# Talk:Árpád

In De Administrando Imperio, there are no 'Hungarians' or 'Magyars'. Only 'Turks' and 'Turkey'. Western European scholars thought that he referred to Magyars but it is not clear in this article that only the term 'Turk' appears in the text. Also these 'Turks', according to the text, are displaced from their original homeland by Pechenegs and migrated apparently towards modern-day Serbia too (not only Vojvodina, for example he mentions Trajan's bridge which is in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Romania / Kladovo, Serbia). Now I don't say that the interpretation is incorrect but saying that Constantine VII said that Arpad was 'great prince of Hungary' isn't in reality correct.
--Apostolos Papadimitriou, 8:03:09 PM Monday, November 21, 2016 UTC  —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 

And he also lists the rivers Tisza, Cris, Mures, Timis as the rivers of the land inhabited by the Hungarians/Turks. When writing about the "Turks", he refers to the Hungarians, consequntly when writing about "Turkey", he refers to their land, that is "Hungary". Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Basically the names of the rivers in the text are Τούτης, Τιμήσης, Μορήσης, Κρίσος, Τίτζα. I just think that ideally we should differentiate between what actually exists in the text and its interpretation. That means, state that the text speaks about 'Turks', the author places them also in parts of modern-day Serbia and Romania but scholars have identified these 'Turks' with Magyars. Arpad isn't a 'great prince of Hungary' in the text, but of 'Turkey' (Also άρχων meant ruler, commander, chief, king, governor etc so translating as 'prince' is questionable). It's not so important overall but important enough for me to state it in the talk page. I won't bother. Apostolos Papadimitriou (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hungarians were known by this name "Turks" for hundreds of years, even in the 1070s  ("ΓΕΩΒΙΤZΑC ΠΙΣΤΟC ΚΡΑΛΗC ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑC" (Geōbitzas pistós králēs Tourkías, meaning "Géza I, faithful kralj of the land of the Turks") Fakirbakir (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Anon, if the cited reliable sources write about the Byzantine Empire, the Byzantines and the Byzantine Emperors, why do you want to use the terms "Roman Empire", "Romans" and "Roman Emperor"? Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Name came into English historiography through Latin. Is it really the mainstream academic practice to use the Hungarian alphabet with all its peculiar diacritics?
That is for us the only relevant criterion, but on a side note: Hungarians read [o] when they see [a], making á a must, but English speakers have different habits. Arminden (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)