sources, several Dalmatian cities also asked King Ladislaus for assistance, presenting themselves as White Croats on his court.[11] Thus the campaign launched by Ladislaus was not purely a foreign aggression[12] nor did he appear on the Croatian throne as a conqueror, but rather as a successor by hereditary rights.[13]"
"Coloman, as was the case with Ladislaus before him, wasn't seen as a conqueror but rather as a pretender to the Croatian throne.[16]"
So I see the "truth" is on the half-way, although I know unfortunately it does not matter here. You should agree it is not identical with a classic military occupation and forced annexation, since along with the information presented here it is better an emerging campaign following a sucession crisis and they were recognized as Kings and Croatia kept it's sovereignty (of course we could present many different approach what exactly it is - i.e. personal union). So we should agree in a solution that complies with all of this. If you consider, you may add some of this sources to article's core if you see it will create the needed coherence.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC))
Thank you for your remark. I added further sources (among them one you cited above, Bárány) which were published in English. The new sources (including the one cited above) also apply a language reflecting the military nature of the action ("conquest", "resistance"). Consequently, I think we cannot use a neutral language ("became a king"). We can, of course, refer to the fact that part of the local population supported Ladislaus and Coloman. Furthermore, we cannot make a connection between the succession crisis in Croatia and the occupation of the Dalmatian towns, because they are not directly connected. Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, however I think the lead should also contain that they became kings. Check me if it's ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC))
What is the source of the statement that "they were crowned king"? Borsoka (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
For Coloman, "Coloman was crowned king of Croatia in Biograd na Moru in 1102.[1]", For Ladislaus as I see he was not crowned. So it is better to use "became kings" os similar.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC))
Both monarchs had been kings years before they occupied Croatia. What is the source of the statement that Ladislaus whenever styled himself king of Croatia? Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, I never said Ladislaus was not a king or did not style himself as a king, I just said he was not cowned in a classic way as i.e. Coloman regarding Croatia. Would you please add in a proper way to the lead that they became the Kings of Croatia? Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC))
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. I did not say that Ladislaus styled him king of Croatia. I asked you to add a source that verifies that he was king of Croatia. Borsoka (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Well everywhere in his biographies, even here in Wikipedia his title is also King of Croatia. However, these source may imply it, this tell us exactly: [2]
-"He also expanded the country's holdings by claiming the throne of Croatia in 1091."
-"By 1091, Hungary had recovered enough to begin looking for other opportunities to expand. With the death of the Croatian king, Zvonimir, in that year, László claimed title to the neighboring kingdom as the dead king's brother-in-law. The annexation of Croatia, which among other benefits provided access to ports on the Adriatic Sea, signaled Hungary's arrival as a powerful new dynasty in Europe."
Or, this is better since explicitly tells he acceded: The De Wit Collection of Medieval Coins, 1000 Years of Coinage [3]
"Yelena's brother, Laidislaus I then asserted his claims to he Croatian throne. A Hungarian army defetated King Petar in 1097, whereupon Ladislaus acceded."(KIENGIR (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC))
The last source is obviously wrong, because Ladislaus was already dead in 1097. The first and second sentences do not say that he styled himself king of Croatia. The second source confirms that Croatia was annexed. I still do not understand why should we say that they were kings of Croatia, Dalmatia. We neither do mention that Béla II and his successors were kings of Rama, Andrew II and his successors were kings of Halych and Lodomeria, etc. The important pieces of information are already mentioned in the lead (the kings occupied Croatia and Dalmatia, they were supported by parts of the local communities, and both realms preserved their self-governemnt). Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then just for curiosity, how may we prove with a source in any onther case he was the king of Croatia? Since this title he held...maybe it is automatical as Croatia got under the Hungarian Crown?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ Curta 2006, p. 266.
  2. ^ http://biography.yourdictionary.com/laszlo-i-king-of-hungary
  3. ^ https://books.google.hu/books?id=iWd0mimd-dMC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=Ladislaus+I+King+of+Croatia&source=bl&ots=LjjBJ2-yJ0&sig=w4RDG9s-eFbkRW5eSWz8AN1ttAk&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5qeWb-MvOAhUIBMAKHaKqAocQ6AEIYDAI#v=onepage&q=Ladislaus%20I%20King%20of%20Croatia&f=false

Early Hungarian language has borrowings from Eastern Slavic languages from the pre-conquest era

Words related to agriculture and religion have Eastern Slavic origin, according to all Hungarian linguists. They had not relationship with Western Slavic or Southern Slavic languages.--Blemse (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, such a scholarly POV exists. However, the latest etymological dictionary does not say this. It tends to accept that a significant part of the vocabulary of agriculture and Christianity came from Southern Slavic languages. (I refer to Gábor, Zaicz (Editor) (2006). Etimológiai szótár: Magyar szavak és toldalékok eredete. Tinta Könyvkiadó. ISBN 963-7094-01-6., pages 971-973.) Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Gábor Zaicz is just a docent. Please give me sources from university professors, because the Eastern Slavic theory is supported by the books of professors, who are/were members of MTA. Thank you!--Blemse (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

???? Zaicz is "just" the editor of the last representative etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language. Would you refer to a similarly representative publication. Please, also note that this is an article about the medieval kingdom of Hungary, not about the history of the Hungarian language. Borsoka (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are some words which come from Eastern Slavic. But linguists currently tend to accept that most of the loanwords were adopted from Pannonian Slavic. Pannonian Slavic belonged to southern Slavic and was closely related to the Proto-Serbocroatian language (and was not an extension of Proto-Slovene). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra

The territory, mentioned as Ducatus in medieval sources, was an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary, although it was time to time given in appanage to members of the royal family between c. 1048 and c. 1108. I know that it is mentioned as Principality of Nitra in Slovak historiography, because it included large territories (one-third of the whole kingom) in present-day Slovakia (besides territories in present day Hungary and Romania). However, I do not understand, why it should be mentioned as a predecessor state of the Kingdom of Hungary. For instance, the French appanage principalities (Anjou, Burgundy, Orleans, Bourbon....) are not listed among the predecessors of the Kingdom of France, although they were integrated in it. Borsoka (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2018 (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) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Historical period or a former country

@Dimadick: the article is part of at least two series, "History of Hungary" and "History of Slovakia", because it covers a period of the history of both countries. However, this historical period is not a former country, so we should not use the "former country" infobox in this article. The paralell articles - for instance, England in the Middle Ages, Scotland in the Middle Ages, History of Sweden (800–1521) - do not use this infobox either. There is a separate article about the former state, the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

But, added for the sake of completeness, France in the Middle Ages, Kingdom of Poland (1025–1031) and its subsequent entities, use infobox. Anyway, it is irrelevant in terms of the infobox that this article covers the history of present-day Slovakia. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Does add the "former country" infobox value to this article? 15:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I think yes. It contains an useful SVG map (Hungary [and Croatia] within Europe), royal banners, capitals and even the existence of "palatine", the second most powerful position in the kingdom, which, however, has no trace in the text. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair point: the palatine should clearly be mentioned in the text. On the other hand, I think the "former country" infobox is useless and artificial in the article's context. Furthermore, it contains unverified, highly dubious information. What is the source for the royal banners, the capitals? Can we say that Latin was a common language in the kingdom? Can we indeed state that the Royal (?) Diet was the legislature during the whole period? Do we really think that the kingdom was disestablished in 1301? Was Hungary and Croatia united during the whole period? I think a historical period cannot be presented as a former country. All the same, I request for comments on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on the use of the "former country" infobox in this article

Is the "country" infobox useful in this article about a period in the history of a former country, the Kingdom of Hungary? Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary
Regnum Hungariae (Latin)
Magyar Királyság (Hungarian)
1000–1301 (Árpád dynasty)
Flag of Hungary
Top: Royal banner (13th cent.)
Bottom: Dynastical/military banner of Árpáds (13th cent.)
Coat of arms (1262–1290) of Hungary
Coat of arms
(1262–1290)
Kingdom of Hungary in personal union with Croatia in 1190
Kingdom of Hungary in personal union with Croatia in 1190
StatusIn personal union with Croatia
(see historical context section)
CapitalEsztergom (1000–1256)
Székesfehérvár (royal seat since 1000)
Common languagesLatin, Hungarian, Croatian
Religion
Roman Catholic
Demonym(s)Hungarian
GovernmentFeudal monarchy
King 
• 1000–1038 (first)
Stephen I
• 1290–1301 (last)
Andrew III
Palatine 
• c.1009–1038 (first)
Samuel Aba
• 1298–1299 (last)
Roland Rátót
LegislatureRoyal Diet
Historical eraMedieval
• Established
1000
• Disestablished
1301 (Árpád dynasty)
ISO 3166 codeHU
Preceded by		 Succeeded by
Principality of Hungary
Kingdom of Croatia
Principality of Nitra
Kingdom of Hungary after the Árpád dynasty
  • No, the "country" infobox is useless and misleading. The article is not about a country, but about a period of the history of a country, so many pieces of information can hardly be exact in the "country" infobox. For instance, Hungary was not disestablished in 1301; Andrew III was not the last king of Hungary; we can hardly talk about capitals in a period when the royal court was moving. The infobox also contains unverified or untrue information: Hungary and Croatia were separate realms until the late 11th centruy; the royal flags are unverified; the Diets did not exist before the 1260s; Latin was not a common language, but Slavic languages, German, Romanian and other idioms were widely spoken in the kingdom; ... etc. Furthermore, the article contains two useful sidebars and a third sidebar (the infobox) is absolutelly superfluous. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes; it summarizes key information about the country in a manner that is beneficial to readers, and the fact that we needed to WP:SIZESPLIT the article doesn't change that. However, it should be adjusted to not state that it was succeeded by the Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526), as that is inaccurate. BilledMammal (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Nearly all the information it contains is misleading or outright false, which is far from beneficial to readers. Surtsicna (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes it summarizes all necessary information on the country, and helps navigation to relevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Quite simply, it is full of misinformation and blatant falsehoods. The misinformation will keep creeping in because the infobox is not designed for the topic of this article. We already have an article about the country, containing this infobox, and there it works much better. On a related note, I wonder if the title of the article could be amended to reflect its actual topic. As it stands now, it does wrongly suggest that the topic is a geopolitical entity, so it is no wonder that someone added the wrong infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but cut out the problem information, i.e. the successor state, and note the date of the establishment of the Royal Diet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
That's not the only problematic information. All the fields are wrong one way or another, except the most useless one (Demonym). Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No, Borsoka and Surtsicna convinced me, the infobox in this case would only raise more questions and uncertainties than an authentic and concise summary of the data. Nevertheless, it would be welcome to have a few pictures of royal banners in the article and to mention the issue of the capital(s) – for instance, the importance of Esztergom and Székesfehérvár, and the elevation of Buda during the reign of Béla IV (a valuable Engish-language academic work: Medieval Buda in Context). --Norden1990 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article is about the history of the country and the infobox contains summary information about the historical country, it does not interfere with anything. It is valuable that some users would create a new article about the country where the infobox could be, I agree with that, but it still is not, so until then the infobox should stay here, because many other articles refer to this page as an article about the country and therefore it's confusing that there's no infobox. Dragovit (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What I'm having difficulty following is why this page isn't titled in some way as "The First Kingdom of Hungary"-or anything that clarifies or contextualizes the fact that as a political entity the Hungarian Kingdom endured in one form or another until 1920. @Borsoka: would you be open to the interpretation that this the article is about a distinct country-in a period of the history of a *nation? OgamD218 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your query. The article is not about the "First Kingdom of Hungary" (because it did not exist). It is about the "Kingdom of Hungary under the Árpád dynasty", or the "Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages". (Just a side remark, the Hungarian Kingdom endured until 1946 when Hungary was proclaimed republic.) Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Borsoka: yes sorry, I forgot about that very unique era in Hungary's history. Should the article then perhaps be renamed to "Árpád Hungary"? While I would argue that the nation of Hungary has endured over a millenia, "The Kingdom of Hungary" was a political entity that it seems no longer exists? OgamD218 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Norden1990 and Surtsicna: what do you think about the suggestion above? Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that changing the title would solve the problem (see my first comment) and I like "Kingdom of Hungary under the Árpád dynasty". "Árpád Hungary" is concise but might still leave the impression of being a state distinct from, say, Habsburg Hungary. I have considered "Hungary under the Árpád dynasty" too because it is shorter but that would push the scope of the article beyond 1000. Surtsicna (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the current name of the article would be misleading or wrong. But if change is important at all, I support Hungary in the High Middle Ages, Kingdom of Hungary under the Árpád dynasty or simply Medieval Hungary under the Árpád dynasty. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I agree that the present title is not misleading because it clearly refers to a period in a former country's history (not to a former country). If the title was to be changed, I preferred the form Hungary in the High Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Norden1990, Surtsicna, and Borsoka: It seems that the article covers only the 300+ years during which The Kingdom of Hungary was ruled by the Árpád dynasty. What separates this article from others focusing on periods in the Kingdom of Hungary's history seems exclusively to be (though I apologize if I am mistaken) the rise of and conclusion of a ruling dynasty over the Kingdom; in other words the most accurate title/description of this time period in the history of the Kingdom of Hungary would include "Árpád". Other historical pages follow the title used here ("XXX from year to year") but that approach is typical abandoned when referring to the history of the country under a specific dynasty. I will note however that I do not consider the current page title is likely to mislead a reader into thinking it is referring to a separate country/Kingdom of Hungary. OgamD218 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
My principal concern is that the following period (1301-1526) could not be presented under a similarly simple title, because during the Late Middle Ages Hungary was ruled by kings from five dynasties. I prefer the present title for sake of consequency. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but idk if this page should have its title affected necessarily for the sake of a subsequent page. @Borsoka: to be honest I feel like given the content (which you appear more familiar with than me) having a page titled something along the lines of "Árpád Hungary" would better lead the reader in conjunction with the title of the page for the following period as it would serve to represent this period in the Kingdom's history can be defined by 300 yrs under a single dynasty but that the next was one of as you said, turnover and inconsistency. OgamD218 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Former country infobox again

@Dragovit: first of all thank you for fixing my latest edit ([11]). Please remember that all statements in a WP article have to be verified with a reference to a reliable source. Could you refer to reliable sources verifying the statements in the infobox that Andrew III was the last king of Hungary, Roland Rátót was the last Hungarian palatine, Latin was a common language in Hungary, or Hungary was dissolved in 1301, etc.? All these statements clearly contradict all reliable sources available to me (including those cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Borsoka: If any of these statements clearly contradict the sources, then there is no obstacle to replacing them and increase the the quality of information. Of course, these statements need to be clarified or source support. Yes, for example, the infobox actually says that the Kingdom of Hungary has been "dissolved", but it is a mistake that can be rewritten, but some other information is verified in other articles (for example Flag of Hungary article where these historical banners are located). In any case, this is not a reason to remove the entire infobox; other articles about kingdoms are divided equally into historical periods and have the same infoboxes. I try to be as accurate as possible, but you probably have reliable sources and I don't, so I welcome you to improve the infobox. I will also try correct some errors or inaccuracies that you talked about, if you give me time. Dragovit (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I give you time, but please remember we are not here to place infoboxes everywhere, but to present verifiable data for our readers. This infobox is misleading in this article because it is designed to present a former country, not a period in a country's history. The infobox could be placed in the article about the Kingdom of Hungary, but not in this article. Borsoka (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, however, I have a different opinion about the article and its meaning; there are a lot of articles like this and they have own infoboxes. For example compare this article with the articles about the Byzantine Empire and their infoboxes, there are many of them and each about a different period like this article. Of course there is an article History of Hungary that has the purpose you are talking about, and the infobox you mentioned in the Kingdom of Hungary is useful and helpful in some matters, but it contains only latest information about the kingdom (before it's dissolution) from all periods, so not much is said especially about the medieval kingdom. The reason why this article should not have an infobox is confusing, especially when its content is so extensive, so it needs this tool to summarize information. You say that you have the reliable sources which could be beneficial for the infobox, but you admit that you don't want to improve the infobox. You are able to write anything into but you'd rather put templates (citation needed, dubious etc) there, so that's an unfortunate collaboration. I said I don't have my own sources that could be use and be glad if you help, but you just give me time and that's not enough, it's just like an ultimatum, not help. Please first look at articles about the Byzantine Empire or the Kingdom of Croatia which had also several dynasties and compare them with this, so please keep a unified style of articles for the entire Wikipedia. Dragovit (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I looked at articles about the Byzantine Empire and the Kingdom of Croatia. First of all, they are not GAs or FAs, so I do not understand why I should follow them. Secondly, they conatain artificial information. You are right, I do not want to improve this infobox, because it cannot be improved. For instance, you added data about the country's territory and population (without verifying them), although we do not have exact information about them. I was planning to nominate this article as a FA, but I gave it up because this infobox contradicts our basic policies without any possibility to improve it. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I am convinced that the articles about the Byzantine Empire and Croatia are the same case as this article, they are also divided into periods of dynasties, there are several and all have infoboxes. After watching many dozens of articles about historical countries over more than ten years, I am convinced that the infobox here is fine and does not contain any "artificial" information, but all information is already included in the introduction of this article and generally valid (the last ruler, language, religions etc all is clear, what is dubious?). Most infoboxes are not even verified by sources because they have the same information as article content with sources. Please note that most of the information of the infobox here is included in the introduction of the article, there is also a mention about the use of the Latin language, which you marked as dubious in the infobox, or please tell me what is "dubious" with the information "In personal union with Croatia" when there is the article called Croatia in personal union with Hungary(!) which means that it must also be "dubious" or not? You consider the information to be "dubious" or "artificial" but that has been verified in many other articles. If that's true that all these articles contain "artificial" information then why not correct it according to your sources than inserting dubious templates here? It just feels like an obstructions to me, because you only see dubiuous/artificial information only in this infobox and not elsewhere, it's weird. The data about the country's territory and population is used in the article Kingdom of Hungary to which you referred that the infobox has. So what's wrong? I don't know what are "GAs" and "FAs", sorry, I've never encountered with this. Dragovit (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Voivodeship of Maramureș

This article is missing info on the Voivodeship of Maramureș. There's not much info out there, but apparently, Maramureș was only formally annexed into Hungary in the 14th century, so Maramureș wouldn't have been part of this stage of Hungarian history. Although by the 13th century, Maramureș was heavily influenced by Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite dubious claim. The kings of Hungary led a series of invasions against the Principality of Halych across Maramureș between 1188 and 1246, and they hold the principality for years during the same period. The voivodeship of Maramureș was first mentioned in 1343 within the Kingdom of Hungary. In 1199, Maramureș was mentioned as a hunting area. For further details I refer to this comment on the Talk page of the article Voivodeship of Maramureș. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Árpád's Hungarians stepped to the Carpathian Basin though the Verecke Pass, this pass leads direct to the Maramaros area, future Máramaros County. In all international and Hungarian maps this region was part of Hungary and part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the beginning. I am not aware that region "was annexed in the 14th century" to Hungary, because it was part of Hungary already since a long time ago. I do not know in the Hungarian histography about any Romanian voivodeship at that time, is there any contemporary histography about this? I that wikipage, you wrote "It was the strongest and most well-organized Romanian political entity" What is the historical sources about this? I suppose if this is true, then we should have contemporary sources. Could you share these sources? OrionNimrod (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I replied to Borsoka in the talk page of the voivodeship's article. I will ping you there as well to discuss this. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Area/size of the Kingdom of Hungary

I am not able to check the source provided for the figure, but it seems that the land area provided represents specifically the area of only the Kingdom of Hungary but NOT Croatia. (I managed to figure that out because I am doing a project and I compared the given value to that of what Google Maps is able to deduce using its integration tool and it WAS accurate but only if you exclude Croatia/Bosnia. If you want to include the Croatian/Bosnian land for the total area the correct value would be ~50% larger). Considering the picture provided on this Wiki article does not distinguish Hungary and Croatia, there should be a note clarifying that the land mass value does not include the Kingdom of Croatia (there are other articles that make similar discrepancies so this change could follow that format). I cannot make the change myself as I do not have a Wiki account and any edits I make will be immediately deleted as always. 174.56.154.13 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Language

Hi @Borsoka, @Norden1990 you are experienced in medieval Hungary. What do you think about this edit? [12]

According to my knowledge. in the medieval and early modern Kingdom of Hungary, Latin was the language of administration and judiciary, and the country's offices corresponded with subordinate offices and legislative authorities (cities, counties) in this language. In everyday life (both orally and in writing), the inhabitants of the country communicated with each other in the language used locally, so a large number of sources written in the languages of the different nationalities have survived. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ByzantineIsNotRoman,
I see you engaged to change the language of the Kingom of Hungary. [13] However my edit is more precise "ceremonial/liturgical/administrative" than saying "official". The majority of medieval residents of Hungary did not know at all in Latin (it was no obligatory schools in medieval times), so when they managed their bussiness they communicated with their language not in Latin.
This is from the National Archives of Hungary (Hungarian government website) https://mnl.gov.hu/angol
(you can translate, I do) https://mnl.gov.hu/mnl/ol/hirek/a_magyar_nyelv_hivatalossa_tetelerol_rendelkezo_torveny_1844 The topic is about the history how became the Hungarian language the official language in Hungary in 1844. Written by an academic person [14][15]
In the medieval and early modern Kingdom of Hungary, Latin was the language of administration and judiciary, and the country's offices corresponded with subordinate offices and legislative authorities (cities, counties) in this language. In everyday life (both orally and in writing), the inhabitants of the country communicated with each other in the language used locally, so a large number of sources written in the languages of the different nationalities have survived.
I think we should follow academic sources not our personal opinions. @Borsoka, @Norden1990 What do you think about the topic? OrionNimrod (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1000–1301)/Archive_1&oldid=1220641559"