Talk:Stephen I of Hungary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Apostolic King

Since the end of the 19th century it has been well know that the letter attributed to Pope Sylvester II which allegedly conferred the "apostolic king" title to Stephen I is a falsification from the 17th century. Therefore we should forget it, and all claims based on this false document. [1] [2] [3] Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget it. Mention it but state it is a falsification from the 17th century.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Slovak aristocrats in the 10th century?

"Lukačka and other Slovak historians state that they were "Slovak" aristocrats who joined Stephen during his rule in Nyitra." Do we really need this sentence? It's absolute an unrealistic theory without confirm by contemporary records or chronicles. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But they are based on reliable sources. Do you remember Hunyadi's Cuman origin? Wellcome to our region. :) Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, what is funny, that all this Nyitra principality stuff with its Slovak aristocracy was highly promoted by György Györffy who wanted to create a history for Hungary based on place-names. Therefore, he created small duchies everywhere in the Carpathian Basin. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then could you offer here the appropriate text about this sentence from that work? --Norden1990 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"A variety of opposing views exist on the origins of these noblemen. Hungarian historiography recognises their non-Magyar origin; in agreement with the chronicler Simon of Kéza, they are regarded as Germans (Swabians). Slovak historians, especially J. Hodál, convincingly demonstrated their domestic (Slovak) origin in his extensive study. ..." (note 6 on page 32 in Lukacka's cited work). It is so nice.... convincingly, of course, ...Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. At least, the work also lists the other standpoints. But, if I may advise, a phrase "nobles" may be more appropriate than "aristocrats". I think the latter term is quite unusual in the early history of Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to improve this article. I think it still needs significant improvement. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Next week will be August 20, I hope, a completely re-written and comprehensible article of high quality will be add to the main page by that time. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have to mention their origin here? This page is about St. Stephen. Mentioning the help of non-Hungarian nobles is more than enough IMO. Hont-Pázmány have their own page where origin theories are negotiated sufficiently. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to emphasize that János Hunyadi's father might have been of Cuman origin in an article of János Hunyadi? There is a separate article for his family where all lunatic theories of his non-Romanian origin could be presented. Yes, this most lunatic views of Slovakian historians are published by Cambridge University Press. (Most nyújtogatnám a nyelvem, de nem tudom. :):):):)) Welcome to our sweet sweet region...... and to the world of peer-reviewed neutral books issued by well-known universities (which have never been sponsored by foreign governments) :) Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not entirely the same case. The Hont-Pazmany brothers were just tiny "supporter actors" in St. Stephen's "story". Their origin theories do not belong here. You would be right if we talked about St. Stephen's ancestry. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read the Slovak author's report of these Slovak aristocrats' preeminent role in Stephen I's victory. You should know that Principality of Nyitra (whose existence in the 10th century is the invention of György Györffy) was an important center of the survival of Great Moravian aristocracy in the territory of modern Slovakia (even if Great Moravia is only mentioned by Constantine VII who locates it to territories east of the Tisza river). Stephen who was (according to György Györffy) prince/duke of Nyitra must have had a local retinue (according to Slovak historians). Consequently, Hont and Pázmány must have been from that principaplity which means that they were Slovaks (even if they are described in all early sources as immigrants from Bavaria) and they had a preeminent role in Stephen's victory. Please remember that most of these views are presented in a peer-reviewed book published by the Cambridge University Press. I think they represent a significant point-of-view. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Consequently, Hont and Pázmány must have been from that principaplity which means that they were Slovaks; is that your own original research or conclusion? As the cited work does not contain this information. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the cited work's m a i n argument in favor of their Slovak origin that their estates were located in the "Principality of Nyitra" (which existed according to György Györffy in the 10th century). This means, according to the peer reviewed book published by the Cambridge University Press, that they must have been from that principality which logically results in their Slovak origin, since the "Principality of Nyitra" was located in the territory of modern Slovakia. I think this is a highly convincing approach. Especially because the existence of the "Principality of Nyitra" in the 10th century is clearly stated by an academic (a Hungarian academic) who probably had deep knowledge of the circumctances and it is only by chance that he did not refer to any source to substantiate this statement. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Hungarian researchers (e.g. Laszlo Revesz) do not really support Gyorffy's theory therefore it is a bit exaggerated in the article.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A theory which is published in a book issued by the Cambridge University Press can hardly be irrelevant. The Slovak historians emphasize the role these two (according to them, Slovak) aristocrats played in the victory of Stephen over the Hungarian Koppány. Sorry Urak/Hölgyek, we should not hide this very important chain of assumptions invented by leading historians based on theories invented by other leading historians. Even if it is totally absurd..... There are many absurd theories published in peer-reviewed academic books. Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to hide it. I just wanted to let you know the "mainstream" Hungarian viewpoint is missing. Hungarian viewpoint does not accept any kind of Slovak principality at the beginning of 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would really appreaciate if you could add relevant info based on reliable sources. I have been for years searching for academic books which clearly states that the existence of a "Principality of Nyitra" CANNOT be proven or even assumed based on the sources. Unfortunatelly, Györffy's attempt to create a Hungarian history for the poorly documented 10th and 11th centuries have been professionally utilized by our dear neighbors. Györffy with his creative imagination and enthusiasm was our 20th-century Anonymous. Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Principality of Nitra under the Hungarian rule and Tercia pars regni? I could accept the sentence about Hont and Pázmány's origin to be included in the article, but the above remarks ("Slovak aristocracy", and generally "Slovaks in the 10th century") are quite preposterous. There is no continuity between Great Moravia and today Slovakia. The "Slovak" phrase itself also came from the 16th century. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit this article. :) Otherwise, there may have or may have not been a connection between Nyitra (not the "Nyitra Principality"!) and the "Tercia pars regni" (that is the duchy created by Andrew I of Hungary to his younger brother, Béla). Actually, nobody knows where the latter duchy was located. Györffy (yes, he is always the "ludas") proposed that Anonymous's report (from around 1200) of the Bihar duchy of Ménmarót and of the Czechs of Nyitra (around 900) prove that Béla's duchy (around 1050) existed with these two seats. Moreover, a 12th-century diadem (which may have or may have not been a ducal crown) was unearthed at Nyitraivánka which was attributed (as far as I remember by Györffy) to Béla or one of his sons; this also "strengthened" the idea of being Nyitra the seat of an important duchy or principality. Györffy also argued that toponyms (first recorded in the 13th and 14th centuries) suggest that there were Székely and Böszörmény groups settled around the fortresses at Nyitra and Bihar, which for him proved that the heir to the crown (that is Béla the duke of Tercia pars regni) ruled those territories. Of course, Slovak historian accepted this wonderful chain of flying imagination, although they tend to refer only to the "Principality of Nyitra", because claiming a "Principality of Nyitra and Bihar" for Slovak history would cause conflicts with our dear Romanian friends (who like to refer to Anonymous's "Bulgarian-hearted" Ménmarót and his Cozar people as ancient Romanians). Szóval ennyi a történet. [So this is the story] :)Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Otto III and Sylvester II

During the coronation of Stephen, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope were allies, it is clearly demonstrates that Sylvester, formerly served as tutor of the young Otto. So, it is completely irrelevant, who send the benedictio to the Hungarian king. Both of them supported the efforts of Stephen. Only later became important the circumstance that who "send the crown", when Gregory VII and Henry IV fought with each other during the Investiture Controversy. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this is one of the scholarly interpretations of the sources. Therefore I will add it. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Images

Can there be more contemporary images of the king like coins, etc? Maybe a coin for the infobox image like Charlemagne. Also can the image of Sigismund III of Poland be removed since it isn't Stephen.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to an image of his coronation pall. Although I am not sure it dates to 1031 as claimed in the file description.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a great idea. Actually, the royal cloak was made in 1031 (Györffy 1994, p. 97.).

Dubious?

Why is Kristo's viewpoint dubious? I could say Gyorffy's statements are also "interesting" sometimes. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I cannot believe that he writes of Transdanubia. He was an excellent historian (his only stupid idea was that Gyulafehérvár was not named after the gyulas, but after Julius Kán who was voivode for 2 or 3 years in the early 1200s). Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A little OFF: could you tell me which is the work where Kristó explicated that Gyulafehérvár was named after voivode Julius I Kán? --Norden1990 (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Kán László és Erdély" In Kristó Gyula (1983). Tanulmányok az Árpád-korról. Magvető Kiadó. pp. 269-312. ISBN 963-271-890-9. He writes on page 276. "talán" (=possibly) Gyulafehérvár/Alba Iulia was named after Julius Kán. As far as I remember, I also read this idea in his "Early Transylvania (895-1324)" (Lucidus Kiadó. ISBN 963-9465-12-7), but I have not found the text. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will mention this in the article of Julius Kán as an interesting thing. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think his only problem was that he saw Slavs everywhere. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Because there were scattered Slavic communities everywhere. :) Sincerely, please read his excellent "Nem magyar népek a középkori Magyarországon". He describes the colonization process of the mountainous borderlands by Slavic, German and Romanian settlers. All his statements are well documented by contemporary sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however Romanians did not live in the Carpathian Basin during the reign of Stephen I, I'm certain in that. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Henry of Mügeln in the late 1200 listed the Romanians among the immigrants who came to Hungary under Stephen I. However, Kristó writes of the colonization process which began in the 10th century (Pechenegs, Jews, Germans) and continued for centuries. He closes his book with events in the 1400s. Borsoka (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Kristo saw Slavic majority in the 11th century. (In: Etnikai viszonyok Magyarországon Szent István király korában" -- e.g. " 21 toponyms out of 47 were Slavic, 17 Hungarian etc..." :). Fakirbakir (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And I agree with him. Genetical researches also suggest that most of us who speak our wonderful language descended from ancestors closely related to the ancestors of the Poles, Slovaks, Slovenians. Likewise, most speakears of English in Great Britain descended from the Celtic natives of Britannia. Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh no genetics again :). In England, they are not so sure about it:

• (from a newspaper) "New research has found that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain from the continent 1,600 years ago was so successful that native characteristics were virtually wiped out. And as a results experts say this has left England with a population made up largely of Germanic genes and with a language that owes much to our Anglo-Saxon invaders The new study explains that the majority of original British genes were wiped out in favour of German ones through a system of apartheid set up by the invaders. This allowed the Anglo-Saxons to out-breed the Brits and our country became 'Germanised.'"

The Hungarian genetic studies can be quite misleading. Especially Rasko's genetic researches on ancient bones, They desperately wanted to find "Asian" markers but they did not. The majority of the bones, about 85%, belonged to European haplogroups. They should have been more careful because whole central Asia and western Siberia belonged to "European haplogroups" in the past. So they did not even know that who counted as "an ethnic Hungarian" in the graves. Balazs Mende has just admitted the non-existence of Hungarian family cemeteries (nagycsalados sirok) in the 10th century!!!!. The deceased were not related with each other in the graveyards, however he could demonstrate based on genetic researches Avar continuity in the Alfold region and relations between cemeteries of Etelkoz and graveyards of Hungary. And surprisingly the haplogroup of Etelkoz belonged to "Europeans". He also emphasized that the "moving" (nomadic) population in Hungary was much larger than previously thought. Actually I am fascinated with these researches and it is getting more interesting in the close future.  :) Mende's presentation: 17 of April, 2013 Fakirbakir (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And there is a large group of Slav researchers who say -based on genetics- Slavs derive from Scythians. :) Fakirbakir (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And of course, beside the Slavic majority in the 11th century, the Mongol invasion and the continuous non-Hungarian migration to Kingdom of Hungary, the "magical" Hungarians were capable to increase their ethnic ratio up to 80 percent from the 10th century to the 15th century. :) WOW. :) Fakirbakir (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree and therefore the medieval Kingdom of Hungary is not can be mentioned as a "multi-ethnic etc. country". Because on this basis today's Slovakia is also a multi-ethnic country. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually medieval Hungary was quite homogeneous. Look at this about Transylvania "An investigation of the names of villages existing today gives the following picture: Before the end of the 13th century, the names of 511 villages in Transylvania and in the Banat appear in documents, of which only three are of Romanian origin. Up to 1400 AD, 1757 villages are mentioned, out of which 76 (4.3%) have names of Romanian origin (cf. Kniezsa, 1943. p. 158). In the following centuries the number of Romanians continued to increase: in the 1700s AD, they amounted to about 40% of the total population. " Fakirbakir (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, all Europe was inhabited by Hungarians. When the Hungarians came to Ukraine they were surprised that they had already arrived there before. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Too patchy family tree?

The wiki articles of Hungarian kings have very similar family trees. (e.g. [4]) What is the problem with it? St Stephen's origin is a bit obscure that is not my fault. We should improve his family tree instead of deletion. Fakirbakir (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a family tree (like e. g. Géza) would be more useful, as we can indicate the wider relationship (cousins, brother-in-law etc.) --Norden1990 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Last years

The whole section should be rewritten. It is now like a story narrated by a heroina of a romantic soap. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, it was (at least partially) written by me about 5 years ago. :) :) Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Five years ago you were a romantic soul? :) Anyway, It would be good to finish the article until 20 August, as if expand or need reference tags left behind, the article will not appear on the On this day... section of the main page. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sanctus Stephanus

Why is it necessary to include the Latin translation of the name in the lead? Yes, the official language of medieval Hungary was Latin, but the given source is just a book from 1991 written in Latin language,there is no indication that this is the name used centuries ago to designate Stephen I. 79.117.164.236 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We do not need to add the name used centuries ago. If you have a better source, please do not hesitate to add it. Borsoka (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Also why is Slovak used?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? He was the king of a state the northern parts of which were inhabited by the ancestors of the Slovakians. There are many churches dedicated to him in Slovakia. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

quote

"The authenticity of the instruction is denied by some" This statement is sourced (O'Malley, p. 46). The book contains the quote as well. However we should find other sources to clarify its origin.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

versions

Sorry, my computer is getting "crazy" I did not want to undo editing. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Fix your machine and join us again. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)