Jump to content

Talk:Transylvania

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scott Moore (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 20 June 2005 (→Gelou, Glad, Menumorut). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Romanians

Moldova was founded by hungarian vassals called Dragos and Bogdan, coming from the Northern Transylvania. These are Romanian names of Slavic origin, so there were Romanians in Transylvania as soon as 950 AD, in significant numbers so they could rule their own lands. The occupation of Romans, that led to the formation of the Romanian people, was limited to the south and western parts of the actual Romania, so if there was any place for Romanians to be at the beginnings of their history (placed between the retreat of Romans in the third century and the formation of first Romanian states in the tenth century), southern Transylvania is definitely part of it. Also, after long years of union with Hungary, at 1918 Romanians were a large majority, so the union with Romania was not a foreign politicy issue, but a democratic will of the majority. It was not the (incontestable) Romanization politic that made Romanians a majority in Transilvania, they were a majority even before these politics could exist.

The theory of completely deserted land is hard to swallow, at least for me. Not to mention the Dacian tribes that remained outside the Roman empire in that part of the Carpathian mountains that today are in northen Romania and Ukraina. Those tribes, also generically named "free Dacians", made many incursion into Roman empire, with one occasion reaching Macedonia. In 1848 Romanians didn't help Austrians or Russians per se. They just opposed Hungarians because they didn't offer equal rights to everybody in their projected independant Hungary. Most of those fightings were with Romanian defending themselves in Apuseni/Occidental Carpathian mountains. User:MihaiC

Dracula / Vlad Tepes / Vlad Dracul

Did Vlad Tepes rule Transylvania, or a neighboring state?

Vlad Tepes ruled Wallachia the kingdom of the Romanians, and he was a Romanian (Vlach). Decius 08:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vlad Tepes never ruled Transylvania, but he was born there , lived there and died there. He ruled the neighboring country of Tara Romaneasca(Valachia) in two reignes.

I'm not sure -- thinking it was in Carpathia...JHK

That's an interesting thought you have, because "Carpathia" never existed. Decius 08:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There never was a country Carpathia, he ruled Valachia.

Any note or explanation on why Dracula is supposed to have lived in Transylvania? (its an anecdotic fact, but its the first thing people think when they hear Transylvania)

maybe it was "His father, Vlad Dracul, at that time appointed military governor of Transylvania by the emperor Sigismund" that caused the association, as well as his place of birth. Just search google for "wallachia dracula" and then for "transylvania dracula" (no quotes) and you'll see the great difference between the result sets. --Daniel M

didn't the book "Dracula" have the vampire arriving from Transylvania? Martin

Another fact that that made people believe Dracula has ruled Transylvania: he received the ownership of some cities there and he travelled there avoiding to be captured by the turcs. --- Vlad Tepes was killed in a fight with turks in 1476 in Wallachia, near the capital, Bucharest. And yes, there never was a Carpathia. Maybe in movies or novels. MihaiC Jun 1st 2004


hey people im romanian i want to say that i come from Transylvania and i know alot vlad tepes and well he lived in castle in romania and the truth about him is that he ate peoples meat and flash and drank there blood don't get me wrong thts the truth my friends and i know more so talk to me if u want to know more. Danut

Géza / St. Stephen / Gisela / Vajk mixup

To JHK there is something wrong: "The Magyar leader Géza converted to Christianity and began to convert his people and build a Christian Hungarian state. His son, Vajk, succeeded him in 997. With his wife Gisela, daughter of the Emperor Otto III, he continued his father's mission"

Geza, king of Hungary had a son named (St)Stephen of Hungary born 969, acceeded 997 as king of Hungary, died 1038. St.Stephen was married to Gisela or Giselle of Bavaria (father Henry II the Wrangler ,Duke of Bavaria and his wife Gisela of Burgundy).Gisela of Bavaria was the sister of St. Henry II of Saxony ,emperor . Gisela's and St. Stephen's child was Hedwig. Hedwig's child was St. Cunigunde of Luxemburg .

Otto III died age 22 without heirs. user:H.J.


The naming of Transylvania / Ardeal / Erdély

origins of ardeal: word probably originated from hungarian erdély, which itself probably originated in the hungarian word erd? which means forest. erdély is probably an older form of the word, meaning a huge forest area, or "foresty land". i'm not a reliable source of information, but this seems pretty logical to me, as it's a beautiful forest area. :-) --grin 22:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Arde" is an old Indo-European (probably Celtic or Thracic, as both lived in current Hungary) word meaning forest. You can find similar toponyms of forested regions all over Europe: Forest of Arden in England [1], Ardennes woods [2] in Belgium, etc. Latins took the word as ardere - to burn.
Also, the word "erdo" is not a fino-ugric word, so it was probably borrowed from the older inhabitants of Hungary.
"Deal" in Romanian means "hill", which is logical since most land of Transylvania is covered with hills. What does "dely" means in Hungarian? Nothing. Bogdan 13:06, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the Latin word that corresponds here is Arduus, that meant 'steep, towering, lofty, high' and the Latin word is from the Indo-European root Ered-, which means 'High'. The Latin word 'ardere' is from another root, As-, meaning 'hot, dry'. Ardeal may well be from the Indo-European root Ered (high, steep), and in that case it is in no way "hungarian", because they are not Indo-European speakers. Decius 02:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Transylvania comes from latin and means the Land onthe othe side of the Forest, maybe Erdely is just a translation.

Celtic in Hungary? :)
Celts lived in Hungary before the Romans, Goths (and a few other German tribes), Huns and then Magyars settled in the Pannonian Plains. Hungarians are most likely descendents of all of these.

If that makes you feel better. Hungarians are at heart a non-Indo-European Magyar(Hungarian) people, who speak a non-Indo-European Finno-Ugric language. Finno-Ugric is often classed together with Uralic, Altaic, and even Turkic.

Anyway I ain't not linguist and I don't have etimological dictionary handy; as far as I can find (by etimologists on the net, which is not a completely reliable source) "Erdély" was supposed to origin from the word "erdő" and "elve" and was once supposed to mean "the land at the other side of the forest" (over the forest?). (And by the way "Trans-sylvania" happens to mean just the same.) Just to satisfy your curiousity "-dély" is a formative affix changing the meaning of the original to something covering a larger area of land (like "meredek" meaning steep sth., "meredély" meaning a valley, side of a hill or an open shaft). Apart from that it is well acceptable (for me) that "Ardeal" has nothing to do with "Erdély" just they are accidentally similar. Origins of old words are constantly debated anyway, and the result depends on the intentions of the analyser.)
Yeah, probably one of the nations got it from the others and "adapted" it to their language. It's hard to say who "invented" it.
Have you seen the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding? You know... every word have a greek origin. :-)
Of course. :-)
I hope this information helps you to shed some light on the other possibilities of the origin of this word. --grin 14:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The first document in which the term Ultra siluam is used dates from 1075 A.D. Its meaning is over the forest. The terms Partes Transsilvanae [parts beyond the forest] dates from the same century and after that becomes the term used in the Latin documents of the Hungarian Kingdom [Transsilvania]. Instead of the Latin name the Hungarian Erdoelve (area beyond the forest), of which the Latin is a literal translation, was popularly used. We can first read this in the form Erdeuelu in the 12th century Chronicles of Anonymus. The Hungarian name for Transylvania was translated into Germans as well: the names Uberwald, uber Walt (over the forest) appear in 13th and 14th century documents. Later the Germans gave their own name, Siebenburgen (seven castles), to this region. The common Romanian name, Ardeal is first known to occur in a document dated 1432, as Ardeliu. It obviously is the translation of the Hungarian and has nothing to do with "deal" (hill). Actually is a common phonetic metamorphosis from Hungarian to Romanian, just to give an example: the village Erdod (in Hungarian) in Satu-Mare/Szatmar county, with the same clear Hungarian meaning became Ardud in Romanian! There are many such examples ("erdo" is one of the most common components of Hungarian toponims), but there is no meaning of the Romanian Ardeal, no relation to "deal"-hill (for example in Predeal -Romanian- "deal" has a clear meaning)...

By the way, Anonimus was a romanian, he gave the name of Hungarica to his work, so the romanians put names to magyars ...

Actually the name Hungarian seems to originate in the old On-Ogur meaning "Ten Arrows" in some old Turkic dialect, and being transformed by the Slavic pronounciation...

The Romanian name for Transylvania was borrowed from Hungarian: Ardeal. It is first mentioned in a document from 1432, in the form Ardeliu (stated also by Pascu, although not in the English translation but in Voievodatul Transilvaniei, I, p. 22). This form derives from Hungarian Erdély (the e > a change in Rumanian borrowings from Hungarian is demonstrated by many examples: Hungarian egres > Rumanian agris ("gooseberry"), Hungarian Egyed > Rumanian Adjud, etc. 81 This is still the popular name of Transylvania, used by the people; "Transilvania" is a coined word, taken from the Latin translation of Erdo-elü > Erdély "beyond the forest". In the documents, the name of this territory is first mentioned in its Latin translation: Ultra silvam ad castrum quod vocatur Turda...(1075 A.D.), then, in 1111, the chief assigned for the territory by the Hungarian king is mentioned: Mercurius princeps Ultrasilvanus. This form is used also by Rogerius, prebend of Nagyvárad (Oradea) in his description of the Tartar invasion in 1241: Ultra Silvam, Ultrasilvanus episcopus. However, in the Legenda Sancti Gerhardi, written in the first half of the 12th century, we find Partes Transsilvanae, and beginning with the 14th century, this name is used generally in the documents. 82 The first mention in a written text of the Hungarian name is in Anonymus' Gesta Hungarorum, from the end of the 12th century: siluam igfon que iacet ad erdeuelu (chapter 11; cf. Illyés, 1992, facing p. 17; cf. also pp. 335 - 336), in modern Hungarian: erdo-elve "beyond the forest," from which the present form developed: Erdély.

I tried to merge the theories, NPOV them a bit and inserted in the main article. --grin ✎ 10:31, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

Why y

Why is there a y in Transylvania? Neither Romanian nor Latin have it.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language says it's Medieval Latin (looked up sylvan). people want to talk to a romanian thts me

Controversial text removed from the article

This text replaced the already existing history instead of being integrated in the already existing text. Please check the facts and NPOV, as it seems to be a Magyar POV. (it main purpose seems to be demonstrating that Transylvania should be Hungarian). It also includes the United Nations Convention on Genocide which is unapropriate here.
If based on accepted facts, the exposed bits of Hungarian history related to Transylvania belong under the History of Hungary, and a link to that article should be provided here either in the "For more about this debate..." or the "See also" lines. It would be a pity to leave out such information, but again, provided it is based on accepted and verifiable facts and is formulated neutrally.
Also, this text seems to be a copyvio see: http://www.geocities.com/transmagyar/Part_1_.htm
I've reverted, because when you revert to remove that text, you're also losing changes I've made. Andy Mabbett 20:57, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Now again, somebody with another IP address cut and pasted the text from that page. I reverted it as it was likely to be a copyvio.


Considered for removal

How would the reference to Planet "Transexual Transylvania" in The Rocky Horror Picture Show be helpful to someone trying to learn some facts about Transylvania?


Expectation

The question is a red herring, Please keep the refernce. Andy Mabbett 20:22, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the question above in the Considered for removal section, it is not a red herring. The "reference" links to The Rocky Horror Picture Show. If you visit that particular article, there is no Transylvania-related reference in there, which means listing this in the Transylvania article, even as a disambiguation line, is irrelevant. Therefore I don't see any point in having this link in the See also section.--Unconcerned 21:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
There is now. Andy Mabbett 08:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Wikipedia maintains no decency/relevance standards. For example, if a pornstar choosed Schubert as an artistic name, it wouldn't be considered inappropriate to include a porn link in the main Schubert article. I completely disagree with this, but wouldn't risk an editing conflict with other contributors less concerned with decency. As a side note -- such irrelevant links do indeed serve as red herrings, but this is just my viewpoint.--Unconcerned 17:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that some commentators are speaking for a censorial, moralist satndpoint ("sexual fantasy" (presumably from someone who has not seen the film or play), "Wikipedia maintains no decency/relevance standards", "pornstar", "concerned with decency"), and not about what makes for the most useful Wikipedia entry :-( The link is not "irrelevant". Andy Mabbett 18:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see my standpoint as censorial, moralist. I think it is unaesthetic to mix together topics that accidentally share a name and nothing more. I think it is indecent to link a reference to "Transexual Transylvania" in the main Transylvania article, perhaps because I am a parent. But this is just my position and I don't plan to unilaterally edit the article if other contributors disagree.--Unconcerned 18:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


How about moving the "see also" section to Transylvania (disambiguation)? -- User:Docu

It's a coincidence that I created the page just now .. anyways, keep the info you like to keep in the "see also" section as well. -- User:Docu


Andy Mabbett, please agree to leave your link in the form The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a movie). Here's a true "red herring": the page is disputed enough in other respects, and the Transexual Transylvania phrase would just add up to the tension. Please acknowledge that most of the contributors to this article are emotionally tied to the region named Transylvania and could easily take offense from the phrase above. While you managed to make the link hold by including a reference to the imaginary galaxy Transylvania in the specific movie article, I don't see any solid reason in keeping what could be somewhat offensive for some of the editors and readers. Thanks and regards.--Unconcerned 09:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your claim that "most of the contributors to this article are emotionally tied to the region named Transylvania and could easily take offense "; and am gald to be able to offer a contrasting NPoV, free from a wish to impose such emotions in the form of censorship. Andy Mabbett 10:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
By which standards do you classify your "Transexual Transylvania" in The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a movie) phrase as more NPoV than The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a movie)? And what exactly is the biased POV you detect in the listing of a contracted form of the link name?--Unconcerned 10:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC) (P.S: RTFM is not an answer)[reply]
Andy Mabbett, please read in detail NPOV and dispute resolution before blindly reverting the link name contraction. I specifically insist in your reading and understanding the paragraph below quoted from dispute resolution. Until you do so, I will consider the contracted link name be a good enough compromise in having both the link in and not hurting anyone's feelings.
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.
--Unconcerned 15:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett, you already have the link in. Would you please join the discussion on the accompanying text for your link? According to NPOV and dispute resolution practices, a compromise has to be reached on the disputed text. Simply reverting with the "mine is more NPOV than yours" attitude isn't very helpful.--Unconcerned 23:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mis-quote me. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 23:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It was not intended as a (mis)quote at all -- please read it Simply reverting with the mine-is-more-NPOV-than-yours attitude isn't very helpful. Also, please "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary" (quoted from dispute resolution). Other than my poorly-chosen punctuation, what other arguments for your link text would you like to present?--Unconcerned 23:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could add an article like "References to Transylvania in fiction and media" and stash all such links there (Dracula, Rocky Horror, etc.). Just a thought from a random observer. Gwimpey 23:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The idea sounds good. What do you think Andy Mabbett?--Unconcerned 23:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think all Wilkipedians should resist censorship. Andy Mabbett 19:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and understand dispute resolution, especially this fragment: "Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." You have failed both to discuss this and to try to reach compromise. Andy Mabbett, this is not your first, nor last edit war where you refuse to discuss and/or seek compromise. Please do not extrapolate your editing behavior seen on Birmingham to other articles. You had the link on the main Transylvania page, and you weren't happy enough with it. I doubt you are actually acting in good faith, unless you prove me wrong by discussing your edits. It is evident you're more interested in feeding conflict than editing articles. Please refrain from doing this. Just to help you, I removed the redundant link from the main page, as having it on the disambig page is more than enough. Thanks for your understanding and I'm looking forward to discuss this with you.--Unconcerned 23:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and understand dispute resolution, especially this fragment: "Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." Then contrast that with this fallacy: It is evident you're more interested in feeding conflict than editing articles. Andy Mabbett 16:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Misquote. Sorry for not being clear enough. The intended logic was:
  1. You have failed to discuss/seek compromise
  2. This isn't your first edit war
  3. Having the link in wasn't enough
Therefore, evidence indicated interest in conflict.
Honestly, let's discuss about that darn link and forget about proving each other wrong. Noone will ever be 100% right and thats where collaboration fits in.--Unconcerned 21:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Your point #1 is false; as is your conclusion. Andy Mabbett 21:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Look, the Considered for removal section is 3 months old and there was no reply. Just look at the amount of subsequent response on the talk page. It is mostly me talking to the myself (aside from Vasile's removed comments) You labelled me a moralist and censorial, period, which is not exactly what I call seeking a compromise. Forgive me if I have rushed to conclusions. Now, I already told you what potential harm (kind of) the initial link name was doing. I understand you want the link in. Let's find a way in between to both have the link and prevent any emotions about it. Are you okay with moving it on the disambig page?--Unconcerned 21:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see now a seggregation between characters. I consider that "Dracula" should be put to eternal rest on the disambig page as "Dracula, imaginary located in Transylvania".--Vasile 02:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold in updating pages--Unconcerned 20:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural "superiority"

I consider unacceptable the sentence that Transylvania is "culturally one of the most advanced regions of Romania".--Vasile 13:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Theories

The theory grounding on an antique record about Dacians extermination after the Roman victory and few dozens of similar words in Romanian and Albanian, claims that the Romans and the romanised Dacians withdrew south of the Danube at the time of the Great Migration of nations at the dusk of the Ancient Ages, when barbarian tribes consequently pushed in. Most prominent of these probably were the Huns. These centuries of war and invasion, changing domination by Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs expurged all romanisation and Roman influence from the Carpathian Bassin, which includes Transylvania. South of the Danube under the protection of Byzantium, the romanised population could survive, where the Vlach people were formed. From the 14th century, due to by-then Ottoman domination, Vlachs started migrating north into the territory of Transylvania seeking security, where they became herdsmen and peasants of local Hungarian lords. Romanians were called Vlachs in the Middle Ages.

I left here only the main ideas of the theories, the proofs/evidences/details should be included in Origin of Romanians. Bogdan | Talk 11:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These theories are related with Translyvania, so you should add those proofs/details. I revert to the previous version. --Vasile 15:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why ? Since the proofs and details are far from complete in here, they are not NPOV. If they would be complete, they would simply duplicate everything that is written on Origin of Romanians. Bogdan | Talk 14:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hunyadi

"Janos Hunyadi, while not undisputably hungarian, was neither romanian. His mother was a slavic woman from the banat, his father, most probably, a hungarian high-ranking officer. It is acceptable to claim him slavic/serb, but he was definiately not romanian. This is a historic corruption claimed by romanian nationalistic ideologues." Few of ethnic Romanians succeded to enter the ranks of the nobility, most notably János Hunyadi (Iancu de Hunedoara in Romanian), captain of Hungary and hero of the Turkish wars. Hunyadi's son the Transylvanian Matyas Hunyadi went on to become one of Hungary's greatest Kings.

This was left as a comment in the article. I think it belongs here. Bogdan | Talk 11:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be absolutely sure Hunyadi's father was not Romanian. Why are you so sure about that? --Vasile 15:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that Bánát (Banat) and Hunyad (Huneudoara) are not part of either Moldavia or Wallachia and thus were not part of Romania until 1918, which is a bit later date than the birth of the Hunyadis. But even if it was they're only part of Romania till 1859. They can be Hungarians or Transylvanians (or Serbians, if you insist), but no Romania was there around anywhere so I see no reason to call them so. Reference: History of Romania. --grin ✎ 21:14, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)
Excuse me? If Banat or Distric of Hunedoara were not part of Romania at the time Iancu de Hunedoara lived that means no romanians could have live there? Iancu de Hunedoara is undesputed romanian. And there is no such thing as 'Transylvanians' lol. I am from Gyula, Hungary. This town was never part of Romania? Doas that make me less romanian? NO.
Let's sort this out.
  • I stated that being born in Bánát/Hunyad/Huneudoara does not mean that someone is Romanian. You seem to agree with that, so that's great.
  • You stated that the family is Romanian because it is an undisputed fact. This is wrong, as this whole discussion is about that it is disputed, and I believe this fact is false. Since I am no historian I cannot prove you wrong or me right, so I kindly ask you to provide supportive evidences about your claim (that the Hunyadis/Huneudoaras are of Romanian/Vlach nationality) and I try to do my best to provide info on that they were not. (It would be great to have a knowledgeable scientific opinion on that matter without involving heavily biased Romanian or Hungarian historists but I believe that's not really possible.) Until then I plan to be bold and modify the remains of that paragraph that the origins of the family is in fact disputed.
  • Naming "transilvanians" was not intended as a joke. T. was a semi-autonomous area with many nationalities presenting itself throughout the history as a semi-country. I wanted to point out that "Romania" is in fact a similar entity covering many nationalities, which includes "vlachs" (who I suppose you call "romanians"). Please help me and point out who is a "romanian nationality" before the creation of "romania"? Vlachs? Serbians? Magyars? Avars? If I accept my suspicion that you call "vlachs" romanians then it seem to be easy to show that the Hunyadis were not romanians. But let us use well defined terms. Help!
  • If you were born in Gyula then you were born as Hungarian, probably with a nationality of Romanian (since you don't seem to be 400+ years old). If you were born in Gyula in the 15th century you probably were Hungarian with a nationality of vlach (or whatever your minority is in greater romania). But if you were born in Timisoara and you would speak Hungarian then you would be Magyar nationality, no matter that it's in Romania, but you were a citizen of Romania. We seem to agree on that, right?
So I suggest to define which nationality (not country) do you consider "romanian" in 16th century, then let us see whether the members of the family were originated from that nationality. --grin ✎ 17:12, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
About Hunyady origin: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07564b.htm. His nationality is not disputed.
Romanian nationality existed before the creation of a state named "Romania". Jews nationality existed before state of Israel. American nationality was created by American revolution.--Vasile 22:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's important that you don't confuse "nationality", which today is a legal term referring to citizenship in a given nation, and "ethnicity", which means belonging to a liguistic-cultural group. There was no Jewish "nationality" or Romanian "nationality" before the respective states existed; however, the ethnic groups did exist. If you are born in Timisoara speaking Hungarian, you are ethnically Magyar, of Romanian nationality. I think the confusion lies in the fact that ethnically-defined peoples are referred to as "nations", although the word "nationality" comes from nationstates. With all that said, there were Romanians - the ethnic category - in Transylvania 400 years ago; however, maybe it's misleading to retroactively call them Romanians, since the term wasn't around back then. Back then, perhaps Vlach applies better; however, the word "Vlach" has since evolved into "Romanian" without really changing meaning, so I don't see why they shouldn't be interchangeable. If you want to avoid confusion, just make the correct distinction between Romanian nationality (which includes Hungarians, Germans, etc) and Romanian ethnicity (which excludes them).--Andreidude 04:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Citizenship is not the same with nationality. A recent example, there were Soviet citizenship, but the Soviet nation appeared to be just a fiction. As for your example, a Magyar from Timisoara could consider part as any nation he/she wants. The nationality may be optionally. However, you could replace "Romanian" with "Vlach", if you think that is historically more accurate. --Vasile 01:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)




Vasile, I never expressed my opinion about Hunyadi, I move it here just because the text was commented out (using HTML &lt!-- tag). Comments belong to the talk page, not to the text of the article. Bogdan | Talk 15:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Avars empire

"No major power was able to exert control over the region for any great length of time, until the Avars, who came from Scythia, established an empire there. By 568, the Avars under the leadership of their Kagan, Bajan, established in the Carpathian Basin an empire that lasted for 250 years."

Maybe is exagerated to admit that 250 years empire of Avars in Carpathian Basin. To have an empire it is not enough that a man to pretend to be an emperor. --Vasile 01:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History Section

Over the past couple of days I've made some major changes to the history section, adding content, editing for consistency with other articles (though I'm aware that other articles may themselves not be entirely accurate), correcting the English. Below are some notes on what I've done:

Section Names: I've made these more descriptive, but of course, these are my interpretation of the period (based on the current text in the relevant section). I'm not satisfied with the title Twentieth Century: Transylvania Ceded to Romania, but there again the text for this section perhaps should be expanded to incorporate at least some description of Transylvania in the second half of the twentieth century.

Early History: This is still fairly rough, but I believe that some references were needed to the period between Roman rule and the 10th Century.

Late Medieval Era: I think more content is still needed here. I expanded on the exploits of Hunyadi as he was a key personality of the era. I removed reference to his nationality/ethnicity as this is covered in the article on him (although this is based too heavily on 1911 EB and may not be accurate). Whatismore, it seems very likely that he was of mixed ethnicity anyway.

Ottoman Influence and Golden Age: much of the additional content here was taken from 1911 EB, for which I apologise. However, my library is currently in boxes after a move, so I currently don't have access to other more up-to-date sources. I will certainly rewrite this when I get my hands on the relevant books, including the highly detailed and well-researched, "Calvinism on the Frontier, 1600-1660" (Graeme Murdock, Oxford University Press).

Austrian Rule and the Austro-Hungarian Emprire: this needs to be expanded. Maybe a little more on the Rakoczi uprising. Possibly the existing text on the events of 1848/49 could be improved.

Twentieth Century: well, this is a little formal, but I tried to be careful with this controversial issue. Adding more details about the actual events might be justified as this was a major event in the history of Transylvania. However, reliable and impartial sources will need to be used. Scott Moore 8th of October, 2004

"Golden Age of Transylvania"

I believed using the term "Golden Age of Transylvania" is biased, since some people (i.e. Romanians) do not view that period as a Golden Age. Bogdan | Talk 18:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are right to raise this point, however I don't think this is a biased term. I've seen this term used in a number of sources, both British and Hungarian. This period was remarkable for Transylvania because it was probably only at this time in its history that Transylvania had a degree of autonomy and was able to project itself in European affairs. In addition, Transylvania briefly become a religious and cultural centre of truly European importance. Of course, a term such as "Golden Age" is not an absolute one, but rather a relative one. And, of course, golden ages are never golden for everyone. So maybe you could suggest an alternative term which describes the first half of the 17th century in Transylvania Scott Moore 09:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criztu additions

from Romanian 'A lui Gelu' meaning 'of Gelu', a ruler of these lands at the time of magyar arrival.

That's really silly, "alugelu" it is not even close of "ardealiu".

Gelu(or Gyalu/Gyula) ruled Ardeal(proper Transylvania) in 900 CE, "A lui Gelu" would be pronounced in romanian "Al'Gyelu" in today popular(not literary) romanian speaking. Bogdania(Moldova) meant 'of Bogdan', Basarabia(Valahia) meant 'of Basarab'.
as a comparation the romanian name Amariei comes from "Al Mariei" and "A Mariei", a common pronounciation in spoken romanian being "A lu Maria"/"A l' Maria" (of(belonging to) Maria); see "a lu sor mea" vs. literary "al sorei mele" (of(belonging to) my sister), "a lu ma sa" vs. literary correct "al mamei sale", etc. as you can see in romanian the spoken/popular "a lu" becomes "al" in the literary form.
the name George is pronounced Gheorghe(Gyorgy) in archaic/popular romanian, Gelu would be pronounced Ghelu(Gyalu) like <Diavol> is archaic/popular Ghiavol(Gyavol).
I am still not convinced. "L" just doesn't turn that easy in a "R".Bogdan | Talk 15:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
compare the romanian words "a sari" vs. "a salta" both meaning "to jump". the relation with the ruler of Ardeal, Gelu(Gyalu/Gyula) should be considered.
I don't know what you want to say by this. They're derived from different Latin words. Anyway, linguistics is a science, so words evolve by a series of strict rules. Anything that does not abide to these rules is just kookery.
Also, Wikipedia has a policy about "no original research", so, unless you give me an external reference to this theory (a book, a magazine article, a website that is not your own, etc) I'll have to delete it. Bogdan | Talk 18:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I understand and agree, I'll return with evidence to back Gelu/Gyalu/Gyula/Iuliu conection with the name of Ardeal -- criztu
when is the romanian form "Ardealiu" for Transylvania attested for the first time ? -- criztu
after beeing (sic!) repelled by the Saxons in the west.

Saxons in 9th century Transylvania ? Strange... I knew that they came only in th 1100s.

the magyar expansion in the West of Pannonian Plain was repeled(pushed back) by the Saxons in the battle of Lechfeld (955 CE). the Chronicles record the slaughtering of 40 000 magyar warriors by the saxons in this battle. -- criztu
The population living in Transylvania (romanians, szeklers, saxons, magyars, czechs and slovacs) voted for Union with Romania.

voted ? not at all clear what actually happened. Bogdan | Talk 19:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

indeed, "opted" is more NPOV than "voted" in 1918 Hungary was a defeated state, who was charged with War Penalties. It might explain why Transylvania opted to adhere to Romania on the Winning Side -- criztu
I think that it had more to do with the ethnic composition than with the winning side.Bogdan | Talk 15:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Twentieth Century

- 'Ceded' is more accurate than 'join' as we are referring to a formal transfer as a result of a treaty.

there was no treaty that ceded Transylvania to Romania in 1918. in 1919 the war between Hungary and Romania resulted in the occupation of Hungary by Romania. A Treaty was made in 1920 and ceded parts of Romania to Hungary -- criztu

- "Fighting off the bolshevic army of Bela Kun, Romania eliberated Budapest and Hungary from the Bolshevic Rule in 1919." If anywhere, this belongs in the history of Hungary article (but please check for spelling before you add any text).

Bolshevik Regime in Hungary waged war against Romania, resulting in its downfall owed to Romania's military effort. -- criztu
the problem here is your simplification of the events. The Romanian army's advance to Budapest was certainly a major factor in the downfall of Kun's regime, but not the only one. Using the word "liberated" is not NPOV. Scott Moore 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Romanian Army occupied Budapest, not "advanced to Budapest". thus Hungary "got rid" of Bolshevism thanx to Romania (if liberated sounds POV)
well the Romanian army had to 'advance' to Budapest before it could 'occupy' it. My point is that Kun fled 'before' the Romanian army reached Budapest. As I said before, what you write is not neutral, not because it is wrong, but because it simplifies the events; in other words, it is incomplete. You could also equally validly write that Hungarians liberated themselves from Bolshevism. In fact, Kun's regime collapsed because of multiple factors which included both the advance of the Romanian army, and opposition from factions within Hungary. Also, you should bear in mind that the presence of the Romania army in Transylvania was a factor in the rise of bolshevism in Hungary in the first place. The previous "pacifist democratic" government collapsed partly because they were perceived as not being able to defend Hungary from the foreign armies on its borders.

- "union of Transylvania with Romania": the word 'union' is not accurate here Scott Moore 12:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In which way, the presence of Romanian army was a factor in the rise of Bolshevism in Budapest? --Vasile 14:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
the formulation "Transylvania ceded to Romania in 1918" is inaccurate here. The Treaty of versailles in 1920 ratified the status of Transylvania beeing under Romanian administration since 1918, and ceded parts of it to Hungary -- criztu
well, the article does need to explain how the formal status of Transylvania changed from being part of Hungary, to part of Romania. Why not add some details about the 1918-1920 period to the article? Scott Moore 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
indeed, Transylvania changed from beeing part of Austria-Hungary to beeing part of Romania. there was no treaty between Romania and Hungary (or bwtween Romania and any other state) by wich Hungary(or any other state) ceded (ceding - cession, surrendering, abandoning, renunciation) Transylvania to Romania. Transylvania chose side according to "Right to Self Determination". Union with Romania was voted in the General Assembly of Deputies of Transylvania in December 1st 1918. if "union" sounds POV, then Transylvania joined Romania, otherwise it has to be explained How and Who ceded Transylvania to Romania. in 1918 Austria-Hungary was declared "Federation" by Charles of Austria-Hungary in 1918. the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 ratified the Status Quo of Transylvania inside Romania borders, and was signed by Hungary (after Hungary was delivered/liberated/got rid of Bolshevism by Romanian Army in 1919) -- criztu
OK, the easiest way to resolve this is to remove the word ceded from the title, which I've already done. Again, you are simplifying the situation. You cannot say that "Transylvania" chose union with Romania. The Romanians in Transylvania may have chosen union, but the Hungarians/Szeklers and Saxons certainly didn't. Also, the territory acquired by Romania included not just Transylvania proper but also e.g the Partium (area between Transylvania and the Great Plains) which had a majority of Hungarian inhabitants (so in their case you could argue that the right to self-determination was ignored by the victorious powers) Scott Moore 13:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If one would follow the empirical method may discover that Romanians were in majority in Partium. In 1918, no civilized person could count only the inhabitants of a couple of towns as inhabitants. --Vasile 14:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll search for the term used in the treaty of Trianon(1920) for the transfering of Transylvania from Hungary to Romania -- criztu
quote from Transylvania wikipedia article: In 1848 the Hungarians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary. I think it is safe to say In 1918 the Romanians ans Saxons proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Romania ratified by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 -- criztu

Early History

- Re the text: "In Transylvania, they defeated the local cnezates of Gelu, Glad and Menumorut" - according to Gesta Hungarorum. Much of what is written in the Gesta Hungarorum regarding Transylvania is disputed. If you want to present what is written there, then you should also point out the opposing views concerning this source, and also present complementary or conflicting information from other sources. Scott Moore 12:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum mentions Gelu, Glad and Menumorut states in Transylvania. THey belong to Transylvania History -- criztu

PS According to one (Hungarian) historian: "The Gesta of Anonymous is the romantic gesta that became fashionable in Western Latin literature in the 12th century, in which the author presented the olden times in keeping with his own idea. The author of the romantic gesta does not write stories striving for authenticity on the basis of sources or memory, but a literary piece evoking interest as sources are missing, or he deliberately puts them aside. The event constituting the backbone of the story may have taken place, like the Hungarian Conquest, it may be an invented one, like originating the Francs from Troy ? Therefore the story narrated in the romantic gesta does not function as an authentic source for historians." György Gyorffy, 1988

please provide stats for György Gyorffy, I couldn't find any. -- criztu
I'm not sure what you are asking for Scott Moore 16:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
who is Gyorgy Gyorffy ? is he an author, or a historian? what's the name of his work ? -- criztu
I know little about him. He was a medievalist who died in 2000. In his obituary, it says that his life work was perhaps the most important body of Hungarian historical research of the twentieth century. He was the author of various books on Hungarian history (some of which have been translated into English and German). You can see these by searching on Amazon. He wrote a book about Anonymus Gestarum Hungarorum published in Hungarian in 1988. The title was: "Anonymus: Rejtély avagy, történeti forrás? : válogatott tanulmányok". Scott Moore 14:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another (Romanian) historian writes: "Being a medieval gesta, the purpose of the source was not the recording of the past, but the legitimation of the present by means of history. GH has a propagandistic character. Its prototype was another Gesta Ungarorum, written in the late 11th century. The Anonymous Notary (also known as Anonymus) used several traditions and oral genealogies, but he tried to write a truthful story. His critical spirit is remarkable. It is also true that his work contains several anachronisms and confusions....Despite such confusions, GH remains a valuable source". Alexandru Madgearu, 2001 Scott Moore 13:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

it doesn't justify erasing the Lechfeld (955) massacre of magyar army explaining the conquest of Transylvania by the magyars. it doesn't justify erasing Gelu, Glad, Menumorut (whom are documented not only in GH) from History of Transylvania article. Bihor/Bihar county bears the name of Menumorut's state. -- [criztu]]
If you mention Lechfeld in the article you should explain in more detail why and how it impacted on Transylvania. According to some sources the conquest of Transylvania by the Magyars occured by 934 AD, according to a recent theory we can't talk about a conquest until around 1000 AD. So aren't you, in fact, referring to the settlement of Transylvania by the Magyars? Scott Moore 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
magyars made a detour of the Carpathian mountains and fought Salan in the Pannonian Plains, from there they fought saxons in the West and were defeated, and then turned East and fought Glad, Menumorut - in Bihor/Bihar, and Gelu(Gyalu/Guyla/Iuliu) - in Ardeal/Erdely(proper Transylvania). Gesta Hungarorum mentions only the western borders of Gelu's domain, it shows by the time of Gesta, the magyars didn't reach the interior of the Eastern Carpathians. -- criztu
perhaps the Battle of Lechfeld(955) shouldn't be mentioned as the key moment for the magyar conquest of Transylvania, certainly saxons repeled/defeated the magyars in the west is relevant. Transylvania was settled by the Kings of Hungary with saxons, seklers, pechenegs, cumanians, etc. -- criztu

From what I've read, the defeat at the Battle of Lechfeld caused the Magyars to settle permanently in the Carpathian basin. There's an interesting article on Wikipedia about the Arpad dynasty, which states that Transylvania was not ruled by the Arpads, and hence not part of the emerging Hungarian state, until it was subjugated by King Stephen between 997 and 1006. Maybe we can say that the defeat at Lechfeld spurred the process of the creation of the Kingdom of Hungary, but Magyar rule over Transylvania seems to have been unrelated to Lechfeld. Scott Moore 14:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Etymology of Ardeal

I read somewhere that an Arabian geograph wrote that the land of "Ardeal/Erdely" was named its ruler, the Gepid king "Arderich" (also spelled Ardarich, Ardaric, Arderic). I was just wondering whether anybody has a reference to this (the name of the geograph, etc). Bogdan | Talk

Twentieth Century

Criztu, wasn't it just the Treaty of Trianon which settled the border between Romanian and Hungary? Versailles set the borders of Germany, and St Germain of Austria. Why don't you link to the existing Wikipedia articles on the treaties rather than the locations? Scott Moore 11:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

there were a series of treaties, starting with Versailles, by wich Romania was allowed to station armies in Transylvania within some initial borders, Trianon - the peace betwen Hungary and Romania and the resettling of the border, and Sevres - readjusting some ethnic issues within the borders. -- criztu

I've now futher expanded on this section relying mainly on other Wikipedia articles as sources (Treaty of Versailles, Treaty of Trianon, Aftermath of World War I, History of Hungary, Ferdinand of Romania) but also on some external Web sources for details of the military events including:

[3][4] [5] [6]

I've used the word "transfer" in the title as this is a neutral term (although not the most accurate; I would prefer to use "ceded" but Criztu regards this as inaccurate). The Website containing the US Library of Congress material uses the phrase "Transylvania was acquired by Romania", but I don't think this would be acceptable. Scott Moore 19:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

quote from Transylvania wikipedia article: In 1848 the Hungarians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary. I think it is safe to say In 1918 the Romanians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Romania -- criztu
proclaim can mean "officially declared", or it can just mean "announced publicly". These are quite different meanings. I think we should be more specific in the article e.g the sentence "passed a resolution calling for unification of all Romanians in a single state" shows that it was an organised process (implying democracy in action, which relates to your point on self-determination). Saying "proclaimed the unification of Transylvania with Romania" implies merely that it was said publicly. Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
even more specific: "passed a resolution calling for unification of Transylvania with Romania in a single state" - this shows the romanians living in Transylvania decided for themselves, and weren't neither "transfered" nor "ceded" to Romania. -- criztu
Criztu, you don't seem to recognise that the Hungarians of Transylvania didn't decide to unite with Romania. A decision by one section of the population (albeit a small majority) didn't make Transylvania an independent state. In fact, a decision by the whole population would not have made it an independent state. As you insist on comparing with 1848 - the Hungarian declaration of independence did not make Hungary an independent state - it was still part of the Austrian Empire. Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transylvania Transfered to Romania - Transylvania decided for itself in 1918. it is not a property, to be transfered. in 1918 Austria-Hungary became a federation. Transylvania might have had autonomous status(i don't know exactly)

From the Library of Congress source: "In November, the Romanian National Central Council, which represented all the Romanians of Transylvania, notified the Budapest government that it had assumed control of twenty-three Transylvanian counties". If Romania has been autonomous, they would have had no reason to notify the Budapest government.
"Transylvania decided for itself in 1918". Based on the sources I've read, this isn't true. It seems only the Romanians of Transylvania made the decisions. In general, the position of the Hungarians and other minorities in Transylvania is missing from this section of the article. I haven't yet found any suitable references. What do you know about this, Criztu? Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the same thing goes for In 1848 the Hungarians proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary - why don't you corect this sentence into In 1848 it seems only the Hungarians of Transylvania proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Hungary, but this is inaccurate, more accurate is in 1918 Transylvania was ceded(transfered) to Austria(after 1867 Austria-Hungary) which advanced into Transylvania and occupied it ? -- criztu
Criztu, I really don't see why you keep comparing with 1848. I didn't write the above sentence, so why are you asking me to correct it? In any case, it seems that you haven't read (or understood) the paragraph - later it states "The Romanians and the Saxons rejected the offer" making clear that they didn't support the Hungarians. Also as I wrote before one of the meanings of "proclaim" is "to state publicly", which is what the Hungarians did.

Romanian sent an army into Transylvania and had occupied most of the region by the beginning of December - Romanian army entered Transylvania as a result of a decision taken by the Powers of Versailles - Belgrade Armistice november 1918

Criztu, I don't mind if you replace what I've written provided that it is based on reliable sources. What I wrote came from a number of sources which I've listed above. If you believe these are wrong then please note here in the talk section and provide a list of the sources you've used. Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Romania declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary on the 19th August 1916 and on the same day Romanian troops crossed the border and advanced into Transylvania - what does "Romania declared war and on the same day crossed the border" mean ? are you suggesting Romania was acting evil ? if not, then you should specify the date when each and every country involved in WW1 declared war, and after how many days exactly did each one of them crossed the borders of every province in their way to defeat the enemy command center. -- criztu
Criztu, you are deliberately being confrontational. I clearly stated that what I wrote was based on other Wikipedia articles and external sources, which I listed. If you had bothered to check those sources (obviously you didn't) you would have seen that the sentence "Romania declared war and on the same day crossed the border" comes directly from the article on the www.firstworldwar.com Website, written by Matt Simpson. If you have a problem with what he wrote, then I suggest you contact him (his email address is provided). He also lists the sources he used, so you can check them if you want. Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kun's regime initially halted the Romanian advance into Hungary, but in July the Romanian army broke through Hungarian lines and marched into Budapest - Romanian advance halted on Tisza river, the Hungarian attack in july 1919 lead to Romanian advanced into Hungary and occupation of Budapest.

The Treaty of Versailles wasn't ratified until 1920, so you could argue that officially Transylvania was not yet part of Romania, and hence the Romanian army was invading. But, I'll remove the phrase "Romanian advance into Hungary" as this may not be accurate. Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the United States of America declared independence in 1776 and were officialy recognised in 1783.
Kun's regime initially halted the Romanian advance, but in July the Romanian army broke through Hungarian lines and marched into Budapest - now you have the oportunity to write down the exact date when Romania declared war on Hungary and after how many days it crossed the border into Hungary. -- criztu

Ferdinand crowned King of Greater Romania - i don't think Greater was used in this coronation

This is not what I wrote. I used "greater Romania" a term which came directly from the Library of Congress source. The Wikipedia article on King Ferdinand states that he "succeeded his uncle as King of Romania on 10 October 1914". If he was already King of Romania, then being crowned again in 1922 doesn't make sense to me (unless it was purely ceremonial). Perhaps you can clarify. In the meantime I'll take this sentence out of the article, as its a little confusing as it is. Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you should know that Michael the Brave united Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia in a single state in 1600 at Alba Iulia, so perhaps it was a symbolic coronation. -- criztu
Yes, I do know, but the fact that he united them briefly is entirely irrelevant to the discussion around what happened in the twentieth century.Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Russian successes in 1916 convinced Romania to join the Allied Powers in the hope of acquiring territory, especially Transylvania - Romania entered WW1 on the side of the Entente powers after signing the aliance treaty of Bucharest on august 1916. Romania (reigned by german king Ferdinand Hohenzollern) stayed neutral and refused to enter the war on the side of Germania Austria-Hungary.

What I wrote before (which comes from multiple sources), doesn't seem to conflict with what you wrote. So there's no reason why it shouldn't all be included. Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Russian successes in 1916, among other factors, convinced Romania to join the Allied Powers in the hope of acquiring territory, especially Transylvania - Romania entered the WW 1 joining the Triple Entente according to a Treaty specifying its role and goals. we can speculate on what factors determined Romania to enter the WW1 forever. -- criztu
I'm not speculating. I based what I wrote on the sources I listed before. Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and, following the withdrawal of Russian troops, to the surrender of Romania to the Central Powers in May 1918 - following the peace Treaty between Russia and Germany in march 1918, in may 1918 Romania and Central Powers initiated a Peace Treaty, that wasn't ratified by october 1918 when Romania reentered the War. -- criztu

Yes, I had already read a more detailed account of what happened, but thought that these details are better located in the article on the history of Romania. Also, again, what I wrote doesn't seem to conflict with what you wrote ie Romania surrendered, but didn't ratify the Peace Treaty. After all, the US never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, but this doesn't mean that the treaty wasn't valid. Scott Moore 11:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Following the Russian-German Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, Romania surrendered to the Central Powers in May 1918 - Romania and Central Powers negotiated a Peace Treaty(not a Surrender Treaty) that wasn't ratified. -- criztu
I didn't write "Surrender Treaty". I wrote that Romania surrendered (see again the article by Matt Simpson). Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==

Overall, Criztu, you seem to have the aim of being obstructive rather than of contributing constructively to this article. What I have written was not my personal opinion or point of view, but a summary of what I read in the various sources I listed. As such, it is not comprehensive and may generalise too much or miss important points. However, rather than try to improve what I have written, you just delete sentences which you don't agree with. You have not even taken the time to check those sources I gave. You haven't given any sources yourself, so I can only presume that what you have written is unsourced. Scott Moore 11:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More Changes

I have already explained above the sources for what I wrote. Please don't delete it again without any reasons. I have deleted the following sentences which you wrote, for the following reasons:

reasons I offered you, you don't seem to agree there is a difference between two countries at war negotiating and ratifying, between a Peace Treaty and a Surrender Treaty, between Soviet Republic of Hungary and Austria-Hungary, between signing an Alliance Treaty (with duties and goals) and russian successes among other factors -- criztu
"surrender" means "giving up" and can be done without a formal treaty (e.g soldiers on the battlefield can surrender). "Russian successes..." is a reason, signing of the Alliance Treaty is a formal mechanism.

"Romania and Central Powers initiadet a peace Treaty, wich remained not ratified by october 1918 when Romania re-entered the war." This should be put in the history of Romania article. I had already wrote that Romanian surrendered, which I think is sufficient without describing the process of treaty signing and (lack of) ratification. Also note that the English is very poor here - maybe you can write perfectly well in English, but if this is the case then obviously you can't be bothered to put in the effort to check spelling before you add anything to the article.

as long as you insist on Romania surrendered i am forced to correct you - Romania and Central Powers negotiated a Peace Treaty that was not ratified. http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/bucharest1918.htm
According the the Web site "Romania surrendered at the Peace of Bucharest". I had already read the article on the Treaty of Bucharest. I don't object to putting some of the details, and the fact that the Treaty wasn't ratified in the artilce. Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Romania, having started the war as a neutral, entered on the side of the Allies in August 1916, led by Ion Bratianu, the Allies having promised support for the fulfilment of Romanian national unity.

We can include this as well. What I wrote is still valid though, it cites Romania's reasons for going to war.

Revolution in Russia in 1917, followed by the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, brought about the end of German operations on the Eastern Front. With the withdrawal of her Russian allies on the Moldavian front peace was forced upon Romania, who realistically could not continue to fight alone against the Germans.

The resulting Treaty of Bucharest, between Romania and the Central Powers, was initially ratified by the following bodies upon the given dates:

German Bundesrat (4 June 1918) Romanian Chamber (28 June 1918) German Reichstag (3 July 1918) Romanian Senate (4 July 1918)

The treaty never completed ratification in Romania and was denounced in October 1918 by the Romanian government, which then re-entered the war on the Allied side.

With the Allied-German armistice of 11 November 1918 the treaty was declared void (along with the Russian Brest-Litovsk treaty)."

Scott Moore, you provided this same website as your source, yet you didn't seem to have read this. -- criztu

"Austria-Hungary was desintegrating by 1918, the nations (romanians, czech, polish, slovacks, croats, serbs, bosniacs, slovenes, montenegrins, italians, etc.) living inside its border proclaiming their independence". A full list of the ethnic groups (I don't think nation should be used here, given how vague a term it is) in Austria-Hungary is more appropriate in the article of the same name. You missed out Hungarians (who also declared their independence), but this doesn't surprise me given your obvious bias. And don't you think these peoples deserve a Capital Letter and the correct spelling of their names?

the title Austria-Hungary implies explicitely the austrians and the hungarians living inside its borders. -- criztu

no it doesn't, it was just a short version of the formal name of the state Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

the nations living inside Austria-Hungary proclaiming their independence gives a bigger picture to what hapened in Transylvania in 1918. Romanians in Transylvania proclaimed their independence from Austria-Hungary and unification with Romania just like the poles, italians, serbs, czechs, slovaks, bosniaks, slovens, croats, etc. if you erase the nations living inside former Austria-Hungary Empire proclaimed their independence, i'll have to put it back. -- criztu
Put to put "ethnic groups living inside...", but no need to list all of them Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The war between Romania and Hungary lead to the defeat of Bela Kun's Soviet Republic." We have already discussed the reasons for the collapse of Bela Kun's regime....You haven't provided any sources for this statement. I haven't seen any references in the sources I've read to a declaration of war at this point. Why are you now using present tense, when the rest of the article is in past tense? Scott Moore 12:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what sources should i provide you? wasn't there a war between Romania and Hungary in 1919 ? wasn't Hungary a Soviet Republic in 1919 ? wasn't Budapest occupied by Romanian Army ? you don't know all this ? should i provide you sources for the official title of the Soviet Republic of Hungary in 1919 ? read Wikipedia.
I'm asking for sources for the conclusion that the war "led to the defeat of Bela Kun's Soviet Republic". Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you provide me the date when Romania declared war on the Soviet Republic of Hungary in 1919 ? or is it because Soviet Republic of Hungary declared war on Romania in 1919 that you don't provide source for this too ? I used a neutral sentence war between Romania and Hungary you use a POV sentence hungarian Bela Kun halted the advance of Romania into Hungary
yes, i appologise, i conjugated to present tense, it should have been led instead o lead -- criztu

I'll wait for others to express their opinion on Transylvania during the World Wars, I think that

in 1918 the romanians living in Transylvania proclaimed the union of Transylvania with Romania and following the Treaty of Versailles in 1916 with the Triple Entente Romania entered the WW1 and the war between Romania and Hungary in 1919 led to the defeat of Soviet Republic of Bela Kun are NPOV, while

Well, that's just your opinion. As far as I can tell, everything you are writing is just your opinion. You may have a very valid opinion, but that's impossible for me to tell at the moment. Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
we should clarify things point by point then:
  • did Romania entered WW1 after signing the Alliance Treaty with the Triple Entente? is this info questionable? is this info a speculation/opinion/POV, or is it available in original documents like "the Alliance Treaty between Romania and Triple Entente - Versailles 1918" beyond any further discussion ?
  • did Romania and Central Powers negotiated a Peace Treaty in may 1918 that remained not ratified ? is this info questionable? is this info a speculation/opinion/POV, or is it available in original documents like the Peace Treaty between Romania and Germany - Bucharest 1918, beyond any further discussion?
  • did romanians living in Transylvania proclaimed(announced publicly) their independence from Austria-Hungary Empire and Unification with Romania on december 1918? is this info questionable ? is this info a speculation/opinion/POV, or is it available in original documents(like the "Proclamation Act of the Unification of All Romanians with Romania - Alba Iulia december 1st 1918", beyond any further discussion ?
  • did the War between Romania and Hungary led to the defeat/end/tumble/fall/topple of Soviet Republic of Bela Kun on august 1919? is this info questionable ? is this info a speculation/opinion/POV, or is it available in original documents (like the act of designation of Miklos Horthy as regent of Hungary following the Proclamation of Hungarian Monarchy by the Hungarian National Assembly in march 1920, after Horthy entered Budapest in november 1919 with the consent of Romanian Army wich was stationed in Budapest since august, Bela Kun's government beeing evacuated), beyond any further discussion ?
  • did Russian successes determined Romania to enter WW1? is this info questionable ? is this info a speculation/opinion/POV, or is it available in original documents (what original documents state that Russian successes convinced Romania to enter WW1 ?) beyond any further discussion?
  • did Romania declared War against Hungary in april 1919 and crossed the border and advanced into Hungary ? is this info questionable ? is this info a speculation/opinion/POV, or is it available in original documents (what documents state that Romania declared war(or if not declared war, then what documents recorded this military aggression, if it existed) against Hungary in April 1919), beyond any further discussion ? -- criztu

Following the Russian-German Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, Romania surrendered to the Central Powers in May 1918 and Russian successes in 1916, among other factors, convinced Romania to join the Allied Powers in the hope of acquiring territory, especially Transylvania and Kun's regime initially halted the Romanian advance, but in July the Romanian army broke through Hungarian lines and marched into Budapest are POV -- criztu

Well, exactly whose POV are they? They were written by someone who seems to be British, based on information contained in history books published in Britain. And they are generally in agreement with the following statement from the US Library of Congress source:

"Russian victories in Galicia in 1916, Allied promises of territory, and fear of Germany finally convinced Romania to join the war on the side of Britain, Russia, France, and Italy. On August 27, 1916, Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary. Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania." Scott Moore 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you don't think US Library of Congress is the flawless source of all knowledge, do you ? it reflects the Point Of View of the author of this sentence, it is not the document of Alliance Treaty between Romania and Triple Entente - Versailles 1918 -- criztu

Criztu, I've just (re-)read some of the Wikipedia policies and realised that:

  • we've spent far more time (and added far more content) to this Talk page than to the article itself.
  • we are debating a number of individual and specific points; this is not the purpose of this Talk page
  • certainly I had mistaken the meaning of the NPOV term in Wikipedia. It does not mean neutral point of view in its literal sense. Hence our debate about whether individual sentences are neutral or not, does not seem to be relevant to the Wikipedia policy.
  • it seems to me that we are not really engaging in the same discussion. I have written a summary based on a number of secondary sources. I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy or worth of these secondary sources. However, they are generally consistent with each other and seem to be reliable, so I see no reason not to use them.
  • Having now read the full text of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, my understanding is that it applies to issues and ideas which are debated. When there is a debate, we should attempt to accurately represent (all sides of) this debate. Re Transylvania, I'm aware that there is a fierce debate (or debates) between Hungarians and Romanians, which should perhaps be better represented in this article. I'm probably not in a position to represent that debate, as I have deliberately avoided reading Hungarian and Romanian secondary sources. However, with regards to what I have written in the 20th history section in particular, I have seen no evidence that there is a significant debate between historians in general about what happened.
  • you have made reference to a number of primary sources, or have asked me what primary sources exist to support what I have written. I am not a historian and I'm in no position to evaluate such primary sources, which is why I have relied only on secondary sources. If you wish to discuss or engage in a debate about particularly primary sources or about primary evidence in general (I don't know if this is your intent, so correct me if I'm wrong), then I suggest you contact other historians (again I'm just assuming that you are a historian).

So what should we do? I suggest not continuing this discussion on the Talk page (particularly as no one else has contributed). We could take it first of all to either your or my Talk page. Probably part of this Talk Page should be archived as it is very large. Let me know if you agree. By the way, it would help me if you dated your responses. See:Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages Scott Moore 16:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i wrote you on you user page Scott -- Criztu 20:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

meaning of Transylvania

  • Ultrasilvania, "the land beyond the forest", had the connotation of "not yet in the Hungary's possession". Later, instead of the Latin name, the Hungarian Erdőelve (area beyond the forest), which means the same as the Latin, was popularly used.

I have a problem with this sentences. from the little hungarian i know, the translation of TransSilvania into hungarian should be Erdotul (like in Dunantul) - tul means in hungarian "over", "beyond" Criztu 20:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UltraSilvania couldn't mean the same thing as TransSilvania... but i don't know the exact meaning of Ultra in latin. Criztu 20:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and what is the connotation "not yet in the Hungary's possession" suposed to mean ? Criztu 20:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Erdely->Ardeal

Just like Hungarian "Udvarhely" was borrowed in Romanian as "Odorhei", if "Erdely" were borrowed into Romanian, it should be "Ardei", not "Ardeal". Bogdan | Talk 18:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Negotiations Begin

Hi all, I want to reformulate the Transylvania between 1918-1944 article, which i consider not satisfactory. I'll present you my PoV, please present your PoV on the issues. -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These are the "sensible" parts in the article section as I see them:

  • However Russian successes in 1916, Allied promises of territory (including Transylvania), and fear of Germany convinced Romania to join the Allied.
let's not speculate what convinced Romania to join the Allies, rather let's say Romania joined the Allies in 1916 signing the Treaty of Versailles, however, if we're to speculate on what "convinced" Romania to join the Allies, then it was the Promise of Allies that they will recognise Romania's sovereignty over Transylvania and N. Bukovina -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania.
let's not speculate how confident of victory were the romanian troops. I'd rather say Romania begun the military offensive in Transylvania, resulting in a new front for the Central Powers -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An Austro-German counter offensive began the following month, driving the Romanian army back into Romania by mid-October and eventually leading to the capture of Bucharest.
let's say that the Germans begun a counter offensive against Romania from Bulgaria, "driving the romanian army back into Romania" sounds like "the beasts were driven back to their cage" -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Following the Russian-German Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, Romania surrendered to the Central Powers in May 1918. -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
let's use the original title of the treaty, which was the Peace Treaty between Germany and Romania, not "romania surrendered to the central powers" -- Criztu 12:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • By mid-1918 the tide of the war had turned against the Central Powers and the Austro-Hungarian empire began to disintegrate.
no tide of war here, simply the Central Powers begun loosing the war -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Many of the various ethnic groups living inside Austria-Hungary proclaimed their independence during September and October 1918, and it became politically expedient for the allied victors to break up the empire into various national components in accordance with Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.
Austria-Hungary was a Multi-national_state, and in 1918 all nations (not "many of the various ethnic groups") living inside it declared independence, including the austrians and hungarians -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The leaders of Transylvania's National Party met and drafted a resolution invoking the right of self-determination of Transylvania's Romanian people, and proclaimed the unification of Transylvania with Romania.
invoking the right of self-determination, expressed in Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, which applies for all people, not only for "Transylvania's Romanian people" -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • During the war between Romania and the Soviet Republic of Hungary, the latter initially halted the Romanian advance in the East, but in July the Romanian army broke through Hungarian lines and marched into Budapest, putting an end to the Hungarian Communist Revolution and the Hungarian Soviet Republic.
Although Romania's rights over Transylvania were recognised by the Treaty of Versailles, the romanian army was stationed on Mures according to the same Treaty. In february 1919 a Neutral Zone between Romania and Hungary was established by the Powers of Versailles, to avoid conflict. Hungary (under Bela Kun) refused to withdraw the Hungarian Army accordingly, and generaly mobilised its army. Bela Kun had an agreement with Lenin by which the Soviet Union would military support Hungary against Romania (the Soviet Union didn't recognise the Union of Bessarabia with Romania) and the Hungarian Army built up east of Theiss. On 15/16 april Hungary attacked Romania, the romanian counteroffensive halted on Theiss river until July 1919, when the hungarian army attacked again across Theiss. On 30 july Romanian Army begun the counteroffensive and on 3rd August 1919 marched into Budapest, parts of Hungarian Army evacuated succesfuly west of Danube. Budapest was under Romanian control, Bela Kun fled to Austria and from there to Soviet Union. Romania supported Miklos Horthy against Bela Kun, and between october 1919 and march 1920 withdrew from Hungary... so i see the following formulation : Soviet Republic of Bela Kun attacked Romania in april 1919, the romanian counter offensive led to the occupation of Budapest by the Romanian Army, the hungarian bolshevik/communist government desintegrated, the Romanian Army withdrew from Hungary between October 1919 and March 1920 -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Romania's rights in Transylvania

Criztu, I don't want to change your meaning. However as currently written it doesn't make sense in English. A people can have rights in the state/region/city etc in which they live. However a state cannot have rights in another state or a region/city etc. The correct form is rights over (or maybe you mean something different, in which case please explain in more detail)

let's search for the formulation of Romania's claims in the text of the "Convention between Romania and the Entente" negociated in summer 1916. -- Criztu 13:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
by all means if you find something there. However, you are not necessarily going to find the appropriate English term in such a document (which, anyway, was presumably was written in Romanian and/or French) Documents such as treaties are written in a formal or legalistic language which is often very different from standard written language. Scott Moore 13:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

opening a new front for the Central Powers

This is certainly not right. Romanian was fighting against the Central Powers. So, you could write opening a new front against the Central Powers Scott Moore 10:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Romania's duty was to open a front in the region, so that the Central Powers to have to fight on more fronts, hopefuly leading to their defet. i don't know how to formulate it so to make it clear that the Central Powers had to deal with a new front opened against them, not that Romania opened a new front against the Central Powers (like it had already opened other "older" fronts) -- Criztu 13:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
well, this is the problem with writing about fronts. You are suddenly opening up the article to refer to the First World War as a whole. I don't think there is an easier way to be clear without explaining in more detail e.g what fronts already excisted for the Central Powers (which will make clear that this was the first front opened by Romania). Scott Moore 13:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gyula, chieftain or duke ?

  • was Gyula a prince ? a chieftain ? a duke ? - he was a relative of Prince and later King Stephen I of Hungary, so i think he could be regarded as either Duke or Prince; there are two written sources about Gyula: Gesta Hungarorum and a byzantinian chronicle. i have to search more for the title of this Gyula, and identifying the byzantinian source. -- Criztu 15:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • was Gyula "Chieftain of Transylvania" ? - i think not, if one is to call him as such, quoting sources would be great, since it could be regarded as Propaganda -- Criztu 15:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Criztu, while you've been writing this I've been doing some research and added to Wikipedia. See my revision of Gyula and the history of Transylvania. Regarding the uncle of Stephen, whose name was Gyula - I believe (but I'm not sure) that his official title in Hungarian was gyula which had changed from its original meaning (chief military leader of the Magyar tribes) and come to refer specifically to the ruler of Transylvania who ranked immediately below the crown prince (ie Stephen before his coronation as king). Prince and Duke are English (in fact Anglo-French) equivalents, but neither is quite correct. Obviously the Byzantine sources would have translated his title into the nearest Greek equivalent.

i believe this "gyula=military chief of magyar tribes" is propaganda. when i read of Bulgar Tsar vs. Bulgar Khan, there is this etymology thing and references to where Khan or Tsar come from. But as far as i read )on the net :"> ) about "gyula=chieftain", the etymology or references lack completely :| there is no modern hungarian word even close to "gyula" other then the name Gyula (from latin Julius) ... i have this feeling that there was no official title "gyula" in Hungarian, ever :) -- Criztu 16:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, we don't yet have an etymology for Gyula. But what reason have you got to believe it was propaganda? By whom and when? I believe the linking of Gyula with Julius is a mistake. Gesta Hungarorum refers to Geula. Why would the author use the word Geula to represent the Magyar name Gyula, if Gyula came from the Latin name Iulius? Scott Moore 17:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I called the Gyula who was baptised in 955, the chieftain of Transylvania. Of course, this is just my attempt at describing his position. Earlier in the 10th century, there were certainly tribal chieftains who led the one or two Magyar tribes which had settled in parts of Transylvania. But its not clear whether Gyula's authority was over most of Transylvania or just a part of it. Scott Moore 15:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there is this extended meaning of "Transylvania", which includes the historic regions of Banat, Maramures, Crisana, and Ardeal/Erdely (propper Transylvania); so saying Gyula, a duke in/from Transylvania (scarcely documented anyway, i think there is no actual documentation on Gyula's domain), is safer then Gyula, the chieftain of Transylvania (since it would imply the confusion of "Transylvania=Banat+Maramures+Crisana+Ardeal") -- Criztu 16:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The orginal (in Gesta Hungarorum) is clearly Transylvania. Gelou was described as ruling over Transylvania, and when he was killed, Teteny (Tuhutum) and his descendents possessed Transylvania until the time of King Stephen. Scott Moore 17:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The institution of dukedom (ducatus) was introduced only by King Stephen. His son Imre was the first Duke (Emericus Dux), given Bihar as a domain. So Gyula wasn't a duke. Unless we can find an official title in the sources (maybe there wasn't one) then we can only choose the most appropriate way of describing Gyula based on English usage: whether chieftain, prince, leader or something else. Scott Moore 17:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts - chieftain could be appropriate for Gyula in 955 as the Magyars still had a tribal society during this period. Prince could be used as it does not have a precise meaning in English. However, it is generally used for a noble in feudal society ranking below King (either a son of a King, or a ruler of an independent realm). As for Gyula 1003, we could use chieftain or prince. But I don't think duke is appropriate. Scott Moore 16:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i'm sure there was a corresponding word for "military chieftain" that the authors of the Hungarian Gestas or the byzantinian chroniclers could have used, instead of duke. i understand that a Duke held a Domain, while a chieftain only represented a clan. What should Gyula be considered as: a Duke, for building a church on his domain, that Stephen I confiscated him later, as a catholic king would do to an orthodox noble, or a Chieftain, having authority over an army or a clan ? -- 16:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
oh, actually the word Duke comes from Dux implying both "leader of an army" and "ruler of a province" -- Criztu 17:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would assume dux would have been used in Latin documents. A similar problem is with the German word herzog which also originally meant a military leader.
  • Actually, I don't think the Gyula who surrendered to Stephen I was a Christian; one of the reasons why Stephen invaded was that Gyula was sheltering pagans. Of course, Gyula may have retained the links with Byzantium made by his forebear (the 953 Gyula). Scott Moore 10:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
i think that for the western-christian Roma, the eastern-christians were pagans. i read that Sarolt, the mother of Stephen(Voicu) was writing using cyrilic, and that she was orthodox -- Criztu 16:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Romanian ethnic groups, late in developing into a nation and into a realm... ; For a millenium the early Slavic and other nationalities were accommodated roughly in this sequence - Hungarian, Saxon, and Romanian people. ; Yet, in this century and, particulary, during the second half of this century, there was a sharp increase in the Romanian endeavors toward the complete assimilation or annihilation of the Hungarians, Saxon and othe extra-Transylvanian Romanian nationalities. ; Outside of the historic Transylvania, there is a wide segment of the Hungarian Great Plains, given to Romania in the 1920's... ; Even more damaging is the almost complete absence of place names of latin origin in the area of present Transylvania. Rome is remembered only by the name of some rivers.(The recently introduced place names - e.g., Cluj-Napoca - have been revived artificially after an interval of almost 2000 years. ; The more so, since Romanian national prejudice makes the continuation of archaeological excavations difficult, and it interferes with the publication and judicious interpretation of the findings. ; the dominant majority of the conquerors must have reached Transylvania in the first phase of the conquest. Most of them could not remain there, since this region could not support them and their animals. The majority had to move rapidly to the more fertile parts of the Carpathian Basin to an area more suited for a pastoral economy. The group of conquerors remaining in Transylvania gathered in the central region, mainly along the uper tributaries of the Maros and Szamos - http://www.net.hu/corvinus/lib/transy2/transy2.pdf

let say that those "some rivers which remember of Rome" are (among many others) exactly the Maros and Szamos rivers of which tributaries "the dominant group of the conquerors remaining in Transylvania gathered along"

this link basicaly asserts that Romanians are the bad guys and the Hungarians are the victims of Trianon. it "demonstrates" the imposibility of the Daco-Roman continuity theory and how the magyars settled a romanian free Transylvania. it doesn't belong even to Origin of Romanians article. -- Criztu 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may not like it ant it may be controversial, but still it should stay as an external link to demonstrate difference of POVs. Also please do not remove wikipedia contents before a consensus has been reached to do so. Thanks. Wojsyl 09:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
the external link shouldn't have been inserted before a consensus about its objectivity has been reached. pls read the link and you'll see it is Propaganda -- Criztu 10:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see it's propaganda, but it provides an interesting perspective for anyone interested in Transylvania. I think it should stay and don't see any reason why not as long as it's clearly denoted as controversial. Wojsyl 19:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
this wikiarticle What_Wikipedia_is_not states that Wikipedia is not a [...] vehicle for propaganda [...] -- Criztu 20:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure, therefore it is an external link. It gives a broader view and better context of what Transylvania is to the reader of wikipedia. Why do you want to limit it to your single point of view only ? Wojsyl 21:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
this link gives no broader view on Transylvania nor better context, that is why it is entitled "short history of Transylvania". It doesn't present sources nor does it provide references to specialized studies of sources, as any work on history should do.
  • it says that Romania entered the WW 1 with a greed for teritory, remaining neutral in order to speculate the conflict, yet the Transylvania Wiki article explains clearly that Romania was ruled by the same dynasty as Germany, therefore this external link is useless(if not tendentious and harmful) in this matter.
  • it says that the Dacian-Romanian continuity theory is a fantasy (no reasons given), yet the Origin of Romanians Wiki article presents extensive pros and cons on this theory, so this external link is useless in this matter.
  • it speaks of a sharp increase in the Romanian endeavors toward the complete assimilation or annihilation of the Hungarians, Saxon and othe extra-Transylvanian Romanian nationalities. yet the Romania Wiki article shows that these minorities are not even remotely endangered by extinction, so this link is useless in this matter.
  • it speaks of Nagyvarad, Gyulafehervar, Tatarlaka locations in Romania with complete disregard for their romanian names, like Romania speaks Hungarian, so this link is provocative in this matter.
  • it speaks of Hungarians as the most significant ethnic group in the Carpatian Basin when everybody knows that Hungary lays in the Pannonian Plain and that the Carpathians mountains are the backbone of Romania, so it tendentiously induces to the wikipedian the association Hungarians - Carpathians, so it is harmful in this matter.
  • it speaks of the dissolution of Dacia Provincia and the dissapearance of Dacians in the path of the Great Migrations, but affirms that "it is not necessary, in this book, to follow all these changes in detail either geographically of temporally", yet the Dacia Wiki article says clearly that Dacia Aureliana was reorganised in place of former Moesia superior, Dacia Trajana being abandoned to the Goths and the Carpi, and that Galerius, Licinius, Maximinus Daia, were born in this Dacia Aureliana, so this link doesn't offer neither a "broader view" nor "better context" in this matter.
  • it presents the life of a low ranking shepherd, like it would be the definitory characteristic of the romanians, so it induces to the wikipedian reader the association of "romanians - low life shepherds", so it is harmful in this matter.
  • sorry for writing so much :)
all in all, this external link is just a huge article articulating propaganda, not a study, not a debate with pros and cons. I don't provide "short histories" on how the ancestors of Romanians are at the origin of the Sumerian civilisation, or how Romania is a victim of the Treaty of Trianon which denied its historic right over teritory belonging to modern Hungary, or how evil were the Hungarian Communist Leaders during 1945-1989 -- Criztu 23:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All right. Thanks for the time you took to explain this to me. Wojsyl 08:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I fully agree with Criztu that a consensus should be reached to include a dubious link rather than later reaching a consensus to exlude it. The burden is on those who sneak this crap in through the backdoor. Decius 04:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

countrystudies.us

what weird kind of "study" is this "site" ? http://countrystudies.us . It is listed as reference in the Transylvania article :| -- Criztu 09:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998. Each study offers a comprehensive description and analysis of the country or region's historical setting, geography, society, economy, political system, and foreign policy.
What do you find weird there ? Wojsyl 10:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
the link is a synthesis based on personal readings of the author, definately not an on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998. about Romania however, it is weird that the author concludes that:
  • (From the newly conquered land, Trajan organized the Roman province of Dacia [...]) In the next 200 years, a Dacian ethnic group arose as Roman colonists commingled with the Getae - this "countrystudy" says that Dacians were the result of Getae and Romans living together for 200 years :| ... this is what the author of the site understood after readin that selective bibliography from the US Congress Library ? -- Criztu 14:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right. After reading a bit deeper into it, I agree that it is strange. Surprisingly, there are texts about a rather large number of countries, so supposedly this is a compilation work by a number of people. However many interpretations there seem naive or simply untrue. I'd suggest removing this reference completely, as we don't even know who is the author(s). Without a known author it can hardly be considered any reference at all. Wojsyl 14:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

romania ceded northern ardeal to hungary

did Romania ceded the northern part of Transylvania to Hungary or not ? how could Hitler awarded the northern part of Transylvania to Hungary if Romania wouldn't have accepted the cession ? -- Criztu 07:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the same way the class bully "awards" your lunch to his girlfriend, and you "cede" it without a fight (which you know is futile). --Gutza 11:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
wei Gutza, when one says "Hitler awarded part of Romania to other country" it means "Hitler owned Romania with official documents by which Romania recognizes the right of Hitler to dispose of Romania by his own will"; when one says "Romania ceded part of its teritory to another country on Hitler's pressure" it means "Romania signed official documents by which it alone is responsible for what it just did" and not "Hitler the bully scared Romania and Romania ceded its lunch to Hungary without signing any official documents" -- Criztu 11:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula / Vlad Tepes / Vlad Dracul

hey people if u want to talk to a romanian thts me

"Mercurius princeps Ultrasilvanus"

He's mentioned in a 1103/1113 Hungarian document. Do we know anything about Mercurius' ethnicity ? bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carpathian Basin, Transylvania conquered by 934, romanians in Transylvania when magyars came

i intent on reformulating the Early Middle Ages: From Dacia to the Great Migrations paragraph. to avoid countless reverts these are my objections to current formulation:

  • it is believed that Transylvania was conquered by 934 by magyar tribes - did the magyar tribes conquered Transylvania by 934 ? how was this date determined, and based on what sources ?
    • OK, please check the sources available to you and summarise them here. I will do the same. Then we can reformulate the text about when the Magyars conquered Transylvania. Scott Moore 11:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
well, it was you who put this 934 information, i suppose you read an anonimous site who "presents" the A.Madgearu's book on the presence of romanians in Transylvania, and there is this info about a magyar raid in the Byzantine empire, across Banat in 934, and you concluded this means the magyars have conquered Transylvania by 934. if you put this 934 date, then you have to be able to support you contribution, if not, then it is "GH speaks of the conquest of Transylvania by the magyar tribes from local rulers Gelu Glad and Menumorout during the Xth century, " . if you have a source supporting a different version, pls provide info on your source. if there is a "scarcity of sources" attesting the presence of romanians in transylvania until 13th century, then let;s see the "lavishness of sources" attesting the presence of the magyars in transylvania until 11th century -- Criztu 17:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
yeap, the source for "by 934 the magyars conquered Transylvania" is the Gesta Hungarorum where it is said that the magyars defeated Glad the ruler of the vlachs and slavs, whom you say it is "probably an invention of Anonymous"; so GH is the source for the presence of magyars, but not for the presence of the vlachs >:D -- Criztu 19:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No Criztu, I don't make my own conclusions from primary evidence - you are not supposed to present original research in Wikipedia. In any case, I'm not a historian, so it is pointless for me to try to evaluate the primary evidence - when I write text in Wikipedia I base it on secondary sources (in the case of the Transylvania article I'm mainly using "Millenium in Central Europe" by Laszlo Kontler and "Realm of St.Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary" by Pal Engel). I notice that you haven't yet listed the sources used for any of the text you have written. Scott Moore 13:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i listed, i listed, i've listed at least Lactantius for Galerius calling the eastern roman empire as Dacian Empire :) -- Criztu 16:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The GH is not the source for the presence of the Magyars. There are other written documents as well as archeological evidence. Scott Moore 13:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
let's see, what other sources place the magyars in Transylvania during the Xth century, except this GH (which says they took it from this vlach Gelou) ? :) -- Criztu 16:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • carpathian basin - i know that a basin is in relation with a river. and there are the Pannonian Plain, perhaps the Tisa Basin, and the Carpathian mountains. i consider "Carpathian Basin" a formula to keep associating Hungary with Transylvania, since Transylvania is surrounded by the Carpathians. -- Criztu 19:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Criztu, I believe that the term Carpathian Basin was used in Hungary long before the twentieth century, so it is not linked to more recent political disputes over Translyvania. However, I see no problem if you change to Pannonian plain (in that article it gives Carpathian Basin as a synonym). Scott Moore 11:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
if the term "carpathian basin" was used in Hungary long before, than you should be able to provide info on this. currently i havn;t seen any other "Mountain basin" except this weird formula used by hungarian "opinnion" -- Criztu 17:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as for the "magyar tribes conquered Transylvania in the end of IXth century", it is only propaganda (that is, a lot of talk with little certain evidence). what is known for sure is that Kingdom of Hungary conquered Transylvania in the XIth century (talking about a "union/conquest of Transylvania with/by Hungary", not a "union/conquest of Transylvania with/by Magyar tribes"), at least i assume there are chronicles and ancient documents testifying the conquest during the XIth century. (assuming that those documents and chronicles weren't "pure inventions" :D ) -- Criztu 12:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If this is your approach, Criztu, I don't have much confidence that you will contribute impartially to any rewrite of this section of the article. 15:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if taking my words out of the context and cross-pasting them in other talkpages is your aproach, then i expect you to be more impartial and POV driven than i am -- Criztu 17:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wasn't satisfied with the existing text (or rather lack of it) on the Magyar conquest with respect to Transylvania. When I asked for your sources, I meant those concerning the 9th/10th centuries (there must be Romanian history books covering this period - and I'm sure there are at least a couple of histories of Romania in English). Also naming the Gesta Hungarorum (just one of a number of primary sources) three or four times was a little excessive, especially as there are a number of other entries in Wikipedia concerning it. So I've written a summary taken from several English-language sources. These are listed below (more or less in order of importance for the creation of the text I wrote):

  • Pál Engel, "The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526", I.B. Tauris (London, New York), 2001
  • László Kontler, "Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary" Atlantisz Publishing House (Budapest), 1999
  • C.A. Macartney, "Hungary: A Short History", Edinburgh University Press, 1962
  • Miklós Molnár, "A Concise History of Hungary", Cambridge University Press, 2001
  • Norman Davies, "Europe A History", Oxford University Press, 1998
  • Dimitri Obelensky, "The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453", Phoenix Press (London), 2000

I've also transferred some text from the next section. This is entitled Transylvania as part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so it really shouldn't contain any references prior to 1000 (ie before the Kingdom of Hungary existed) Scott Moore 17:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just adjusted the reference to John Hunyadi - I'm just trying to make it more neutral to pre-empt complaints (eg see the Talk Page on the Hunyadi article) which will inevitably come if we give the Romanian version of his name (but not the Hungarian) and stress too much his Romanian origin (after all, his mother was Hungarian). Scott Moore 18:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

gyula, again, and other stuff

let's straighten things up on this gyula in Transylvania.

  • Around 952 the gyula made peace with the Byzantine Emperor Constantine, from whom he received the title patricius. - this is mentioned by Porphyrogenitus in his "De Administrando Imperio" right ? then let's mention the source. let's also mention that Gyla/Gylas wasn't used as a title but as a name. it would be great to have the wikisource for De Administrando Imperio where it is stated that Gyla was baptised and returned to a supposed "Transylvania, his gyula-dom" -- Criztu 14:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • During the 10th century Transylvania was ruled by a line of princes who were invariably called Gyula by contemporary sources. - if there were contemporary sources calling the princes of Transylvania as Gyula(title), then show the sources, otherwise it's plain fantasy. -- Criztu 14:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • These gyulas were the descendants of the leader of one of the seven Magyar tribes, and ruled independently from the authority of the Árpád dynasty. Magyar rule over Transylvania at this time has been confirmed by archeological sources. - ok, i'll erase that and write instead "There were two rulers in Transylvania proper (Ardeal) at the time of the Magyar arrival. They were called by the Hungarian medieval Gestas as Geula/Gyyla/Jula the old and the young. These were two romanian rulers, named Iuliu. Their seat of power was located at Alba Iulia, which was the most important city of the roman province Dacia. Iuliu the old - "dux magnus et potens" was an enemy of the Magyars from Pannonia. Perhaps to legitimate the conquest of Transylvania by the Hungarian crown, Gesta Hungarorum trace the lineage of these two Geula to Arpad. Thus, Tuhutum deafeated Gelou in Transylvania, and his son Horca had two sons, Geula/Gyyla the old and Zombor. Zulta defeated Menumorout and married his daughter, their son Toxun had a son Geysa who married the daughter of Geula/Gyyla the old, Sarolta, and their son Vajk (Voicu in romanian) became Stephen I of Hungary, who defeated Geula/Gyyla the young (son of Zombor) who opposed him, and brought Transylvania under the authority of his kingdom. The presence of magyars in Transylvania during the 9th and 10th century resumes to the burried remains of a dozen of warriors unearthed in two romanian necropolise from the Xth century", and give you my source : Dr. Mircea Dogaru - The romanian institute for polithical studies for military defence and history. you cand find a romanian version over here : http://gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/alba_iulia/alba_lui_iuliu_st.htm -- Criztu 14:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In 894 Transylvania and the plains to the west were occupied by Magyar armies vs. Romanian historians believe the account given in Gesta Hungarorum, a chronicle dating from 12th century, - what are you trying to suggest here, that the absolute truth is that the Magyar armies "occupied the Transylvanian plains" and the RO historians have "beliefs" ? aren;t you a little too much directing the reader's thoughts herre ? please mention sources that attest a "occupation of Transylvanian plains by the Magyar armies" otherwise it's plain fantasy what you write. -- Criztu 14:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Then in 895 or early 896, the rest of the Magyar peoples were forced to evacuate their homeland in Etelköz - following defeats at the hands of both the Pechenegs and the Bulgars - and crossed into the Pannonian plain through the passes of the Carpathian mountains. - although the magyar presence in Transylvania isn't so well attested until 1000 (so the story with etelkoz belongs to the Magyars article, not to Transylvania), since you made this effort with "the passes of the Carpathian mountains" you might well add that it is about the Carpathians mountain passes from Slovakia, not from Romania, that the magyars crossed. -- Criztu 14:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this discussion goes for the Gyula article also: let's state that it is not clear which Gyula (Gyula in hungarian, otherwise it was Gylas,Gyyla,Geula) was who and what exactly, since all is based on Gesta Hungarorum. If there was a Gardezi speaking of "they called their chieftain Jula/Jyyla" for the magyar tribes in etelkoz or wherever, the simple fact that this title "gyula" was not preserved during hungarian kingdom says a lot. anyway, i want to sort things out on this Gyula, but saying "the gyula of Transylvania was the title of a magyar prince" with no backup is not acceptable -- Criztu 14:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I've listed all my sources above. You seem to be suggesting that all of these historians have written their books without using any primary sources. Well, why don't you contact them directly to ask for a list of the primary sources they used and suggest that what they wrote was "fantasy"? I trust their views more than yours, so until they publish a retraction of what they wrote in the light of your objections, I stand by what I wrote here in Wikipedia.
i've listed my source that propose the version that Geula in Transylvania from the Hungarian Gestas was not the title but the name of a non-magyar, possibly a romance name. what you wrote you wrote like it is a well established and verified absolute fact that the Geula in Transylvania from Hungarian Gestas was a title. there are two interpretations for this character: one(romanian) that the character Geula was a name and one(hungarian) that the character Geula was a title. both are assumptions, there is no certainty, my source's version on Geula is no worse/better than yours. I trust my sources more than yours, so until they publish a retraction of what they wrote in the light of your version on Gyula(title), I will object to your formulation relative to this character from the Hungarian Gestas named Geula/Gyyla/Jula/Gylas. -- Criztu 21:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did not "wrote like it is a well established and verified absolute fact that the Geula in Transylvania from Hungarian Gestas was a title." This is just another example of one of your accusations based on something you invented.
do you realise that "In 894 Transylvania and the plains to the west were occupied by Magyar armies" is a claim ? are you taking into consideration other opinnions on this matter, due to the fact that this event in history is not sufficiently documented ? -- Criztu 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"there are two interpretations for this character: one(romanian) that the character Geula was a name and one(hungarian) that the character Geula was a title". You know very little about Hungarian interpretations, so don't make statements about them (because you will usually be wrong, as you are here). You have not even bothered to read the article on gyula in which I wrote "It is possible that during the 10th century some of the holders of the title also used Gyula as a personal name." Scott Moore 12:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i use the talk page to discuss the "hungarian interpretations". the statements are made in the article page. So don't expect that your statements will stay unedited if they are not above controversy. -- Criztu 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i read the "gyula" article and intend on editing it also. I am interested in settling the matter on this Geula/Gyyla character in G.H. and D.A.I., i have no objections that "gyula" might have been a title. -- Criztu 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of what you quoted from Dr. Mircea Dogaru is from the Gesta Hungarorum. I suggest you put that in the article about Gesta Hungarorum. As for the gyulas being Romanian - I take note of the fact that a Romanian historian has written this, but not one of the books I've used as sources mentions this.
I have no objection that there might have been a magyar title of Gyula; i noticed that this presumed title of "gyula" was not preserved by the Hungarian crown after 1000, and i wonder what actual suppport does this "gyula title" has before 1000, if we drop the Gesta Hungarorum and De Administrando Imperio from the equation. But the characters named Geula/Gyyla/Jula/Gyla in these sources - Gesta Hungarorum and De Administrando Imperio, that ruled in Transylvania at the time of the magyar arrival might well have been the name of persons. And note that they are reffered to as persons in these sources. we might be limited to GH and De Administrando when we speak of these characters. Don't make bold statements that Transylvania was ruled by a "gyula", if you are basing your words on GH which you otherwise say it is a doubtful source (when it comes to the presence of romanians in Transylvania at the time of magyar arrival). -- Criztu 21:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Romanian historians don't believe the account in the GH??? OK, I've removed the "Romanian historians believe" phrase which so offends you. Scott Moore 10:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the way you formulate things: In 894 Transylvania and the plains to the west were occupied by Magyar armies...Magyar rule over Transylvania at this time has been confirmed by archeological sources. Romanians believe what GH says with respect to the presence of romanians in Transylvania at the time of the occupation of Transylvania by Magyar armies, that the rest of the world considers doubtful is ridiculous. if you intend on keeping this in the article you should make reference to primary sources. Your secondary sources must offer reference to primary sources if they affirm such things. if they don't offer reference to primary sources, then they are junk. Historians are not superhumans. they have feelings and can be determined to say stupid things. Since Wikipedia encourages the practice of refering to primary sources, then lets refer to primary sources. -- Criztu 21:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, you don't like anything that I write in Wikipedia even if I am just replicating what someone else wrote (as was the case here)
if there was a title Gyula in Transylvania during the Xth century, you should be able to pour evidence into this talk page and sunk me :). I have nothing against you, you simply have to prove what you say, and since we both have secondary sources proposing two separat versions, the only action that i see fit is either go all the way to the primary sources, or presenting both versions in a NPOV way. I formulated "Gesta Hungarorum and De Administrando Imperio speak of a certain Geula/Gyyla in Transylvania", and linked to gyula article. you formulated "the gyula of Transyvania" an that was all. why no word representing the "romanian interpretation" that Geula from Transylvania was the name of a person, posibly a romanian ? -- Criztu 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't need to make reference to primary sources. It is NOT a Wikipedia policy that all statements need to be supported by primary evidence.
you don't need to refer to primary sources, but then what version should be represented in the article, the version proposed by your "secondary sources" or the version proposed by my "secondary sources" ? -- Criztu 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most of the secondary sources I used list primary sources. Why don't you read them yourself!
you should be able to quickly list the primary sources used in those books. the only reason i can decript in your refussal to list those primary sources is that those primary sources are exactly Gesta Hungarorum and De Administrando Imperio.
Except Davies' "History of Europe". He writes explicitly at the beginning of the book that he hasn't done any original research for its preparation. This book would therefore fall under your definition of "junk". I think this says more about you than about this book. Scott Moore 12:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Junk is a word for useless material, sorry if you interpreted it in a offensive way. There is a lot of such useless material in this discipline of history you know. -- Criztu 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
why don't you write "hungarian historians believe that the character named Geula/Gyyla in GH and De Administrando was a title, not a person as he is presented in these sources, altho' they have no other source substantiating the existence of a gyula in Transylvania" ? -- Criztu 21:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, if you take the Gesta Hungarorum and De administrando Imperio out, what other sources on a Gyula(title) in Transylvania do you have ? -- Criztu 21:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mircea Dogaru referes to an indirect evidence - romanian placenames that preserved the name Geula: Giulesti (in Bucharest), Gilau, Giulea, Giulita, and names - Jula, Julea, Iuliu, Gelu, Alba Iulia (note that Vajk/Stephen, claimed by GH to descend from Menumorout and from Geula/Gyyla, but ultimately from Arpad - whose seat of power was Alba Iulia - had established Alba Regalis in Pannonia; are there other Albas founded by other "Arpads" ? 'alba' means "white" in romanian). i could add the town Gyula (Giula in romanian) in Hungary close to the romanian border, with its "Julamonustra" (monastery of Jula - and i wonder from what lang. does the hungarian "monostor" comes from). -- Criztu 21:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, frankly I have exceeded the limits of my patience with you. You make all kinds of accusations (based on your assumptions about my motives, although you don't even know who I am) without even reading what I have written. At first I thought we could work together on some of this material, but your obstructionist attitude prevents this. Whatever I write, you will never accept it if it conflicts with your opinion. I could spend further hours answering your questions, listing primary sources etc. but I don't see the point. Judging by your questions, you have not read the majority of the primary sources and few, if any, of the secondary ones. So you are not in a position to judge the validity of the evidence - yet you totally dismiss the opinions of prominent historians who have thoroughly researched the evidence. I'm sure you will make further accusations now, reading all sorts of sinister motives into this paragraph. Scott Moore 12:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what about you, do you accept what i write if it conflicts with your opinnion ? why do you instantly erase my contributions to the article without discussing the issue in the Talkpage, like i do ? -- Criztu 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i've removed the paragraphs on Geula/Gyyla/Gylas/Gyula, and left only the mention that they were characters in GH and DAI. Since these characters require more info to be understood corectly, all information should be offered in a separate article, and Gyula is that article. -- Criztu 13:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

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"[7], and 162 for "Biharia Menumorut"[8]. 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transylvania&oldid=15492280"