History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedMedieval Transylvania

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Medieval Transylvania
    Posted: 21-Sep-2005 at 05:16

I have discussed it with Decebal and we both agreed that it could be a good idea to open a topic about the medieval Transylvania. There are many controversies between Romanian and Hungarian historians in this matter and nacionalists often used this historical question as an excuse to hostility. The national feelings might be dim the view of historians also. Decebal and I opened this topic to come to know every theories, the viewpoints of each other. So I ask every Hungarian and Romanian members to be cool-minded and save this topic from flame.

 

The first question should be the connection of Transylvania and Hungary in medieval times.

 

Decebal sent me these links to this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebenb%C3%BCrgen>>

http://media.ici.ro/history/harti_q.htm>>

http://medievalia.tripod.com/>>

 

I have not found good sources in English language yet.

In French:

http://www.mek.oszk.hu/02100/02114/index.phtml

In German:

http://www.mek.oszk.hu/02100/02113/index.phtml

These are translations of History of Transylvania published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. If there is any official Hungarian view, this is it.



Edited by Raider
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2005 at 07:49

I have read those links above and I have some questions.

The voievodat is the old transilvanian political organisation and it belongs to the Romanian system – in Moldova and Muntenia

1. Why voievodate is so special? What are the differences to any other principalities etc.?

2. Why did he or she think that the voivodate is a Romanian political system? The voivod word itself is slavic and there were many voivodates in Poland. Romanian historians proved that voivodship system was transferred from Transylvania to the other Romanian principalities.

 

The Hungarian administrative structure consisted of comitat, a copy of Carolinian system, while at the east of Tisa the only political reality remained the voievodat.

3. The History of Transylvania states that the voivod of Transylvania originally was the comes/ispán of Fehér. There were counties/ comitatuses in Transylvania. What does it means that the only political reality remained…

Edited by Raider
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2005 at 12:12

I did some research of some Romanian websites and I translated some relevant information.

 

Romanian Wikipedia (translated by me)

Voievod, a term of slavic origin, is one of the titles by which are known the slavic warlords. This term was subsequently borrowed by the vlahs north of the Danube. The meaning and significance of this term varies depending on the period and the geographic area.

In the sense accepted by the cancellaries from Moldova and Wallachia, a voievod title implied an army leader, as opposed to a "Domn" which implies an administrative leader (this is taken from the byzantine terminology). Starting from the 17th century, after the Ottoman Empire takes over most of the political and military power, the title of voievod merges with the title of "Domn" or "Domnitor", and becomes in the following century a high noble title equivalent with a pasha within the Ottoman Empire.

In Transilvania, the title of voievod is perceived as a noble title equivalent with the one of principe, which is the form which the Western culture uses. The term is preserved until the absorption of Transylvania in the ArchDuchy of Austria in 1691. The last vioevod of Transilvania is Francisc Rákóczi II, which uses the nominal title until 1711.

The title of vioevod in Transilvania is best preserved in its incipient form by the vlah nobles in  Ţara Haţegului and Maramureş, where this title, together with the one of cneaz, keeps on having the meaning of noble but also of a leader of armies or militias.


Transylvanian Voievozi

Mercurius, principe of Transylvana 1111
Leustachius, voievod of Transylvania and comite of Dăbâca - cca 1164
Szegfor - 1199 - 1200
Gyula from the clan Kán - 1201 - 1202
Nicolae - 1201 - 1202
Benedict - 1202 - 1206 şi 1208 - 1209
Mihai - 1209 - 1212
Bertold de Andechs-Merania - 1212 - 1213
Nicolae - 1213
Gyula from the clan Kán - 1213 - 1214
Simon - 1215
Hippolit/Ipóth - 1216 - 1217
Rafael - 1217 - 1218
Neuka - 1219 - 1221
Paul - 1221 - 1222
Mihai - 1222
Pózsa - 1227
Gyula from the clan Ratold - 1230 - 1233
Dionys from the clan Türje - 1233 - 1234
Serafin - 1235
Pózsa - 1235 - 1241
Lorenţ - 1242 - 1252
Ernest from the clan Akos - 1252 - 1260
Ladislau from the clan Borsa - 1263 - 1264
Nicolae son of Paul - 1264 - 1270
Matei from the clan Csák - 1270 - 1272
Nicolae son of Paul - 1272 - 1273
Ioan - 1273
Nicolae son of Paul - 1273 - 1274
Matei from the clan Csák - 1274 - 1275
Ladislau from the clan Borsa - 1275
Ugrinus from the clan Csák - 1275 - 1276
Matei from the clan Csák - 1276
Nicolae from the clan Pok - 1277
Finta from the clan Aba - 1278 - 1279
Ştefan - 1280
Roland from the clan Borsa - 1282
Apor from the clan Pécz - 1283 - 1284
Roland from the clan Borsa - 1284 - 1285
Moise/Moius - 1289

The following is my translation from

http://www.alburnusmaior.ro/Ro/situri/Istoric_Marinescu_2/01 _I_4_Voievodatul%20Transilvaniei.htm

 

The first political leader was called "principe of Transylvania", and was Mercurius, as attested by an act dated in 1111. Thsi dignitary doesn't seem to have actually exercised his duties in Transylvania, but rather stayed at the royal court. Afterwards, we encounter the title of voievod of Transylvania. The first to have carried this title was Eustaţiu - Leustachius waywoda Transilvaniae [G. Wenczel, Codex diplomaticus, VI, p. 486.]. By naming a voievod, isntead of a principe, the crown was forced to recognize the power of the old autochtonous institutions and accept for their representative the title of voievod, which was the title used by the indigenous population. The organization of Transylvania as a voievodat, and the survival of other vlah institutions: cnezates, the division of the land in "ţări" (countries), "obiceiul pământului - jus valachicum -" (law of the land), and the Saxon and Szekely counties all contributed to the autonomy of Transylvania from the Magyar crown.

However, after the 2nd half of the 12th century, because of the land allocation system practiced by the Hungarian crown, this autonomy beagn to be substantially reduced. Now, the large feudal domains were established, whether they be part of the secular or church arms. This phenomenon increased the servitude of the free peasants. The new land allocation system, started by king Andras II (1205-1235), which is the perpetual allocation (iure perpetuo), instead of the normal land allocation (donatio), contributed to the process of strengthening of the economic and political power of the nobility, to the detriment of the king. Therefore, in the begininning of the 13th century, Transylvania had formed a strong secular and clerical aristocracy. It tried by all means to trasnfrom the royal comitates in noble comitates.

Crowned in 1308, Robert of Anjou had to recognize large prerogatives for Transylvania which defined it as a distinctive country from Hungary. The prerogatives of the voievod consisted of the mobilization and leadership of the army, appointments in the administrative apparel, the execution of judicial functions. The vioevod was seconded by a general assembly of Tranylvanian nobles, which got together periodically, depending on the political needs of the country. With time, this assembly constitituted of the representatives of the privileged class, trasnformed into a Diet.

In the first place, this was constituted of the representatives of the Romanian people, as well as the nobles, which were mostly Magyar, and the representatives of the Saxons and the Szekely. In 1437, after the powerful social movements in Transylvania (the peasant revolt), a fundamental change occured.

The institution of the voievod was strenghtened permanently, the centrifugal tendences becoming more and more prevalent, which trend is proved by the instition of veritable feudal dynasties. During the time of Iancu de Hunedoara (Janos Hunyadi) (1441-1456), the country is put in an exceptional position. It constituted the centre of the European hopes for stopping the Ottoman expansion. The political and military successes of Iancu de Hunedoara were possible due to the support from the large peasant population, the cnezes, the burghers and minor nobles, and the collaboration between the various ethnic groups from the Soth East of Europe, as well as the common front with the other 2 principalities.

At the end of the 15th century, the independence tendencies were so far gone that the voievod Stefan Bathory used to proclaim that he was king and voievod of Transylvania and whoever shall complain to the Hungarian king about this better have 2 heads, so that if he loses one, he could keep the other.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2005 at 12:30

My view on this issue is the following:

Between the 9th and 12th centuries, the Magyars conquered Transylvania from the local Romanian and Slavic population. This population already had a local aristocracy and land system different from the system adopted by the Magyars. Between the 12th and the 14th centuries, the Magyars phased out the power of this Romanian and Slavic aristocracy. Some of them were assimilated, others left for Wallachia and Moldova. In fact, Romanians accept that the royal lines and the principalities themselves of Wallachia and Moldova were founded by Transylvanian nobles of mixed Romanian and Slavic origin who were leaving Transylvania due to "persecution" or simply losing their traditional privileges in their homeland.

While still in the early stages of consolidating their power in Transylvania, from the 11th to the 13th centuries, the Magyars had to concede certain liberties and some autonomy to the Romanian and Slav elite. After the 13th century, the political power of this elite passed on to Magyar nobles. They took advantage of the existing framework and used some of the existing Romanian and Slavic institutions, to gain more power and autonomy than would have been possible otherwise. After the 13th century, Transylvania did have some measure of autonomy, but the power was not in the hands of Romanians anymore, but rather in the hands of Magyar noblemen, or sometimes of mixed origin or assimilated Romanian noblemen.

By the late Middle Ages, Transylvania was led mostly by Hungarians, and Romanians were left with a fringe role to play in politics, although they were the majority of the population. But the early political situation, and the early Romanian institutions laid the framework for an autonomy of the Transylvanian Hungarians which would not have been possible otherwise.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Sep-2005 at 05:45
Other resource:

Transylvania : A short history

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02083/index.phtml
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2005 at 04:02

I have translated some parts of History of Transylvania. (I have some difficulties with English language so I apologize for the wrong grammar.)

Transylvanian territories south to river Maros remained in a different status than the Northern half of Transylvania.At first this area was not divided to counties, but was a single province headed by a voivod (in 1111 princeps ultrasilvanus) a higher rank than the comes/megyésispán. Perhabs this rank was a posterior of the former Bulgarian viceroys. Anyhow emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetos used the name vojevoda to the Hungarian tribal leaders, he might be heard that the Transylvanian slavs used this name to their Hungarian Lords. Northern and Southern Transylvania were separated not only in organization, but also in estate-relations. In the North the descendants of the original Hungarian conquerors could endure, while in the South squatter families (perhabs the exception of the Gyógyis) settled down during the time of St. Stephen and later. (…) All this points to a different time and circumstances of the Hungarian occupation than the Northern part of Transylvania.

(...)

So the last of the gyulas was named Prokuj. His name is a compositon of the slavic prok=’ rest’ or ’remain’ and the új=’uncle’ words (the latter is clearly an intimation to St. Stephen). (…) The slavic origin of the Prok(uj)’s name is not strange because Bogát (=’rich’) and Zombor/Zsombor (=’buffalo’) also have a name with slavic origin and the gyula rank was substituted by the word ’vojevoda’(=’warlord’). The later voivod/vajda rank was evolved from this denomination. Slavic ambience and multilingualism in the court of gyulas was indicated by the names of Zombor’s daughters too. Sarolt and Karold wore bulgar-turkic names as was an established  custom among Hungarian aristocracy. Their names meant White Lady and Black Lady. (…) In Zombor’s court of Gyulafehérvár slavic, bulgar-turkic and finno-ugric Hungarian was used together. This is proved by Thietmar who used the name Beleknegini to Sarolt. He translated this name to ’beautiful lady’ (pulchera domina) so he had to know the Hungarian interpretation of the bulgar-turkic aldi=’stoat’ (in Hungarian menyét) to menyasszony (bride). Menyasszony should be translated to him as Lady (in Hungarian asszony). On the other hand he used bulgar-turkic ’sar’ (=white) as slavic bele. One son of Prok(uj) was named Buja (in slavic ’Brave’) the other son was named Bonyha (in bulgar-turkic ’Little Bull’, see: his grandfather’s name was Zombor=’Buffallo’)

 

(...)

 

After king Stephen had seized power he organized counties between the Nagy-Szamos and the Maros –as we have seen this before-, and these were deaconate districts also. The whole territory of gyula Prokuj as a conquered country became royal estate.

 

(...)

 

At first Its territory formed one, large province named ’Fehér’. This province was headed by a voivod who was usually a Lord from outer Hungary and who resided in the royal court. The first voivod appeared as ’Mercurius princeps ultrasilvanus’ in 1111 and 1113. He evidently the same person than ’Mercurio comes Bellegratae’ in 1097 so he had to be comes/ispán of Fehérvár. The denomination voivod appeared in charters in the very end of the XII. century. Before that time it appeares as comes of Fehérvár in 1177 and 1183. Voivod still two times (1200,1201) was titled to voivod and comes of Fehérvár together. After this only the title voivod appears.

 

(...)

 

The List of Várad in which the outcome of legal actions and ordeals were noted provides plentiful information about the organization of the Transylvanian counties and social groups. This List proves that those Transylvanian territories which were organized by county system fitted to the general Hungarian advance without every specific flavor, even if slower. (…) South to the Aranyos and Maros the situation was differing. Here the county system -under the voivod- evolved only at the lower stream of the two Küküllős and at the banks of the Maros near to Gyulafehérvár. This area was later Fehér, Hunyad and Küküllő counties. (…) Under the gyulas  the bulk of slavic population lived here and in the beginning of the XIII. century Lords from outer Hungary (the first members of mundane aristocracy) also settled down here and North-East to the territories of the original Hungarian conquerors’ descendants where sparsely slavic population lived. This was an age of break-up and mass donations of the royal counties and the waves reached Transylvania too.

 

(...)

 

Authority of the voivod administering Southern Transylvania expanded North to the Maros only in the XIII. century because the ’conquring clans’ and people directly dependent on the king lived under different law and gradual equalization needed time.

 

 

 

Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2005 at 04:31

Below I summarize what I have found in Pál Engel: Honor, Castle, County (originally Ispánság). Essays on the administration of the Anjou Kingdom.

Accoding to Engel the administration of the Anjou Kingdom based on a honor system. The barons of the country (the palatine, the bans, and judge of the royal court, the voivod etc.  got large honor estates and castles. Honor (in old Hungarian becsü) generally consisted of several comes/count title.  The baron was only the keeper of royal property belong to the honor. Actually the baron's men (familiaris / servitor) administer the counties.

The voivod of Transylvania was a Baron of Hungary. This was the 3rd highest rank after the Count Palatine and the Ban of Croatia and Slavonia. The voivodship was a barony, an honor just like whole Slavonia to the ban and North Western Hungary to the Count Palatine. So in this system the position of Transylvania basically did not differe to any other parts of the realm.

Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2005 at 04:59

Some more facts:

- Medieval Hungarian kings did not mention Transylvania in the royal title. (They use even the titles: king of Serbia and Bulgaria. Countries which was only temporary and partly conquered.)

- In official court text Transylvania was generally mentioned as the Transylvanian parts of the Kingdom.

- If we see the list of the voivods a lot of them are Hungarians (Mihaly and Simon might be Slovak, they come from the territory of modern Slovakia). They were belonged to some Hungarian clans. It turns out from this list that they usually administered Transylvania to a short term. It is clear that this rank was rotated among Hungarian nobles and was not an inherent title.

- Transylvania has a parliament, but this parliament was not a legislator, but -according to my sources- a tribunal.

All in all my opinion is: Transylvania was a part of the Hungarian Kingdom, but because of her distance to the political center and her special historical background had an autonomy within the Kingdom.

I think that the two theory has a common base. When the Hungarians arrived they found a native population. This native population made a great influence to the later political frame work. The differences: according to Hungarians the country of the gyulas has a much more relevance, and naturally do not speak Romanian influece (only pure slav) because of the migration theory. (If Romanians didn’t live in Transylvania when the Hungarians arrive they couldn’t influenced the later political organization.)

 PS. According to Romanian sources Transylvania was captured gradually in the 9-12 th century. Hungarians usually says that whole Transylvania belonged to Hungary since the 9th century. I think I have found a solution which resolve this apparent (?) difference. Hungarians differs gyepü (frontier) and határ (border). Határ is a line where one country nominally ends and an other country begins. Gyepü is a line where public administration ends and border guards stands. In early medieval times there were a large gyepüelve (area beyond the gyepüs and inside the border) around Hungary. I have read that the Transylvanian gyepü was expanded between the 9-12th century. I think that Romanian historians speaks about the gyepü when they speak gradual conquest and Hungarian historians speak about the border.



Edited by Raider
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2005 at 10:34

The voievod of Transylvania was naturally a Hungarian, because no Magyar king would aprove of the nomination of a Romanian or Slav voievod who could challenge the authority of the Magyars. Transylvania was not an united kingdom when it was conquered by the Magyars, as opposed to Bulgaria or Serbia, but rather a series of voievodates and cnezates . The Magyar crown was not about to recognize the concept that Transylvania was one unit, since this would encourage tendances for autonomy or even independence. Claiming to be king of Bulgaria or Serbia was simply a means of claiming nominal authority over those countries.

Referring to the question of the Magyar conquest and colonization of Transylvania, I'm quoting form the article posted under the heading "history of Germans in Transylvania" in the General world History section on AE. The article was written by Dr. Konrad Gündisch, a German who may be considered a somewhat neutral party.


The advancement of the Magyars through Transylvania during the 10th to 12th centuries had a lasting effect on the historic development of the region, which was described from the Pannonian perspective as the "Land beyond the Forests". Taking the land of Transylvania occurred in several steps and was influenced by developing feudalism in Transylvania and by the relations with the Byzantine Empire and with the Bulgaro-Vlach Tsardom.

Initially they settled in Western Transylvania where salt deposits were or salt shipments had to be secured. This was the region at the Somesu (Kleinen Somesch), following the victory of the Hungarian general commander Tuhutum over the local duke Gelou, and the region at the central Mures under the leadership of a Gyula (prince of a clan), who selected Weißenburg for his residence. After dethroning the headstrong Gyula in 1003, St. Stephen tied this territory, defined as "very large and rich land", closer to the Hungarian monarchy. A victory over the Pechenegs (1068 near Kyrieleis) ended their short lived reign and expanded the Hungarian state to the east. King Ladislaus the Saint (1077-1095) shifted the border to the upper Mures. In the 12th century the Hungarians moved to the Olsul (Alt) but the East and South Carpathians were reached only at the beginning of the 13th century. Now all of Transylvania was part of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom.

Traces of the 10- to 40-km wide protective barriers built by the Magyars bear evidence of advances in stages. These desolate strips (Lat. indagines, Hung. Gyepü) had earth fortresses and border guard settlements at passable locations (Hung. kapuk). Many names of villages and marsh (like Kapus/Kopisch) remind even today of the border barriers. Guardians, organized armed farmers and peasants were settled at the gates to defend the borders. As a reward they received personal freedom in groups.

Among the most important border guards were the Szeklers. They were originally most likely a Turk-Clan who associated early with the Magyars. There is proof of Szekler villages on the west and east border of Hungary and in Transylvania along the protective barriers, which advanced several times during the conquest. The Szeklers reached the present settlements during the middle of the 12th century in the valleys of the East Carpathians. They have been relocated for example from the "terra Syculorum terrae Sebus" near Sebes Alba (Mühlbach) to the later Szekler centre Sepsi in the East Carpathians.

After every advancement of the border, the desolate corridor of the old abatis border remained free and became crown land. The colonization of this crown land was very important, for strategic and economic reasons. It appeared necessary to have strife and war tested settlers in this newly established forefield of the abatis border, capable to clear and cultivate the land and enter into farming, handicrafts and commerce, but also to satisfy the requirements for salt and precious metals, and develop mineral resources.

One of the first Hungarian documents which mentioned Transylvania stresses the economic importance of these settlers. King Geysa I in 1075 endowed the Benedictine cloister in Gran which he founded with the reference to "ultra silvam" the salina near Thorenburg and with half of the royal income "in loco, qui dicitur hungarice Aranas, latine autem Aureus". (Footnote 4).

As you can see, the border advanced gradually over 2 or 3 centuries, and not in one shot. As for the migration theory, I too agree with the theory of Kurt Horedt. The funny thing is that I recently arrived to this conclusion independently, without hearing of Dr. Horedt's theories. Below, you'll see his opinion.

Historian and archaeologist Kurt Horedt, who by background is not involved with the political aspects of the scientific arguments, offers a mostly non-prejudiced and sensible compromise: Withdrawing from Dacia, the Roman empire did not remove the entire population. The remaining Romans were slavicized during the 7th century. These slavicized Romans mixed with the romanized Thracians, a people of migrating shepherds in the 9th century, originating from the Balkan peninsula. The presence of these Romanians may date to the 10th century. A later migration during the 13th century is not probable.

In other words, a part at least of the Romanian Transylvanian population was established there for centuries before the Magyars came. The other part of the Romanian population came in the 9th and 10th centuries, which is to say right before, or in some areas at the same time with the Magyar conquest.

I don't want to go too deep into details of this issue, which is fairly complex by itself, but a 12th century Hungarian chronicle, Gesta Hungarorum, affirms that when the Magyars arrived in Pannonia, surrounding areas were inhabited by Vlachs (Romanians). Also, a chronicle by Venerable Nestor (1056 - 1136 AD) mentions Walachians (Romanians) fighting against Magyars north of the Danube in 6406 (898).
While these 2 sources have been contested by some, in my opinion they do strengthen the theory that one way or another, Romanians were living in Transylvania by the time the Magyars invaded it.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2005 at 07:01
I would like to quote from the english historian Dennis Deletant,onother neutral party  whose specialty is romanian history.

 I will quote some pages from his  paper titled  Ethno-history or mytho-history?  The  case of chronicler  Anonymous.
It is a  work  part of the book authored  by  Dennis Deletant:  Studies in Romanian  History,  Editura  Enciclopedica,  Bucharest  1991.

Quote
An eloquent example for the Romanian historians of their charge of a denial of sources in the three-volume Hungarian history of Transylvania is the "treatment" of the notary of King Bela, traditionally known as Anonymous. One of the pillars upon which Romanian historians have built their case for a continous Romanian presence in Transylvania is the mention  by Anonymous of Vlachs (i.e Romanian speakers) in the province of their leader Gelou at the time of Magyar conquest of their homeland at the close of the ninth century.

In other words Romanians predate the Hungarians in Transylvania.The success of the Romanian argument  concerning Anonymous depends on his credibility. If he can be shown to be reliable then it is reasonable to accept his testimony to the Transylvanian Vlachs. By the same token, if he is considered unreliable,then his witness to the Vlachs must be discounted, without supporting evidence.
The question implicit here is "Is Anonymous an ethno-hystorian or a
mytho-historian ".

The authors of the aforementioned History of Transylvania true to the tradition of the Hungarian historiography, consider Anonymous a writer of "faction" while most Romanian historians consider him as irreproachable.

Does Anonymous deserve either attribute and why is he so celebrated?
To adress these questions we must turn from polemics to histoical enquiry.
A Vlach presence in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar conquest of their homeland in the Central Danubian basin at the end of the ninth century is mentioned in the late twelfth-century chronicle known as Gesta Hungarorum.

In their advance into Transylvania the Magyars are said to have encountered resistance form a certain Gelou who is described as dux Blacorum,"leader of the VLACHS". The arguments over the historical precedence of Romanians over Magyar and vice versa in Transylvenia have led advocates of the rival views to appeal to the Gesta for support in
their conventions.

An analysis of the Gesta shows that it is naive to claim them as an impeccable source,just as it foolhardy to totally discredit their reliability.
Divested of their political overtones there are,nevertheless,scientific grounds for questioning the existence of Gelou which merit serious consideration.

Doubts about Anonymous 's historical accuracy make him untrustworthy source for testimony of a Romanian presence in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar invasion.

Those who question the credibility of Anonymous are seen as attacking on of the "sacred cows" of Romanian national historiography and run the risk of being dubbed anti-Romanian ,as the article in Romania Libera proves,but objective enquiry does not recognize partnership.

Yet a demontration of Anonymous's unreliability does not lead to a denial of a continous Romanian presence in Transylvania from the time of the Roman withdrawal from Dacia. Force of  logic leads me to accept the continuity theory.

Given the significance of the Gesta Hungarorum in the controversy over historical precedence ,it would be prudent to establish  the chronicle's status. It was compiled by an anonymous notary at the court of King Bela and describes the  Magyar conquest of Pannonia and eastern Transylvania.

The uncertainty surrounding the identity and date of the
chronicler arises from the manuscript itself which opens with an illuminated capital P, followed simply by the words dictus magister ac quondam bone memorie gloriosissimi Bela regis Hungariae notarius N suo delectissimo
amico...salutem...afectum "P called  the master the notary of the late glorious Bela of good memory,King of Hungary,send his greetings to N,his dearist friend".

Since there were four kings of Hungary with the name Bela,it is not clear to which of them is referring. Critical opinion favours Bela III(1173-96),while Anonymous himself has been identified with,most recently,the Provost of Obuda.

Let us turn from author to the contents of the Gesta.

It is made up of prologue and fifty-seven chapters,in which are recounted the origins and migrations of the Magyars from the steppe-lands north of the Black Sea to the pains of Pannonia, their conquest of the latter region in 896 and the history of the infant Hungary in the  tenth century.

In describing the principal events of the conquest Anonymous mentions six "dutchies" or "principalities" whose existance at the end of the ninth century is not corroborated by other sources.

The heads of these duchies,who were defeated by the Magyars,are named by Anonymous as Zubur,head of Bohemians and slavs in the area of Nitra,Salanus chief of the Bulgars in the region between the Tisza and the Danube;Menumorout, aleader whose domains were encompassed by the Mures in the south,the Somes in the North,the Tisza in the west,and the Meses Gates in the east; Glad a leader of Cumans,Bulgars and Vlachs whose territory extended from  the Meses  in the North to the Danube in the south and Gelou a Vlach chief(ducem Blacorum) whose subjects included both  Vlachs and Slavs in an area of Transylvania stretching from the Meses Gates in west to the middle of Mures inthe south east.

The sixth duchy is said to  be in Pannonia under the control of some unnamed Roman princes who are anachronistically placed in the period immediately after the deth of Attila.

While we might detect in the dutchies of Zubur and Salanus reminiscences of respectively greater Moravia and of the Bulgarian Kingdom,the historical  reliability of Anonymous testimony to the remaining four dutchies
at the end of ninth century is suspect.

Glad's attribute,for example ,present a glaring anachronism for the Cumans are not attested in Eastern Europe until the middle of eleventh century and Anonymous groupings of Cumans ,Bulgars and Vlachs  appears to be an anticipation of conditions in the late twelfth century when these three peoples are mentioned together during the early years
of the Second Bulgarian Empire founded in 1186.

Our reluctence to accept the statements of Anonymous as historical record is based on an analyses made by several scolars of his sources and methods.

Even when not writing abot Transylvania Anonymous is regarded as suspect by most Hungarian Historians.
In his description of the Magyar conquest he shows no knowledge of the Hungarians' enemies such as Sviatopluk,Moimir and Braslov, has the Hungarians fighting with Bulgarians, but makes no mention of the
Moravians,Carinthians,Franks and Bavarians.

An example of his reliance upon historical tradition rather than fact is
offered in chapter five in which Pannonia is presented for the first time as a land that formerly belonged to Attila

"Then they chose to seek out for themselves the land of Pannonia,which they had heard was rumoured to be the land of
Attila,from whose line the leader Almus,father of Arpad,was descended "

The claim made here that the hungarian leader Almus was descended from Attila is based on a legend, widespread in Europe since the tenth century, that associated the Huns with Hungarians but which devoid of historical substance.



Edited by gerik
Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2005 at 07:46
So Decebal one of the sources does not hold, because it not reliable,has been proved in many cases false.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2005 at 14:15
Well, I did say that the 2 sources were contested by some. Even
though the Gesta Hungaronum may have some inaccuracies,
that does not mean that everything that is in it is false. The story
of vlachs living there is corroborated by a few other sources,
such as the chronicle of the venerable Nestor (a Russian
document from the 12th century); a Byzantine source
mentioning vlachs from North of the Danube, as well as
archeological and linguistic evidence. For instance, all church
terminology in Romanian is derived from Latin. If there had
been no continuity in a region isolated from the rest of
christianity, and Romanians had solely come from the south in
the 13th century, as some Hungarian historians claim, then the
religous terminology in Romanian would have been derived
from Greek instead.

When you put it all together, even though each source and
piece of evidence in itself is not rock-sloid. the fact that there
are so many proofs in favor of some sort of continuity. means
that they all end up strenghtening each other. From what I
know, Hungarian historians have concentrated on attacking the
arguments in favor of continuity, but they havent really been
able to offer conclusive evidence pointing that only the
contrary is true- the migration theory.

The official line of the Romanian historians is that only
conitnuity explains the presence of Romanians in Transylvania.
The official line of Hungarian historians has been that
Romanians arrived there in a late migration. What I believe is
that there were some elements of the Romanian population
which lived there continously, while other elements arrived
there in an early migration (9th and 10th centuries). Most
neutral historians agree that a late migration the 13th century
as Hungarian historians claim, is very very unlikely.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2005 at 09:30
You may have a flaw in your reasoning.
What about the aromanians from Greece,Albania,Macedonia who are said to be indeginious people of the balkans speaking a romance language. Accordingly to what you said they must have church terms of greek origin,have they?
Claiming some language fact in support of some historic theory is not a proof.
The same way I could add that romanian language lacks the words of german origin
though the transylvanian region was haunted also by germanic tribes.

And also we can be aware ,what I have to acknoledge myself too, language and genetics are two different things. If the romanians speak a language of latin origin it does not implie that the they are the descendents of the Latins of Rome. The same way afro-americans speaking english are not the descendent of
the Mayflower ship's emmigrants.

The same way hungarians could talk about language continuity huns,avars, etc people of asian origin owned the carpatian basin over the time. I could mention here the continuity theory of Marino Alinei,especially his book Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungherese,Bologna: Le edizioni del Mulino, 2003  (Etrusc: an archaical form of Hungarian)

To your claiming  that romanian continuity theory fits well to your data, I say that is the feature of every well formed theory.
The mensioned Russian Primary Chronicle,also known as Nestor Chronicle dates from 1116 , narrates from the year 852 dawn of Russian history,contains the terms voloshky,volhva forms of the adjectiv volohy which you translate as vlach, occurs in a biblical account of the origin  of peoples,refers to the Franks as the ancestors of French. So you can not say also that this chronicle upholds your views because has been prove
unreliable too.



 Let's take a look at the origin of vlach word:
The term Vlach was adopted by the Slavs from German and used to denote Romance-speaking populations or more specifically, "Romans".A form of the term had been used by Germans to refer to the Celts and was introduced into Britain by anglo-saxons, thus  producing Welsh and Wales. When the Celts became identified with the Romans,the German used the term to refer to the latter and this is the  meaning which was borrowed by slavs. The more recent German Wallach,applied to the Romanians was used in 19 century works until replaced by Romanian.
Vlach lives in English as the name given by the Greeks to the Romance speaking  peoples living south of the Danube,the majority of whom inhabit Empirus and are known in their language a dialect of Romanian aromani (Aromanians).
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 03:33

[QUOTE=Decebal] The voievod of Transylvania was naturally a Hungarian, because no Magyar king would aprove of the nomination of a Romanian or Slav voievod who could challenge the authority of the Magyars. Transylvania was not an united kingdom when it was conquered by the Magyars, as opposed to Bulgaria or Serbia, but rather a series of voievodates and cnezates . The Magyar crown was not about to recognize the concept that Transylvania was one unit, since this would encourage tendances for autonomy or even independence. Claiming to be king of Bulgaria or Serbia was simply a means of claiming nominal authority over those countries.[/QUOTEl]

To tell the truth I haven't seen any reliable proof for the existance of a vassal Transylvanian state. Yes there were cnezates outside the counties, but this is natural in medieval circumstances. There were  autonomous territories for cumans, jászok and even muslim groups, but this is not an evidence for statehood. In the XIII: century the borders of Hungary got fixed. Serbia or Bulgaria were the current territory under the rule of the Bulgarian or Serbian ruler. If they expanded the border the territory of Serbia/Bulgaria expanded. If a Hungarian king conquer some territories he created a new title for himself. Transylvania is not mentioned, because it was a part of Hungary. Titles were much more important in medieval times.

There must be some misunderstanding. Naturally the gyepü was expanded gradualy between the 9-12 century. Do you think that my theory is acceptable?



Edited by Raider
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 04:51
Originally posted by Decebal Decebal wrote:

Well, I did say that the 2 sources were contested by some. Even
though the Gesta Hungaronum may have some inaccuracies,
that does not mean that everything that is in it is false. The story
of vlachs living there is corroborated by a few other sources,
such as the chronicle of the venerable Nestor (a Russian
document from the 12th century); a Byzantine source
mentioning vlachs from North of the Danube, as well as
archeological and linguistic evidence. For instance, all church
terminology in Romanian is derived from Latin. If there had
been no continuity in a region isolated from the rest of
christianity, and Romanians had solely come from the south in
the 13th century, as some Hungarian historians claim, then the
religous terminology in Romanian would have been derived
from Greek instead.

When you put it all together, even though each source and
piece of evidence in itself is not rock-sloid. the fact that there
are so many proofs in favor of some sort of continuity. means
that they all end up strenghtening each other. From what I
know, Hungarian historians have concentrated on attacking the
arguments in favor of continuity, but they havent really been
able to offer conclusive evidence pointing that only the
contrary is true- the migration theory.

The official line of the Romanian historians is that only
conitnuity explains the presence of Romanians in Transylvania.
The official line of Hungarian historians has been that
Romanians arrived there in a late migration. What I believe is
that there were some elements of the Romanian population
which lived there continously, while other elements arrived
there in an early migration (9th and 10th centuries). Most
neutral historians agree that a late migration the 13th century
as Hungarian historians claim, is very very unlikely.

I have found this link about the Hungarian viewpoint.chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/chk/index.htm>>

The work of Anonymus is not chronicle but a gesta, a medieval form of historical novel. Naturally it is a good historical source, but must be handle carefully. Gábor Vékony states:>>

"Many reserchers have viewed his work as an accurate source fothe 9th. century. Anonymus claims to have knowledge of Rumanians (Blaci) along the Szamos river at the time of the Hungarian conquest in 896. However he also claimed to know of Czechs in Nyitra, Bulgarians in Zemplén, Greeks is Titel and Belgrad Cumans in the Banat, Germans (Romani) in Veszprém, Hungary. Contemporary sources -i. e. close to the time of the Conquest- assures us  that none of these peoples were in the area to which Anonymus attributes them, not even the Germans and the Bulgarians">>

Anonymus simply used hostile neighbours of his own age. (There is a minority viewpoint which states that Blaci doesn't mean vlach, but blak a known turkish tribe, because Simon of Keza mentioned that seklers caught their alphabet -turkic runes- from them.)>>

Nestor speaks about volohy as Gerik said above. By the way Nestor states that Hungarians capture the Carpatian Basin in the 6-7. century.>>

Proof for the migration theory:>>

The main proofs are the charters remained from this age. The number of the charters mentioning Romanians suddenly increasing in Hungary while in Serbia and Bulgria decreasing. There are For example Writen sources mention voivode Bogdan in 1334 who immigrated Hungary with so many people that the whole process needed 9 month and the archbishop of Kalocsa, the second highest ranking priest in Hungary welcomed him. I will try to find more example by tomorrow.>>

 >>

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 14:11

Originally posted by gerik gerik wrote:

You may have a flaw in your reasoning.
What about the aromanians from Greece,Albania,Macedonia who are said to be indeginious people of the balkans speaking a romance language. Accordingly to what you said they must have church terms of greek origin,have they?
Claiming some language fact in support of some historic theory is not a proof.
The same way I could add that romanian language lacks the words of german origin
though the transylvanian region was haunted also by germanic tribes.

When there are no historical documents or conclusive archeological evidence, linguistic evidence is a valid tool to support historic theories. This has been done over and over again in the study of the history of area which lack historical documents, such as Africa, for example.

To be honest, I haven't found anything on the church terms in Aromanian. While I can somewhat understand the language, from what I've seen of it, resources on it are very hard to find. According to linguists though, the separation between the modern Romanian and Aromanian must have occured in the 10th century. This means that a migration, either north or south, or another historical event must have separated the two population at the latest in the 10th century, and possibly a bit earlier. This reinforces what I've said, which is that while a migration is possible, a late migration in the 13th century as some Hungarian historians claim, is highly unlikely, if not downright impossible.

Originally posted by gerik gerik wrote:

And also we can be aware ,what I have to acknoledge myself too, language and genetics are two different things. If the romanians speak a language of latin origin it does not implie that the they are the descendents of the Latins of Rome. The same way afro-americans speaking english are not the descendent of
the Mayflower ship's emmigrants.

Who's talking about genetics here? To my knowledge, no genetic map of the area exits for the 3rd to 9th centuries. Besides, Romanians are a very mixed population, with Dacian, Slavic, latin (including colonists from many regions of the Roman empire: Italy, Gaul, Iberia, Dalmatia, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria...) components. Let alone the more modern Turkish, Magyar and Tatar influxes.  Even if a genetic map of Transylvania for the 3rd to the 9th centuries existed, it would be a very difficult task to compare it to the modern Romanian population, and the results can easily be contested.

The elements that gave them an identity were culture and most importantly the common language. The question here is not whether they were the descendants of the latins from Rome, but rather if they were inhabiting Transylvania by the time the Magyars came.

Originally posted by gerik gerik wrote:

The same way hungarians could talk about language continuity huns,avars, etc people of asian origin owned the carpatian basin over the time. I could mention here the continuity theory of Marino Alinei,especially his book Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungherese,Bologna: Le edizioni del Mulino, 2003  (Etrusc: an archaical form of Hungarian).
 

I'm kind of skeptical about this kind of interpretation. While the Magyars, the huns and the avars may have had a common lifestyle, they were from different linguistic groups. To my knowledge, Huns were of Turkic origin, Avars of Mongolian origin and Magyars are unique, or part of the Finno-Ugric group. The homelands of these groups covered 20 million square kilometers. According to this way of thinking, this is like saying that the United States were only colonized by one people, Western Europeans, because the English, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and even the Danes were all involved at some point in time. Of course, that is a gross generalization, because we all know that while those nations may have shared a somewhat similar lifestyle, they were in fact quite different from one another. As far as the Etruscans go, I think that their origins are still a matter of intense debate. Besides they only occupied Northern Italy, what does this have to do with Transylvania?

Originally posted by gerik gerik wrote:

To your claiming  that romanian continuity theory fits well to your data, I say that is the feature of every well formed theory.
The mensioned Russian Primary Chronicle,also known as Nestor Chronicle dates from 1116 , narrates from the year 852 dawn of Russian history,contains the terms voloshky,volhva forms of the adjectiv volohy which you translate as vlach, occurs in a biblical account of the origin  of peoples,refers to the Franks as the ancestors of French. So you can not say also that this chronicle upholds your views because has been prove
unreliable too.
 

The Nestor Chronicle mentions the vlachs while describing historical events associated with early Russian history. This is very different from mentioning the Franks, which the Russians hadn't directly come in contact with, as part of the peoples of the world. Besides, it is a matter of perspective: this could be a long discussion, but it's not a gross error to say that the Franks are the ancestors of the French. As we all know, the French are the result of a mixture between the Gauls, the Latins and the Franks. This statement is incomplete, but not an outright lie. Making that statement about a people the chronicler's people had never met does not automatically qualify all the rest of the chronicle as a lie.

Originally posted by gerik gerik wrote:

Let's take a look at the origin of vlach word:
The term Vlach was adopted by the Slavs from German and used to denote Romance-speaking populations or more specifically, "Romans".A form of the term had been used by Germans to refer to the Celts and was introduced into Britain by anglo-saxons, thus  producing Welsh and Wales. When the Celts became identified with the Romans,the German used the term to refer to the latter and this is the  meaning which was borrowed by slavs. The more recent German Wallach,applied to the Romanians was used in 19 century works until replaced by Romanian.
Vlach lives in English as the name given by the Greeks to the Romance speaking  peoples living south of the Danube,the majority of whom inhabit Empirus and are known in their language a dialect of Romanian aromani (Aromanians).

I have found a somewhat different explanation of the word vlach:

The origin of the word Vlach is disputed, some say it is possibly Germanic: the same origin led to the words "Welsh" and "Walloons" in other parts of Europe. The word Vlach could also come from the Greek peoples word "Vlahoi" which means Shepard/Goat herder. Slavic peoples initially used the name Vlachs when referring to Romanic peoples in general. Later on, the meaning got narrower or just different. For example Italy is called Włochy in Polish, and Olaszország in Hungarian. The term was originally an exonym, as the Vlachs used various words derived from romanus to refer to themselves (români, rumâni, rumâri, aromâni, arumâni etc). Only the Meglenites adopted the term Vlashi to describe themselves.



Edited by Decebal
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 14:26

Here's a link on Wikipedia exploring the pros and cons of various theories of the origin of the Romanians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians

It's quite good, but note that the theory I adhere to: both continuity and a migration in the 9th or 10th century, is not there.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 14:30
Originally posted by Raider Raider wrote:

[QUOTE=Decebal] The voievod of Transylvania was naturally a Hungarian, because no Magyar king would aprove of the nomination of a Romanian or Slav voievod who could challenge the authority of the Magyars. Transylvania was not an united kingdom when it was conquered by the Magyars, as opposed to Bulgaria or Serbia, but rather a series of voievodates and cnezates . The Magyar crown was not about to recognize the concept that Transylvania was one unit, since this would encourage tendances for autonomy or even independence. Claiming to be king of Bulgaria or Serbia was simply a means of claiming nominal authority over those countries.[/QUOTEl]

To tell the truth I haven't seen any reliable proof for the existance of a vassal Transylvanian state. Yes there were cnezates outside the counties, but this is natural in medieval circumstances. There were  autonomous territories for cumans, jászok and even muslim groups, but this is not an evidence for statehood. In the XIII: century the borders of Hungary got fixed. Serbia or Bulgaria were the current territory under the rule of the Bulgarian or Serbian ruler. If they expanded the border the territory of Serbia/Bulgaria expanded. If a Hungarian king conquer some territories he created a new title for himself. Transylvania is not mentioned, because it was a part of Hungary. Titles were much more important in medieval times.

There must be some misunderstanding. Naturally the gyepü was expanded gradualy between the 9-12 century. Do you think that my theory is acceptable?

I'm sorry Raider, can you restate you theory? In the midst of all these discussions, I got sidetracked, and it's hard to follow exactly what your theory is. We started out with the medieval status of Transylvania and we ended up discussing the formation of the Romanian people and the Magyar conquest. At least it didn't degenerate into a flame war yet.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
gerik View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gerik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 15:30

Originally posted by Decebal Decebal wrote:

For instance, all church
terminology in Romanian is derived from Latin. If there had
been no continuity in a region isolated from the rest of
christianity, and Romanians had solely come from the south in
the 13th century, as some Hungarian historians claim, then the
religous terminology in Romanian would have been derived
from Greek instead.


I mentioned Aromanians from Greece,if they have churchterms of latin origin
this argument of yours falls.
The existance of aromanians in the balkans adds more strength to the view
that the romanians migrated from south.


The Nestor Chronicle really mentions franks,especially when it narrates
that voloshky people fight against hungarians in Pannonia. It is know that
hungarians did wiped out frankish rule in Pannonia,and they also encountered
franks.

Quote
This area was nominally under Frankish rule, but had been sparsely populated since Charlemagne's destruction of the Avar state in 803 and the Magyars were able to move in virtually unopposed. Frankish Emperor Arnulf (king of the Eastern Flanks 887-889, emperor 896-899)  even found them useful in subduing a rebellious vassal. But once in place they were impossible to get rid of. They defeated several attempts to bring them to heel, and eventually wrested the region from Frankish control.




We need to have in mind that both chronicles mentioned were written  more than 200 years after the hungarian conquest,have been proven unreliable to sustain a romanian presence in Transylvania at the time of 896.


Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 17:01

As I said, I do not know Aromanians have church words of latin or greek origin. I'll look into it, but it's hard to find detailed resources on their language. As far as their existence south of the Danube, Romanian historians have 2 explanations for that: 

1. A migration from north to south occured

2. The formation of the Romanian people took place both south and north of the Danube, but they were separated by the slavic and bulgar migration. This is a better explanation than the 1st one.

I personally beleive that a 3rd one is correct: The formation of the Romanian people took place both south and north of the Danube, and sometime in the 9th or 10th century, most Aromanians from between the Balkans and the Danube migrated north. The land north of the Danube already had Romanians though. Thus, the 2 branches of the Romanian people separated: one north of the Danube, and one in the Balkan mountains.

As I said before, I do not believe that a statement such as the "Franks were the ancestors of the French" makes everything that the Nestor Chronicle says, untrue. 

As far as the reliability of the chronicles are concerned, I am not aware of any other chronicles from the 10th to the 13th century that state that in fact the Magyars found the land to be empty, or occupied only by Slavs. In fact, I found a couple more that state that Vlachs were indeed there when the Magyars arrived. One is the Gesta Hungarorum by Simon of Keza, not to be confused with the Gesta Hungarorum  by Anonymous, which we've been discussing. It states:

Pannonie, Panfilie, Macedonie, Dalmacie et Frigie ciuitates, que crebris spoliis et obsidionibus per Hunos erant fatigate, natali solo derelicto in Apuliam per mare Adriaticum de Ethela licentia impetrata, transierunt, Blackis, qui ipsorum (Romanorum) fuere pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia"; "Postquam autem filii Ethele in prelio Crumheld cum gente Scitica fere quasi deperissent, Pannonia extitit X annis sine rege, Sclavis tantummodo, Grecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Ulahis remanentibus in eadem, qui uiuente Ethela populari seruicio sibi seruiebant" (see Szentpetery's "Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum", I, p. 156-157, 163).

This chronicle, dating from the 13th century therefore acknowledges the Vlachs to be the descendants of the Romans and to have lived in Transylvania when the Magyars arrived.

Another source is "Descriptio Europae Orientalis" / "Description of Eastern Europe" written in 1308 by a French anonymous writer and conceived as a information mean for Charles Robert of Anjou and Charles of Valois, the former a claimant for the Magyar crown and the latter for Constantinopol Latin Empire's. The Romanians are described as descendants of the Romans: "Notandum (est hic) quod inter machedoniam, achayam et thesalonicam est populus ualde magnus et spatiosus qui uocantur blazi, qui et olim fuerunt romanorum pastores, ac in Ungaria ubi earnt pascua romanorum propter nimiam terre uiriditatem et fertilitatem olim morabantur. Sed tandem ab ungaris inde expulsi, ad partes illas fugierunt; habundant enim caseis optimis, lacte et carnibus super omnes nationes...". Thus he suggests the Romans' descendants took refuge in Transylvania, where they remained thereafter. (see also O. Gorka's foreword to first edition of "Anonymi descriptio Europae Orientalis", Krakow, 1916).

The Gesta Hungarorum by Anonymous was indeed written 200 years after the start of the Magyar conquest of  Transylvania. But do you really think that the author could have confused the issue and said that the Vlachs were already in Transylvania 200 years previous, if (according to Hungarian historians), the Vlachs were only arriving in Transylvania when the chronicle was written? The author was also more than likely Magyar, so why would he make such a glaring mistake, which anyone from his time could have caught on to?

If you can show other documents of the period that state that Vlachs were not in fact living in Transylvania when the Magyars arrived, then your argument might have some merit. But if you have no evidence to the contrary, other than saying that these sources were not reliable, because of mistakes made at other points in the text (and what about all the facts in them that were actually accurate?), then this you don't really have a strong case. These chronicles are the the only ones from the time which we have on this issue and they all corroborate each other.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.