Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Byzantine sources

According to Olajos (p51) the "Chronica" by Petrus Alexandrinus and the "Divisio populorum et linguarum" mentioned the 9th-century Avars. I think it is quite important because they are contemporary sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but those sources only list them among lots of other peoples. We know from Constantine VII, that Avars could be distinguished from the Croats in Croatia around 950. Therefore, nothing proves that those Avars inhabited the Carpathian Basin. Borsoka (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be true if we disregarded results of archaeology. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fakirbakir, the article clearly refers to Avars in the Carpathian Basin around 870. Of course, we could add that there are other sources which refer to Avars who might have lived in the same territory at an unspecified date and thus possibly survived up until the arrival of the Hungarians. However, I do not know what is the added value. Borsoka (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Rona's statement

Only ten graveyards (or less ten ten?) have been identified as Hungarian cemeteries on the Pontic steppes (by Rona Tas)??????? And what about the "Subotcy find horizon"[1]? .... Rona still states that Hungarians spent 200 years in Etelkoz based on "linguistic" researches.... We should cite new results of archaeology (e.g. Attila Turk's research).....Fakirbakir (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Spinei identifies less than ten graves representing Hungarian warriors in the Pontic steppes. All the same, any theory based on reliable source can be added. Borsoka (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Place names

There is no wiki rule that would entitle the Hu topontms/hydronyms to stay before Ro/Sk ones as User:Borsoka suggests. I am requesting to him to point out the precise guideline he refers to. According to WP:MODERNPLACENAME, "for articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one". Here present is discussed: "the earliest graves attributed to Hungarian warriors are concentrated around the Transylvanian salt mine". I did not remove the Hu names, I only made the switch, however you insist to create am unnecessary dispute 79.117.172.191 (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anon, although WP:MODERNPLACENAME determines the rules how to name a whole article, I could also refer to it in this specific context: "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same". (I refer to a number of sources cited in the article.) The context of the article of the conquest of the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's suppose that the correct approach is yours. In this case, the name Kolozsvár was not in use during conquest of the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarians. The first written mention of the city was 1213, many years after the events. 79.117.164.205 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. Do you suggest that events happening in the region of Kolozsvár/Cluj before 1213 could not be mentioned? It would be a strange approach: we could not write of the history of large regions in Central and Eastern Europe where many settlements came into being only in the 14th-18th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to say that contemporary names (names in use during the Conquest) can't be used, because some of these settlements appeared later. The cited source (Spinei) probably uses Cluj, not Kolozsvár 79.117.164.205 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the article should be consequent. And many sources prefer the Hungarian version. All the same, all the relevant names are mentioned and this practice do not contradict to any of the relavant WP policies. Why should we change? What is the added value by making this change? Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So you agree with these edits then. Here the context is the Slovak uprising, consequently Slovak names should have precedance 79.117.167.179 (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with those edits, both names must appear in Slovak history, even if that settlements were part of the Kingdom of Hungary and Slovakia did not exist until 1993 (so, Hungarian settlement names also being justified). --Norden1990 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dăbâca case

In the case of Dăbâca, results of research does contain evidence of a ninth century occupation of the site (Curta, p.148). Curta uderligned the word DOES ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.5.179 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide the quote which supports that claim of yours? What does Curta write explicitly? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

At page 148, F. Curta showed about Dăbâca that "result of research does contain evidence of a ninth century occupation of the site". Read at page 148.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Archeologic findings near salt mines

I've added the sourced text Most of the Old Hungarian relics in Transylvania were discovered in the vicinity of the salt mines from the middle Mureș basin and from the Someșul Mic basin: Sic, Turda, Cojocna, Ocna Dejului (all of them in Cluj County), Uioara-Ocna Mureșului and Ocnișoara (Alba County), and Ocna Sibiului (Sibiu County). The historian Alexandru Madgearu relates this with the fact that Hungarians were cattle-breeders., but User:Borsoka keeps removing it motivating that it is a duplicate. Where else is this text included in the current version of the article? 79.117.187.164 (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read "Consequences": (1) "In this easternmost territory of the Carpathian Basin, the earliest graves attributed to Hungarian warriors are concentrated around the Transylvanian salt mines in the valley of the rivers Kis-Szamos (Someșul Mic) and Maros (Mureş)." (2) "The Hungarians settled in the lowlands of the Carpathian Basin along the rivers Danube, Tisza and their tributaries,[249] where they could continue their semi-nomadic lifestyle." Borsoka (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral

The Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin began around 895 and ended around 907, the alleged raid by the nomadic Cumans and plundering Vlachs occured in 1059. Why do we need to mention the latter event in this article? Should we also write of the fall of Communism in Hungary in 1989 in this article? Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"For instance, the 14th-century Illuminated Chronicle contains texts from the 11th-century chronicle.[27][29"

This examplem and other similar shows that you promote discrimination. My proposed chronicle has events from the XIth centuryEurocentral (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, do you know what is the difference between 895 and 1059? Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

starting date

Hungarian scholars assume that Hungarians started to settle in the Carpathian Basin from the middle of the 9th century. (e.g. Bela Miklos Szoke [2]) Shall we mention it in the article? Fakirbakir (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Having read the summary of Szőke's theory, I think it lacks any real basis. There are only two references to Hungarian raids in Central Europe before the 890s (in 862 and in 881). Therefore, the statement of "the significant Hungarian participation in local wars" is an exaggeration. Could we also say that the significant Hungarian participation in local wars in Germany in the first half of the 10th century proves that Germany was in fact Hungary and Otto I was a Hungarian king who defeated the Hungarians on the Lechfeld? :) Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to refine the text. Actually he also says that the events of 895/902 were only the "closing accords" of the Conquest.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Verecke Pass as crossing point

I noticed Verecke Pass is indicated in several works - [3][4] - as a point in Hungarians' route. Maybe it should mentioned in the article too. 79.117.183.1 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Yes, it is a tradition: all Hungarian children learn of it in primary schools. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename article to "Honfoglalás"?

I think this article should be renamed simply "Honfoglalás" for several reasons. First, the present title is a tad long and I think unlikely to be searched as is in Wikipedia's search bar or through another search engine in this form. Second, those familiar enough with Hungarian history to know about the conquest would probably also know the Hungarian term. Third, and I think this is the most important point, there is precedent for the English Wikipedia for using shorter non-English names for historical terms or events, such as Wirtschaftswunder (German), Glasnost and Perestroika (Russian), Reconquista (Spanish), and so on. Thoughts? KFan II (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I oppose. The current title meets WP:NC, probably most people not speaking Hungarian haven't ever heard of Honfoglalás. Many Hungarian authors don't even use it in English-language works: [5]. Your argument that the title is too long is hilarious; it is enough to write "Hungarian conq" into the search field and the autocomplete feature will show the (whole) name of this article to the reader. 82.79.215.190 (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)