Talk:Transylvania/Archive 2

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unio Trium Natiorum 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Do we really need to have so many alternate names in the intro? We should have the Romanian, Hungarian, and German names followed by a link to List of European regions with alternative names to cover the miscellaneous other names. Olessi 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. bogdan | Talk 20:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate names 

message: The anonymous IP user 84.92.70.37 has removed factual information about Transylvania Proper and the table listing the historical populations of the region. I have restored those, as I see no reason to not include them. I have changed a map caption to "Map of Romania with Transylvania Proper in yellow"; at this immediate time images are not loading on WP for me, but IIRC that best describes that map.
German settlement in the Kingdom of Hungary began when Bavarians/Austrians began settling in the western Hungarian lands (today's Burgenland) around 1100. However, German settlement in Transylvania began under the reign of King Géza II (middle of the 12th century), not the 11th century mentioned by the IP user. The city website for Satu Mare states that "Teutonic colonists brought in 1006 by queen Gisela have settled around the city core". Although it is possible that Queen Gisela (a Bavarian) brought German retainers with her, I have found nothing indicating colonization on a scale large enough to merit inclusion here. My research indicates, like the Transylvanian Saxons, that the Sathmar Deutsche began settling in the 12th century, with a second wave arriving after 1683. Regardless of the timeframe, the Germans of Satu Mare are culturally regarded as Danube Swabians, not as Transylvanian Saxons. Additionally, Satu Mare was not part of Transylvania during the period in question. Likewise, the Banat was not settled by Germans until the Habsburgs recolonized it after 1683. For reference I refer to Wilfried Krallert's Atlas zur Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung, page 9 and map 5.
I personally believe that only having the Anglicized names for captions is best. Romanian/Hungarian names for individuals have been a flashpoint in the past; as this is the English wiki, I support only having the English names when available. The native names are available in full articles for the individuals for those interested. Olessi 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of reversion