# Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages

This should be discussed in the article about the History of Hungary. Transylvania belonged to Hungary until 1920 when it was annexed by Romania.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.159.178 (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 

Borsoka! Great job! Creditable work. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments after first read-through: mightily impressive. Detailed comments after my second read-through, but I haven't seen anything so far to stop this article from being promoted. Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Images: all look fine and properly accounted for, but they lack Alt Text. This isn't a prerequisite for GA (or even FA at the moment, I believe) but is good practice, for the benefit of blind and visually-restricted users who make use of screen readers. It would be good if you could add a few words to each image caption, using "alt= description text". More later. Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I found this an interesting and instructive article to review. (In passing, it is, as far as I can recall, the first article I have run across at GA, peer review or FAC in which I could find absolutely no typos or other minor faults.) In my opinion this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC. For the moment, however, it is a pleasure to affirm its GA-status. Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
The article has gone through a significant reedit since it has been reviewed. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall revisit the article and comment further after I have read it again. Tim riley (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the revisions have materially improved an already impeccable GA. In my view it is now of a standard fit to be nominated for FA. Tim riley (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicolae Klepper has been tagged as unreliable. It does not look like the best source. Is it possible to replace it, it sources quite a bit of information. AIRcorn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I need 4-5 days to replace it. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. AIRcorn (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romania in the Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727025121/http://www.bmb-on-line.ro/biblioteca/135/149/normala/P5.html to http://www.bmb-on-line.ro/biblioteca/135/149/normala/P5.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It can be noted that the presence of the Bulgarian Empire in the history of Romania and Romanian lands during the Middle Ages, between the VII and XIV centuries, is greatly underestimated and almost overlooked. Bureaucrats are deleting valuable and relevant information about Romania's history. In Romania in the Early Middle Ages “Bulgaria” is mentioned 31 times, here only 2 times.
Many important things, like the following, aren’t mentioned:

Battle of Ongal
Bulgarian lands across the Danube
First Bulgarian Empire
Uprising of Asen and Peter
Second Bulgarian Empire
Old Church Slavonic in Romania
Reading the text of this article, one is almost convinced that the inhabitants of the Romanian lands in the Middle Ages are not clearly identified by the science of History, and also that Romanian statehood begins with the invasion of the Hungarians/Magyars - tribal confederation, located to the northeast of the powerful at this time Bulgarian Empire, and in constant war with the centuries old Bulgarian state, mostly for the lands of what is modern Romania ...
Good luck MiltenR (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe as a consequence of the timeframe. Bulgaria had no real influence on the history of the territory after 1242. Yes, masses of (semi-)nomadic Romanians most probably migrated from Serbia and Bulgaria to their present homeland in this period, but there is an article dedicated to this highly sensitive issue (Origin of Romanians). Borsoka (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Haven't Hungarians migrated to the Carpathian basin (under Árpád and the seven tribes, etc.) way after transhumance already existed in the Daco-Romance populations both north and south of the Danube? And Bulgaria did have an influence on the history of present-day southern Romania most notably (to some extent even after the 13th century, but definitely not greater than it used to have during the Early Middle Ages) and it was also referred to as the Wallachian-Bulgarian Empire in some of the documents of the Vatican. The Middle Ages in Romania and, in general, in the Carpathian basin, do not start with the Mongol invasion, that is absurd. That period in question is already confined in the timeline of the High Middle Ages. The Mongol invasion was devastating for the Kingdom of Hungary and represented a temporary downfall for it... but the Middle Ages did not start in Hungary with the Mongol Invasion either, of course.
And, during the Early Middle Ages, Romanians already have had medieval states developed in present-day Transylvania and Banat, as per two works of Hungarian origin, more specifically Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, and they are indeed historically accurate, they are not made up. Many Transylvanian Saxon scholars (e.g. Johannes Honter, Stephan Ludwig Roth, etc.) also support the claim according to which Romanians were already here before the Hungarian invasion. Romanians and other Daco-Romance populations (which were transhumant in nature as well, not necessarily semi-nomadic) were already scattered southward of the Danube during the Early Middle Ages.
The admixture theory regarding the origin of Romanians is partly correct but definitely not the Roeslerian one. The origin of the Romanians has long been a matter of scholarly debate but it is far from being 'a highly sensitive issue', only perhaps in the minds of some Hungarian historians who also think that Burgenland also belongs to Hungary, yet another absolutely catastrophic absurdity, I swear! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, about 300 hundred years after the Magyar invasion, the Gesta Hungarorum indeed writes of a Vlach state in Transylvania, along with a Khazar state in Crisana, a Bulgarian state in the Banat supported by the Cumans, a Czech state in Nitra, and Roman princes in Pannonia, and also refers to the presence of the Székelys in Crisana. None of these states and peoples are documented in sources written at the time of the Magyar invasion. On the other hand, the same Gesta had no information about those who fought the invading Magyars according to contemporaneous sources. The Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum does not write of Vlachs in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar conquest, but refers to Vlachs who left  Pannonia.  Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenborg BK Fan: you may have not realised that there is a separate article about the history of Romania in the Early Middle Ages, covering the period from the Roman withdrawal from Dacia till the Mongol invasion. This article covers the subsequent period. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Early Middle Ages are constituent and important part of the Middle Ages in general. They are the starting point of the Middle Ages. Of course I noticed that respective article for a very long time and I can read it very well in English. Not only that, but I also can read medieval documents in Latin. I can also speak and read in Hungarian and German and know a bit of Transylvanian Saxon myself. I know history very well, in an unbiased way. Thank you and all the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
In point of fact, I realised it so much that I linked it in the introduction very well, so as to further highlight its importance and shed light on early Romanian historiography. Alles Gute! Minden jót! 🙂 Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)