Misplaced Pages

Talk:Origin of the Romanians: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:03, 29 September 2014 editEurocentral (talk | contribs)986 edits →RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence?: Negative appreciation← Previous edit Revision as of 19:32, 29 September 2014 edit undoWallace McDonald (talk | contribs)508 edits →RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence?Next edit →
Line 470: Line 470:
The main introduction have to contain neutral points of view. The main introduction have to contain neutral points of view.
] (]) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC) ] (]) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the lead at present is not neutral and assumes the correctness of one point of view among several. It would be better to open with something like: "There are several theories about the origin of the Romanians." Then give a brief summary of each. I am definitely not an expert on this myself, but I don't think the origin in the Dacians is such a firmly-established consensus view as the lead asserts. ] (]) 19:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:32, 29 September 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconHistory Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEuropean history
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRomania High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconHuman Genetic History (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnthropology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23


Neidhart von Reuenthal

User:Borsoka, do you know anything about this source ? 86.127.8.126 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No. As far as I remember Reuenthal writes of Walves (=Cumans). Armbruster (who is cited by Curta) tends to identify Romanians everywhere (e.g. he refers to Constantine Porphyrogenitus's remark of the

inhabitants of the Dalmatian towns as a proof of the Roman conciousness of the Vlachs). Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Were romanians the latest nomadic ethnic group?

VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE. Vlachs were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and chronicles appeared only in the 15th century.USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the google book results (search the british american candian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):


Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614 " Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"


Robert William Seton-Watson: A history of the Roumanians: from Roman times to the completion of unity, page: 12 "The Roumanians undoubtedly preserved their nomadic habits to a very late date, as is proved by the existence of Vlach colonies in Moravia (the so-called "Little Wallachia" — long since completely Slavised)"


Mandell Creighton, Justin Winsor, Samuel Rawson Gardiner: The English Historical Review page:- 615. "He shows that the Vlachs of the Balkan peninsula throughout the middle ages are nomads of the strictest type, ... that Vlachs began to move north of the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania "


Joan E. Durrant, Anne B. Smith Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights ( PAGE 210)

"Between the 3rd century A.D. and the 14th century A.D., Dacia was invaded successively by nomadic peoples, including the ... Romanians "


Norman Berdichevsky: Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181. "The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."


Other elements in the population of Greece are the Wallachians or Vlachs, the Turks, and the Jews, but they have never ... The Wallachians are a curious nomadic race


David Bruce Macdonald - 2002 Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered ... page- 131

"These hinterland Romans evolved into highland herdsmen, who for centuries led a primitive nomadic life"


Lampe, John R, Jackson, Marvin R. Balkan Economic History, 1550 - 1950: From Imperial Borderlands to ... page - 612. "Vlachs had first acquired their commercial connections in the course of moving their livestock seasonally back and forth between high and low ground. ... Alan J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson, The Nomads of the Balkans (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971)"


Jane Perry Clark Carey, Andrew Galbraith Carey : The Web of Modern Greek Politics - page 73 "shepherds and nomadic herdsmen, wandering through the Balkans and the north of Greece. On their early migrations they gave the Vlach name to various districts, including the province of Wallachia in present-day Romania"


Chambers's Encyclopedia - Volume 14. page:- 339. "The Vlachs are usually mentioned as following nomadic or semi-nomadic lives as shepherds etc. in wild mountain ... nth century was known as 'Great Wallachia' and seems to have contained a relatively dense and settled Vlach population."


Denys Hay: Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries page: 220 "In the first half of the fourteenth century there also appeared there the two Romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. ... or whether the Hungarians are right in their thesis that these Vlachs were recently immigrated nomadic shepherds"


Frank Moore Colby, Talcott Williams, Herbert Treadwell Wade: The New International Encyclopaedia Voluma 20. Page: 219 "Owing to their nomadic and predatory dispositions these Vlachs, as they are called by the Greek writers, were a ... the autonomous Rumanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which grew rapidly towards south and east until the former"


Isaiah Bowman: The New World: Problems in Political Geography page - 282 "or Wallachians The Rumanians, or Wallachs (hence Wallachia), are of mixed race but of distinct speech, the Ruman, ... Home places of the nomadic Vlachs The Vlachs , Rumanian nomadism is seen in its purest form among the detached"


Norman Angell : Peace Theories And The Balkan War page: - 107. "It had been founded by a conquering caste of non-Slavonic nomads from the trans-Danubian steppes, but these were completely ... This Bulgarian state included a large 'Vlach' element descended from those Latin-speaking provincials whom the Slavs had pushed ... had established itself in the mountains of Transylvania, and was just beginning to push down into the Wallachian and Moldavian plains"


Tibor Frank, Frank Hadler : Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe, page: 251 "Reference to Romanians in their preunification (1859) history was linked to the regional designation of Wallachia (today Oltenia and Muntenia) to the south ... This designation relates to the nomadic existence of the Balkan Vlach population."


Paul Coles : The Ottoman Impact on Europe - page: 114 " nomadic pastoralism provided a new lease of life for the Rumanian-speaking Vlachs, migratory herdsmen whose native principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had fallen under Ottoman dominion during the fifteenth century"


Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. .: "The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Custom Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibretrecm (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ Nice propaganda.... too bad you we're banned for it :))) USE Google Books he said.... Can a moderator delete this Hungarian's hateful and racist comment 94.68.74.91 (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian propaganda

Some hungarians, furious of their nomadic origin, see nomads in old Europe!! Eurocentral (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sayous

E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21 Sayous wrote: "Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains" (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE) Eurocentral (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sayous's work was first published in the 19th century. Please try to use reliable source which represent the present status of research. Moreover, please add a reference page, because the standard English translation of Comnena's work does not contain the text you seemingly cited from that work. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


To Borsoka: Your opinion is subjective:

See Wiki pages with: Kingdom of Hungary; they contains Albert Apponyi work (born 1846 !)


In this case you are not a reliable observer. Clean first your home and then look to others!

Thank you for drawing my attention to Apponyi's work. Although it is at least 50 year younger than the source you are attempting to use, you are right that it should not be referenced either. I have just put a proper template message in the article Kingdom of Hungary requiring a better source. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

About Komnene work: see pages: Alexiad to understand the references in this case. References contains only the book and paragraph. Eurocentral (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For better vizibility: It is E. Dawes translation from 1928, p. 385 Eurocentral (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So there is no modern reliable source which states that the "Dacians" in Anna Comnena's work are identical with "Vlachs". Modern reliable sources (I refer to the standard English translation of the work cited in the article, and to Curta 2006) state that when writing of Dacians she referred to Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This statement implies that Anna Comnena, “ardently devoted to philosophy, the queen of all sciences, and was educated in every field", could not made the difference between Hungarians and Dacians and/or Vlachs - which it is a bit bizarre. If your statement is true perhaps then the term "Hungarians" used by Anna Comnena could denote a mixture of ethnic groups among the Hungarian tribes like Dacians, Avars and Gepids. Could be this plausible? Saturnian (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Anna Comnena almost always used Antique names when referring to the peoples in conflict with the Byzantine Empire. For instance, her Dacians were in fact Hungarians, her Scythians were actually Pechenegs, her Getae were Oghuzes, and her Celts were Germans or French. The context always clarifies it. For example, she wrote of "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral, kinsman of the Basileus John's wife", when referring to the envoys sent by the king (=kral) of Hungary (Coloman the Learned), who was the cousin of Irene of Hungary, the wife of the future Emperor John II Komnenos. For further details, I refer to the standard English translation of her work by E. R. A. Sewter, which is cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If the term "Hungarians" used by Anna Comnena do not denote a mixture of ethnic groups, what is the modern scientific motivation for the wrong terms used by Anna Comnena? Saturnian (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Anna Comnena did not use the term "Hungarians", but used the term "Dacians" when referring to the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The statement "the Dacians on behalf of the kral" denotes a relationship between two different entities: one entity (Dacians) is entitled to represent the interests of another entity (king of Hungary, and subsequently the Hungarians). If we substitute, as you suggested, Dacians with Hungarians, it would lead to "the Hungarians on behalf of the king of Hungary" which is nonsense because both represent the same entity. This theory is invalid. There are three possibilities to make sense of this statement: either Dacians were a distinct entity, either the Hungarians were a loose mixture of ethnic groups, either both. Saturnian (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Your original thoughts are really interesting. However, the translator of the standard English version of her book and many other scholars (including Florin Curta) identify her "Dacians" as "Hungarians". Please also try to analyze the following sentence "the ambassadors who came from the Ottomans on behalf of the Sultan" - nobody would say that the Sultan is not the monarch of the Ottomans. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is just logic. "Ottomans on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan" is a nonsense too. The point is the suggestion of different entities, as "Ottomans on behalf of the non-Ottoman Sultan" or "non-Ottomans on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan". As you said, if Florin Curta identified Anna Comnena's "Dacians" as "Hungarians" in this context, I would say his writings are doubtful and they should not be used as references. Saturnian (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You may not know, but our community had its own rules. For instance, books published by the Cambridge University Press are preferred to editors' own logic and interpretation. Please read WP:NOR and WP:Sources. Borsoka (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it is just a misinterpretation of reliable sources by "our community". Let's not bury this mess behind an abstract formalization, own rules. All books can contain fallacies. Who are those who proposed that bizarre theory? Can you provide citations? Saturnian (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the Dacians' identification as Vlachs in her work? I think there is no reliable source stating this. She writes of the Vlachs separately, under the name "Vlach". Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"Dacians were in fact Hungarians" - who are those who stated this? I hope not just you. Citations would be helpful if we want a better insight into this matter. Saturnian (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Read note 23 on page 122 of the standard translation of her work (Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (Translated by E. R. A. Sewter) (1969). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7.) And I also refer to Curta's interpretation of chapter 7.i of The Alexiad on page of his second cited work (Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.) They both identify the Dacians as Hungarians. Maybe their English is better than ours. Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Good, Sewter and Curta stated that. I don’t' have the books and I'm not sure I could find them online. Can you provide the citations? About your argument "she wrote of the Vlachs as Vlachs, so her Dacians could not be Vlachs" is a masked man fallacy and your answer doesn’t and it cannot changed that. Saturnian (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(a) Note 23 on page 122 (which is connected to the text "the Dacians" on the same page) is the following: "The Hungarians." (b) Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon." Curta's interpretation (Curta 2006, page 300): "In 1087, the Pechenegs north of the Danube organized another invasion, this time in association with Cumans and Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon.", he adds that "... the marauders were badly mauled and their chieftain, Tzelgu, killed...". Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Victor Spinei also identifies Anna Comnena's Scythians, Sarmatians and Dacians as Pechenegs, Cumans and Hungarians, respectively: "Taking advantage of the political and military crisis in the Empire, the Cumans joined the Pechenegs led by Tzelgu and the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon, and they all plundered the Balkan provinces." (page 120 Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.). Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
In the above citations there is no such statement "Dacians = Pechenegs + Cumans + Hungarians". In the context of Anna Comnena such statement is a cherry picking fallacy. Perhaps these parties are the leading one but this is not sufficient. Moreover, under umbrella term of a leading mono-ethnic group other ethnic groups can exist. Saturnian (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(1) Nobody has claimed that any of the reliable cited sources writes that "Dacians = Pechenegs + Cumans + Hungarians". However, they unanimously write that "Dacians = Hungarians, Scythians = Pechenegs, and Sarmatians=Cumans" in her work. (2) Yes, maybe, or maybe not. Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(1) I misunderstood your sentence about Victor Spinei, sorry. But what are the scientific proofs for "Dacians = Hungarians"? Why not "Dacians = Slavs + Hungarians" for example? (2) Yes, this is what I want to emphasize. If the content of Hungarian population is not known exactly, then "Dacians = Hungarians" equation would lead to "Dacians = maybe, or maybe not Hungarians". Or do you have a clear evidence contesting this? Saturnian (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"Historians believe the “Sarmatians” to be the Oghuz and the “Dacians” the Hungarians"p 147 The article should represent the mainstream historical narratives.... Fakirbakir (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Anna Comnena's "Dacians" were probably the inhabitants of the multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary". However, we should use reliable sources when editing articles and not our own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Borsoka made a huge mistake: Sayous and Anna talk about Dacians from the Northern slopes of Haemus; it is clear they are not Hungarians. Haemus are the Balkan mountains and they are placed South of Danube. There is a confusion. Please look at a map and see the difference.

About Curta, he cited what others wrote. Sayous made an original observation. Also, a lot of Romanians wrote about Dacians/Vlachs identity in Alexiad. Eurocentral (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) I could not make any mistake in this case, because I only referred to the view unanimously represented by specialists (Curta, Spinei, Sewter). If any mistake was made, these scholars made it, but we are not in the position to correct it based on our own original research. Please read WP:NOR. (2) Why do you think that Hungary is situated to the east, to the west or to the south of the Balkan Mountains? Borsoka (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


It is about Haemus slopes. So Borsoka made again a deliberate mistake. He does not know what means slopes !

This is why we need to keep the quote. To understand everybody that it is about the slopes of mountains and not about Panonia ! 79.112.14.99 (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be more careful when reading: "on either side of its slopes...". Where did you read that Sayous died in the 20th century? Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally we talk about geography. Is Panonia on the slopes of Haemus ? Is this the geography or history you learnt in your country??? Eurocentral (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is situated Hungary to the south, or to the east, or to the west of the slopes of the Balkan Mountains/Haemus? Would you provide a map proving this? Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Take my advise: start to learn geography. Panonia is at 1000 Km at North West from Haemus!!!!!!! This is : Magyarization of geography ! Eurocentral (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you do not have access to the relevant maps, and you think that Pannonia is identical with the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. For this reason, I copy a relevant map for you here. Please, look at it carefully and try to find where the Kingdom of Hungary is situated. If you succeeded in finding the kingdom, try to find the Haemus/Balkan Mountains. And finally, try to decide is the Kingdom of Hungary located to the north or to the south of the slops of the Haemus (top = north, bottom = south).
Europe around 1190


Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you use a compass, Hungary stll remains at NW of Haemus ! Search again!

Eurocentral (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Kingdom of Hungary used to be a large kingdom. It was also situated to the NW of the Haemus Mountains. However, you may not know where the Haemus is situated. Here is a map:
Balkan

Please, try to concentrate to the two maps: everything will be clear, and we do not need to continue this OR. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Slopes of Haemus = Panonia? Stop with these oditties. Wlachs or Dacians were on the Northen slopes of Haemus. For Hungarians as in this talk page, Ana used very clear Hungarians. Search her text with key words and find that she knew about Hungarians Eurocentral (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Please read the above conversation again. Nobody has said that the Haemus is identical with Pannonia, and nobody has referred to Pannonia except of you. Please read her text: she writes of "either side (please repeat to memorize: side, side, side, side) of the slopes". Yes, she also made mention of Hungary (the country), but she always referred to its inhabitants as Dacians. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Anna Comnena's "Dacians" were probably the inhabitants of the multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary". However, we should use reliable sources when editing articles and not our own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. The statement <<Historians believe the “Sarmatians” to be the Oghuz and the “Dacians” the Hungarians.>> is NOT a scientific proof. It is just a belief. So I'm still waiting for the proofs. Saturnian (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. About "The article should represent the mainstream historical narratives", what authority said that? Then why such belief should become mainstream? Saturnian (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. As Eurocentral pointed out, the Northern slopes of Haemus would include Northern side of today's Bulgaria and probably Wallachian Plain. What are the evidences saying Hungarians lived exclusively in this space and they represent "Dacians" in Anna Comnena's text? Saturnian (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR. Three (3) reliable sources has been presented which agree that in her book Dacians are identical with Hungarians. Would you please refer to a reliable source which contradict to their consensus? If there is no such reliable source, we are not in the position to continue our original research in this Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not using beliefs to make statements. Perhaps they are sources but not reliable if no proofs are given. Unreliable sources should be removed. Saturnian (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The 19th-century source and the sentence based on it of the identification of her "Dacians" as Vlachs should be deleted. Sayous is not a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that because I don't have Sayous' book but the text of Sayous is already marked as dubious. What about the sources based on beliefs? Saturnian (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. Sayous is not marked as dubious. Which are the sources based on beliefs? Is there a reference to her book in the Bible? I would be surprised. Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It was marked in a previous version. I don't understand your question, sorry. You already provided interpretations and beliefs of certain authors without having a proof. Saturnian (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I referred to reliable sources (Curta, Spinei, Sewter). Actually, if you read her book, you will understand that the Dacians can only be identified as Hungarians based on the context. Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
What scientific method to proof a fact is "I you read, you will understand"? This is more an encouragement for WP:NOR. It is a far way to reach the statement "Dacians=Hungarians" from interpretations and beliefs. In Curta's interpretation I did not found such statement "Dacians=Hungarians". We don't know that is the difference between the leaders who initiate the attack and the content of the attacking army. It is a fallacy believing there is no difference just because we don't have other proofs. Saturnian (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read again my quotes from Curta's and Spinei's work. They both identified the Dacians in Anna Comnena's work as Hungarians. Have you read in that two quotations anything which suggest that they identified them as Cumans or Pechenegs? (There are these three peoples mentioned in the two reliable sources.) Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read again:
  1. Curta: "In 1087, the Pechenegs north of the Danube organized another invasion, this time in association with Cumans and Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon.", he adds that "... the marauders were badly mauled and their chieftain, Tzelgu, killed...". Where is "Dacians=Hugarians" statement? "Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". The statement "Dacians=Hungarians" is result of a simple interpretation. Curta did not said "Dacians=Hugarians". Saturnian (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Spinei: "Taking advantage of the political and military crisis in the Empire, the Cumans joined the Pechenegs led by Tzelgu and the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon, and they all plundered the Balkan provinces."

"the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". This is an simple interpretation too, not a clear statement. Saturnian (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is like the sentence "In World Word II Germans under the command of Hitler attacked Russia on Eastern front" - true. Using a reduction fallacy, the interpretation would be "Romanians were not part of this", resulting "attackers=Germans" which is not true. Same fallacy was applied resulting "Dacians=Hungarians". Saturnian (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In the footnote both Curta and Spinei explicitly refers to Anna Comnena's text cited above, and Curta also refers to the reliable translation (Sewter) which explicitly identifies the Dacians and Hungarians. I have presented three academic works which identify her Dacians as Hungarians. Could you refer to an academic work stating that the Dacians were not Hungarians in Anna Comnena's work? Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you have made interpretations using fallacies based on academic works. The interpretation of Sewter's translation "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral" that "Dacians=Hungarians" is doubious too. "Dacians=Hungarians" in this context is not an indisputable fact. It is not necessary to refer an academic work stating that the Dacians were not Hungarians in Anna Comnena's work to suppress such fallacies. Saturnian (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read again my quotes from Sewter, Curta, and Spinei (three academic source). Do they identify the Dacians as Cumans or Pechenegs, or they identify them as Hungarians? Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not force me to repeat myself. Read again what I wrote from the beginning of the discussion. Saturnian (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Saturnian:, I do not force you to repeat yourself. I only ask you to answer my question with one word (yes, or no): did Sewter, Curta, and Spinei identified Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians? Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Yes, it seems I have to repeat myself. Do you really have other citations where these authors wrote something like "Dacians are irrefutably solely identified as Hungarians based on these proofs:...."? I would love to read such proofs; chronicles for example. But even so "Hungarians" term is problematic term due the multi-ethnic mixture of this population. In the citations you provided, the answer is no. None of them stated "Dacians=Hungarians" in Anna Comnena's text: "Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians" and "the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". Only a fallacious interpretation would lead to "Dacians=Hungarians". We don't know that is the difference between the leaders who initiate the attack and the content of the attacking army (Or do you really have proofs?). It is a fallacy believing there is no difference just because we don't have other proofs. The multi-ethnic Hungarian population is another issue. Then these authors mention Hungarians under the command of the Solomon but no proof was provided backing this (Or do you really have such proofs?). Sorry, I'm still waiting for these proofs if you have them. Otherwise it is a filibustering supporting a fallacious interpretation. Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So if my understanding is correct, you say that the cited three academic sources identify her "Dacians" and Hungarians. Sorry, but I am not willing to carry out OR as I have several times mentioned during our conversation. This is WP, with well established rules, including WP:NOR. Of couse, if you provide an academic source which substantiates your above claim, I will be glad to continue our discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannot follow you, sorry. There is no proof to conclude Dacians are Hungarians in this context. If Anna Comnena mentioned Dacians under Solomon and these authors mention Hungarians under Solomon, it doesn't necessary mean Dacians are Hungarians unless the authors explicitly stated that (perhaps providing a hint about how they reached this conclusion). It is a fallacious interpretation, a WP:OR, to reach that statement. The established rules prohibit such interpretations. It seems I'm asking you in vain to bring something to support this statement :| Saturnian (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand your above concern. (1) Sewter explicitly identifies Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians (note 23 on page 122 of his work cited above and in the article). (3) Curta explicitly refers to both Anna Comnena's work and Sewter's translation when writing of Pechenegs, Cumans and Hungarians instead of Anna Comnena's Schythians, Sarmatians and Dacians (Curta 2006 page 300). (3) As I mentioned below, Spinei explicitly writes, "In the biography of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos written by his daughter Anna, it is said that the invasion was due to a numerous army under the command of the Scythian Tzelgu and made up of Sarmatians, Scythians and Dacians, the latter being headed by Salomon. The ethnonyms above designated the Cumans, the Pechenegs and the Hungarians." (Spinei (1986), pages 93-94). Consequently, all three scholars unanimously and without doubt identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. The article states this, nothing more. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Until now the citations provided did not explicitly stated Dacians were Hungarians. Only this NEW citation of Spinei, "The ethnonyms above (Sarmatians, Scythians and Dacians) designated the Cumans, the Pechenegs and the Hungarians.", explicitly stated that. I asked this for days. Then what is the underlying base for this statement? Are they indicating a primary source (Yes or no)? If yes, which ones? Are these authors use a chain of references - Curta refers Spinei, and Spinei others for example? Please don't tell me it's forbidden to know more about the source of this statement. 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read carefully my comments above, but if you want I will repeat them 1000 times.. (1) Sewter explicitly identifies her Dacians as Hungarians. (2) Curta and Spinei use the word "Hungarians" instead of "Dacians" when they write of Tzelgu's attack against the Byzantine Empire. They explicitly refer to Anna Comnena's text. Consequently, as I have informed you several times, (1) there is and never was any doubt that they identify her Dacians as Hungarians; (2) these scholars use Anna Comnena's text (=a primary source) when identifying her Dacians as Hungarians. Of course, anybody can challange any scholar's view, however, when editing WP we can only use scholarly works. Actually, the context of her references always proves that her Dacians are Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As I already told you using Hungarians word in that attack it doesn’t mean "Dacians=Hungarians". Indeed Hungarians were part of that attack but it doesn't necessary mean "Dacians=Hungarians". If there are is no proof supporting "Dacians=Hungarians" statement, their works are just stories. At least one of the authors should specify the source of this statement to be credible. Until now the books mentioned do not deserve the status of reliable source. Saturnian (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read what a reliable source means in our community. All three (four) sources are reliable sources for WP purposes. They all identify Anna Comnena's Dacians with Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As usually, Borsoka forged the history. His map is from another era.

The Kingdom of Hungary was very small in the XIth century According to Țiplic, Trnsivania was occupied in some stages:

File:Transilvania.jpg
Phases of the occupation of Transilvania between the Xth and XIIIth centuries

I.M.Țiplic, Considerații cu privire la liniile întarite de tipul prisacilor din transilvania, Acta terrae Septemcastrensis, I, pag. 147-164

I.M. Țiplic, Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages (7th -13th C.), Heidelberg-Alba Iulia, 2006, ISBN 3-929848-54-6

Eurocentral (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Forging the maps Borsoka tried to put Hungarians closer to Haemus. But the discussion is about what Byzantines knew about Dacians.

The philologist and historian Sayous clearly wrote in HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21

"Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains"

For this History, Sayous received the Prix of French Academy (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE)

Mr. Borsoka, why do you come with your "original" interpretation ? You make us to loose time with your aberations. Eurocentral (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eurocentral:, please try to concentrate on the borders presented on "your" map. Where is situated the easternmost border of the Kingdom of Hungary (even according to this map)? Yes, you are right: to the north of the slopes of the Haemus Mountains. Please also try to read the quotes from modern academic works (Sewter, Curta, Spinei) above. How they translate Anna Comnena's Dacians? Yes, you are right: they translate it as Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


The word Slopes shows where lived the Dacians and Thraces (near mountains). In that times, majority of Hungarians lived under tents and they preffered plains. The word Slopes shows very clear that your have an "original" interpretation. Curta and Spinei only agreed, but in connection with other topics, not with Haemus By the way, Anna and Sayous opinions was the same as the Kekaumenos data.

Please stop your "original" interpretations. Give us quotes and not your ideas. Your ideas are from another movie.

Eurocentral (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


A huge stupidity is the association of Thraces with Hungarians !!! Let's find Thraces in Hungary! Eurocentral (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka sustained: Hungarians and Thraces lived on the Northern Slopes!!! Huge stupidity !
Yes, it would have been a huge stupidity. However, I have never stated this. Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Incredible! Do anybody identify Anna Comnene's "Thraces" as Hungarians? Who? I am sure there is no academic work suggesting this. On the other hand, the identification of her "Dacians" as Hungarians is a well-established scholarly consensus. You must have been really tired in the morning that you were unable to remember the quotes from academic sources that I provided above. I repeat them just for you: :::: (1) Note 23 on page 122 (which is connected to the text "the Dacians" on the same page) is the following: "The Hungarians." (2) Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon." Curta's interpretation (Curta 2006, page 300): "In 1087, the Pechenegs north of the Danube organized another invasion, this time in association with Cumans and Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon.", he adds that "... the marauders were badly mauled and their chieftain, Tzelgu, killed...". Curta explicitly refers to Anna Comnena's work and its standard translation by Sewter, when identifies Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. (3) Victor Spinei also identifies Anna Comnena's Scythians, Sarmatians and Dacians as Pechenegs, Cumans and Hungarians, respectively: "Taking advantage of the political and military crisis in the Empire, the Cumans joined the Pechenegs led by Tzelgu and the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon, and they all plundered the Balkan provinces." (page 120 Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.). Borsoka (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Eurocentral: Why you are repeating this? As I mentioned before, these remarks are not sufficient to prove "Dacians=Hungarians" in this context. Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The above quotes prove that three scholars identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. We do not need any further prove for WP purposes, because the article states this, not any more. Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Note Eurocentral (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC) About: Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon...

But Solomon in that times just retired from the civil war. He battled against the King of Hungary at Oradea Mica and was beaten. He was supported by only Romanians and Cumans (or Pechenegs) and Ruthens. After battle he came back to Romanians for shelter (Cumans lived under tends). So in his expedition to Balkans he was supported by Romanians and not by Hungarians who were his enemies.

Read: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 (In this Chronicle shows that Solomon asked help from Romanians and Ruthens)

V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid-Thirteen Century, Brill, 2009, p.118 (Here Spinei wrote about Russian Chronicle)

And so, the other observations have same reply. You make a big confusion. Eurocentral (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting point: What was the relationship between the king of Hungary and this former king, Solomon? Have they cooperate together? Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Spinei's text: "During the second half of the eleventh century, hordes of Pechenegs continued to inhabit the left bank of the Danube. In 1068, led by Osul, they launched a great attack against Transylvania and Hungary through the mountain passes across the Carpathian range. .... On their way back, they were ambushed and defeated by King Salomon ... A west-Russian chronograph misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romanias. ..." If you try to concentrate, you can realize that while Anna Comnena writes of a raid by the Pechenegs (and Cumans and Hungarians) against the Byzantine Empire, Spinei here writes of a plundering raid against Hungary. You understand that Spinei writes that King Salomon was defeated, but in Spinei's text it is King Salomon who defeated the enemy. Please try to concentrate or have a cofee. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Poor Borsoka. He never understand. Please put your glases and read again. It is about the battle of Oradea Mica (kisvarda). The Russian chronicle (the same page as about Chirales) tells more if you put your glasses. Only 3-4 lines after the explanations about Chirales battle.

Only if you know Russian. Spinei only introduced and commented this chonicle in his works. Eurocentral (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eurocentral: Please change this tone. It is not useful. Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I alway read with my glasses on, that is why I could realize that you were unable to differentiate two events: a king (Solomon) defeats the enemy in Hungary in 1068, the same person (already an ex-king) is defeated in the Byzantine Empire in 1089. Otherwise, Ya chut'-chut' govoryu po-russki. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Here I explain again: There was 3 battles of Solomon in connection with Romanians:

1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (battled against Pechenegs and Romanians) 2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Ludovic I (Laios); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk) 3 Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica).

Very difficult to understand. Read and read again. Especially the chonicle. As usual, the history is a surprise for you if you read only Hungarian sources. All these explain why Dacians were Romanians and not Hungarians in 1087. Eurocentral (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you provide an academic source in order to substantiate your above claim. Do you really think that "Ludovic I/Laios" (who reigned between 1342 and 1382) owned a time machine to be able to defeat Solomon in 1085? Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


@Eurocentral: Indeed there is a time frame difference between King Solomon and King Ludovic I. Perhaps it was Géza I of Hungary instead of King Ludovic I. Can you provide the sources? Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
EXPLANATIONS:

1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (Solomon battled against Pechenegs and Romanians)

2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Vladislav I (in Transilvania they call him Laios but when translated is Ludovic); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk). Solomon promised to Kutesk all Transilvania if Vladislav will be killed. Kutesk asked Solomon to merry his daughter if Solomon wants military help.Vladislav won the battle.


3 Raid and Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and Comans and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica). Tzelgu (the Coman leader of expedition) and Solomon were killed in battle.

References:

For 1: Spinei & Russian chronicle: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241

For 2: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 It States that Solomon asked help from Ruthenians and Romanians. Spinei (Moldova in Sec. XI-XIV) showed that the expedition was through Coman/Romanian lands and Ruthenia and through the Ruthenia-Hungary mountain pass. This is why battle took place in NE of Hungary.

For 2: Here we find that Solomon remained without own men:

Marek Meško,, Pecheneg Groups in the Balkans (ca. 1053-1091) according to the Byzantine Sources. In: The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them.Editors Florin Curta & Bogdan Maleon, 2013.p.195 Mesko showed: ...only Kutesk, Salomon and a few other nomads were able to escape alive. In this case results no Hungarians will be with Solomon in next raids.


For 3: Here sources missing. Hungarian historians profited (Moravcsik,G. Byzantinoturcica II, p.116) and wrote that Dacians were Hungarians. But Solomon was the enemy of Hungarians (a renegade) after the battle against Vladislav at Oradea Mica; He married a Coman women and lived between Romanians and Comans. From Comans (under Tzelgu) and Romanians, Solomon started in 1087 the campaign in Balkans. This is why Anna told Solomon and Dacians. Hungarians were enemies of Solomon (who maybe left Christianity after his marriage) at that time, considering the invasion of 1085. Also, Hungarians were attacked frequently by Comans.

I found some sources stating Romanian (Vlach) participation with Comans in Balkan raids but a final conclusion will be ready soon.

Little by little we can demonstrate that Dacians were Romanians (Vlachs) in Ana Comnena work. Eurocentral (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) In this debate, there is no reference to scholarly works written by Hungarian historians. Two Romanian historians (Florin Curta and Victor Spinei) and a British scholar (E. R. A. Sewter) have so far been mentioned, who unanimously identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. (2) In his work cited above (Moldova in Sec. XI-XIV), Spinei explicitly identifies Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. He writes: "In the biography of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos written by his daughter Anna, it is said that the invasion was due to a numerous army under the command of the Scythian Tzelgu and made up of Sarmatians, Scythians and Dacians, the latter being headed by Salomon. The ethnonyms above designated the Cumans, the Pechenegs and the Hungarians." (Spinei, Victor (1986). Moldavia in the 11th-14th Centuries.Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Româna, pages 93-94). Please do not abuse his name. (3) Eurocentral, please add references to academmic works (author, title, publisher, page) when stating anything, because this is a basic principle of our community. (4) For the time being, in order to help you to avoid misunderstanding and to refrain you from abusing well-known scholars' name, I suggest you the following introductory text for all your communication: "Romanian historians have identified Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians, but, according to my own original research, they are wrong because ....". Borsoka (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The opinions about the real name of Daces belong to Sayous and other Romanian historians (there are a lot from the XIXth and the XXth century) not to me. The Russian Chronicle I added may help you to understand that the Romanians were the Daces of Solomon in 1087.

By the way, you said: " Dawes translated the "Cral" as the "Prince of Bulgaria", but his view was not accepted by modern historians", because at that time Bulgaria did not exist, and there was no Prince of Bulgaria whose kinswomen was the wife of John II Komnenos.

Borsoka confusions:

The relatives were from the part of former cral/king; even after death, the relatives claims they belong to cral/king family. At that time (1106) of the Oath, Alexius was emperor and his wife was Irene, daughter of Andronikos Doukas and Maria of Bulgaria (family of former cral/king). John II Komnenos started as emperor after Alexios death in 1118. His wife was Hungarian and received (after passing to Roman empire) the same name as Irene, the wife of Alexius . This is your confusion.

A lot of documents from Misplaced Pages are based on Dawes translation. So where is your majority? Eurocentral (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, at least three scholars - Curta, Spinei, Sewter - have been named who identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians (as it has been proven by several quotes from their works). The present text of the article represent all relevant POVs, including the claim from the 1870s that these Dacians should be identified as Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think user:Eurocentral thinks that modern Romanian scholars are not qualified enough. They are misled by evil Hungarian historians. Sorry, but this debate does not make any sense. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


At least three scholars (secondary sources) identified Daces as Romanians:

1)E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21

2)Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500, University Press of America, 2010, p.58

3)Gh. Sincai, Opere, Hronica romanilor, tom 1, Bucuresti,1967, p.325-326

These works show there is a controverse in this question. This does not imply others historians are not qualified. It is a simply scientific controverse in wich 2 Hungarians (Borsoka and Fakirbakir) refuse to observe it. Eurocentral (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) Sayous wrote his book in 1876 and Gheorghe Șincai in 1811 (!!!!). Grumeza is not a historian, his work is not a reliable source according to WP's standards. (2) Late 20th-century and 21th-century scholars (Sewter, Curta, Spinei) identify Anna Comnene's Dacians as Hungarians. (3) Both theories are presented in the article. There is no point in continuing this debate. Maybe the reference to the identification of her Dacians as Vlachs should be deleted (in lack of reference to modern academic works), but I do not insist. Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Grumeza : "He holds a Bachelors Degree in Education and a Masters Degree in Education from the University of Bucharest, Romania. He completed courses in Humanistic Education at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut, and courses in Research in Education at Hunter College, New York. He has a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Sciences from the University of Metaphysical Sciences." Fakirbakir (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Origin of the confusions between Daces and Hungarians in Alexiad

The sentence that was used by nationalist historians from Hungary in order to make confusion is extracted from Alexiad: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" (book XIII, Alexiad) But there are a lot of books that showed the term is for a slavonic (maybe Bulgarian) prince:

1. TS Hughes, Travels in Sicilly, Greece and Albania, University of Michigan Library, page 6. wrote: The title of Cral is a Sclavonic word signifying king.

2 Dawes, who translated Alexiad wrote at page 357: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" and added a note: "Prince of Bulgaria". Dawes simply explained what means Cral: a slavonic word

Some nationalist Hungarians, including Moravcsic, wrote some works which influenced Curta and other readers claiming Cral = Kirally. Sayous as philologist understood the meaning of Cral. It was easy to see it was a slavonic prince.

The word exist in different forms in all Eastern and Central Europe. Even in Romania there is a town named Craiova. Eurocentral (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that E. R. A. Sewter, Florin Curta and Victor Spinei - three experts identifying Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians - are Hungarian nationalist historians? Yes, Dawes in 1928 translated the "Cral" as the "Prince of Bulgaria", but his view was not accepted by modern historians, because at that time Bulgaria did not exist, and there was no Prince of Bulgaria whose kinswomen was the wife of John II Komnenos. Yes, the Hungarian world for the king is of Slavic origin. However, we do not need to continue our original research. There are three 21th-century (Romanian) historians who identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. Therefore this statement is based on academic sources and it is not represented as the only POV, because about 150 years ago there was a French historian, who identified them as Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


:About forgery in History: The episode with the Cral was in 1109 when Alexius was emperor. His wife was Irene, born in 1066, daughter of Andronikos Doukas and Maria of Bulgaria, granddaughter of Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria.
About absent-mindedness: Anna Comnena writes: "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral, kinsman of the Basileus John's wife..." (page 434, Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (Translated by E. R. A. Sewter) (1969). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7.). You may not know, but "Alexius" and "John" are two differents names. Therefore the wife of Alexius is not relevant, because Anna Comnena wrote of the wife of John.
About pale-mindedness: We talked until now about Elisabeth Dawes translation:the envoys who had come from Dacia from the Cral , the Queen's relation, Zupanus Peres and Simon and the envoys of Riscardus Siniscardus, the Nobilissimus Basilius, a eunuch, and the notary Constantine."

Reference: Anna Comnena, The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena, Translated by Elizabeth A. S. Dawes Publisher K. Paul, 1928

It is obvious, Sewter added words from his imagination. Dawes never talked about John II. You may not know, but "Alexius" was emperor and "John" was only a caesar (son of Emperor) at the time of episode. I sugest you to read the original document of Anna. Eurocentral (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that Sewter added words, instead of Dawes failed to translate words? Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I chequed the Hungarian translation: there is no reference to "Basileus John" either. Nevertheless, there was no "Prince of Bulgaria" in 1108 and no ruler of Bulgaria was styled "Kral". Consequently, the only ruler related to the basileus and styled "kral" was the king of Hungary at that time. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the relatives of Cral Irene were Maria of Bulgaria, granddaughter of former king Ivan Vladislav. It is obvious that the envoys from the Dacia from the Cral were a Bulgarians (as Dawes stated) and not Hungarians. Counting years became difficult for Hungarians. Eurocentral (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There are different opinions and they need to be known and not censored. The French book is from 1900 and not from 150 years ago (another forgery of you)Eurocentral (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with you: there is no place for censorship in WP. Here you can read that it was first published in 1876 (138 years ago)

About rules:

In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals

books published by university presses

university-level textbooks

magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

mainstream newspapers

The rules do not mention the negation of the XIXth century works. Eurocentral (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Budapest, "Athenaeum" was a respected publishing house

Eurocentral (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a big mess here. In the citation "the envoys who had come from Dacia from the Cral , the Queen's relation, Zupanus Peres and Simon and the envoys of Riscardus Siniscardus, the Nobilissimus Basilius, a eunuch, and the notary Constantine." (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad13.asp), if Cral/Kral would be Hungarian, then Zupanus Peres and Simon would be Hungarians too? Or they do not appear in the Hungarian translation of Comnena's text? Saturnian (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ispán (=Zupan) Peres and Simon are also mentioned in the Hungarian translation. Borsoka (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm repeating my question, so Zupanus Peres and Simon were Hungarians too? The notary Constantine was Hungarian too? Saturnian (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they were. No, he was not. Please read the text more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sections

The "Historiography: origin of the theories" section of the article clearly describes the pro-continuity historians' POV of the origin of the opposite - immigrationist - theory. Is there any WP which prescribes that one statement should be repeated in an article? Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral

You have been reverting edits without adding any explanation. Please stop edit-warring. Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following sentence about the root of the debates over the Romanians' ethnogenesis, which is based on a Romanian scholar's work, was deleted: "There is "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe": the territories to the south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the Danube was only for 165 years under Roman rule." I would like to understand the reason why this sentence was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The first sentence of the lead only presents one of the two or three theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Could anybody suggest a neutral wording? Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All we have to do is to read other similar pages. Starting with irredentist opinions is not a Wiki policy. The main introduction have to contain neutral points of view. Eurocentral (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the lead at present is not neutral and assumes the correctness of one point of view among several. It would be better to open with something like: "There are several theories about the origin of the Romanians." Then give a brief summary of each. I am definitely not an expert on this myself, but I don't think the origin in the Dacians is such a firmly-established consensus view as the lead asserts. Wallace McDonald (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories: