Faction - Kingdom of Hungary

[Romano-Dacis]

Ah, my choice of words was slightly incorrect.

Transylvania was not a distinct political entity, but it certainly was not an integrated territory in Hungary; it wasn't a province. I guess its status could be described as similar to that of the Banate of Bosnia, that is a frontier militarized region.

Still, if you want to continue this discussion I'd be more than happy to do so by private messages or in this thread, whatever you prefer.

[Cimbye]

These maps are quite misleading. First of all Poland was not a part of Hungary, Poland was a separate kingdom ruled by the same king. What is more important, all the offices had to be in Polish hand during the rule of Hungarian king - non Hungarian could occupied any. Also the first map do not represent the state of Polish-Hungarian relationship of 1345y! Hungarian king was crowned for Polish king in year 1370 and held the throne up to 1382. Also the status of Halyhian Ruthenia in years 1370-1385 is not clear. When Ludvik the Hungarian was crowned for Polish king the Halyhian Ruthenia was passed for governing to Polish Noble named Opolczyk. It is hard to say, that it was passed to Hungarian domain. Hungarian king did many to transfer this rich lands from Polish Kingdom to Hungarian, but… In 1385, when Jagiełło - new Polish king with his wife Jadwiga (from Andegaven dynasty) came into Halychian Ruthenia, all castles opened the gate for them, only one castle in Halych had to be taken by force. In general the second map is very strange to me. What the green color represents?

I didn't say that poland was part of Hungary. Poland was personal union with Hungary. Green reperesents Poland, orange the Hungarian ascendancy area and don't forget that in this times the Kingdom of Hungary was the most powerful kingdom (it was world-power) after the Turks so this map is competely true

[\Vazul's Ghost/]

Awesome pictures!

[Bosnae]

Bogomils in Hungary? i would be quite suprised if somebody would show up with trustfull sources for that.

[Romano-Dacis]

Well I know it's doubtful, but recently I found out there was apperantly one Bogomil colony in Wallachia, so anything could happen.

[Bosnae]

Yeah Yeah... true words
I was also suprised when i read that an Pechenegs Muslim tribe called the "Ismailit" settled down in some Region's of Hungary during the late XII Century...
Things that not many People would expect.

[Romano-Dacis]

Please, I've already read the majority of the books on hungarian-history.hu

your fictional history doesn't faze me. I feel sorry that Hungarians have their own perspective on history which is not shared by any one else in the world (literally a theory invented in the 19th century), let alone any of their neighbors. Maybe some day they will learn that 200,00km^2 of land isn't completely devoid of people in the 10th century... maybe.

[yxc qwert!]

belive me Its absolutly have many mistakes!
Some examples for u:

- Anonymous used the hungarians ranks, titles like a leader name! But as i wrote u "Gyula" is a rank. So When anonymous wrote Gyula who was leader of sy is absolutly incorrect...
If u compare it with Kezai he used the correct forms: "Kötöny, megyer gyula " its mean Kötöny who was leader of Megyer tribe. another: Ajtony, jenő gyula, its mean Ajtony who was leader of jenő tribe.
So when Anonymous used "Gyula" without anything its absolutly a big mistake.

- Anonymous probably was notary of III. Bela (some says he was notary of IV. Bela) and GH was created around 1220-1240... Nobody knows the exact date. But in GH Anonymous says, when hungarians settled down in pannonia they south neighbour was East Roman Empire(Greeks). We knows in this time Bulgaria was an independ kingdom and hungarians had many fight against bulgarians! So this statment also incorrect. He used bulgars like commander of east romans armies. Interesting...

There are some similars points which show us that Anonymous used the 1220-1240 historical situation in GH. Its mean GH says there were the same nations in 896 like 1220...
what do u think about if we accept GH should we rewrite the east european history?



i do not understand u! First: It was not a taxation census. It was an estimated measure of religions in Transylvania.
Second: Magyarized rumanians names in medieval ages??? OMG!!!!! Friend nacionalism was appear in 19th c. In medieval ages was not important who come from... U think the king of hungary said: "hey, u have a different name like ours, u change it or die." ???? LOL
There wasnt any "minority manhunt" in medieval ages included Kingdom of Hungary!
If u belive this u should rethinking what u read from your rumanian history book...




No? why? Its the fact! Hungarians monks were in moldavia and try to increase the catholics... This event is part of an old ducument which was sent to the Pope. In this letter the bishop of Gyulafehérvár wrote to the pope that some of his monks works in moldavian to try to increase the catholics and they try to full translate the holy bible...

Hussites translated the bible also but not fully!



its not necessary. But im realy wonder because "de Administrando Imperio" says from vlach: Vlach lives in south-balkanian mountains. They main job is shepherd. Some of those joined to East Romans army like mercenaries.
its memorial of VII. Konstantin...

hmm, its not prove that vlach lives in transylvania... and what is more its prove a different theory...

Btw, as i asked u where was your nation from AC 106 to AC 13th c. ?
There were many nations, gepidas, huns, avars, kabars, szeklers, magyars, cumans... U newer fight for your lands? Whats happen? Maybe when rumanians noticed a new nation is arrived they hideing in deep forest through hundred years?

Do u know when was the first time when the romans-dac theory is appear?
1790! And the first was romans-romanian theory! It was changed later to romans-dac theory... interesting... why?

i not understand why romanians want to remake the history!



absolutly no! just the facts:
1. this croatian noble wasnt voivode of transylvania in 1150 neither 1200!
2. this noble was dedicated lord in croatia nominated by king of hungary..

your post was totaly false!



what i wrote in my previous post true or false?

btw, do u know that before 18th c. in Wallachia and Moldavia used the cirill letter? it was changed to Latin in 18th c. Well, ur ancestor was romans but u newer user the latin letter before 18th c.
Maybe your nations belongs to slavs!

Please, Romano-Dacis ignore his bad english instead of his post, it contains many facts (unlike his other posts before)!

[Bosnae]

I guess this is about the 5th time that somebody say's:"Stop discussing about Transylvanias ethnic mixture in the 10th-13th century"

So i hope that this would really stopp or we would need some

So

[Romano-Dacis]

ahhh I'm getting sick of this romanian tales...please stop this crap and focus on the mod and HUNGARY!

... as I've been suggesting for the past two pages or so. However your countrymen seem to believe that a discussion about ethnographical conditions as much as four centuries earlier are relevant to this mod. Tsardoms certainly isn't an exception; most of the threads pertaining to Hungary in other mods seem to suffer from "Traumatic Trianon Syndrome."

Let's shift the discussion a bit further North-West of Transylvania: what about Slovakia? Does anyone have good census or population size there? Would the Saxons of Slovakia (in Presov and other cities) have the same autonomy as those in Transylvania (with the whole burger culture) or were they more integrated into the Hungarian administrative body in that region?

[vilil]

http://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm
http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#vlach
http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1300.html
Nice links for those who want to read.

[snipa]

I was originally going to post here, but the response to your post has been moved to a private message. Don't put stuff about this in this thread again.

im realy sorry for the rest who also read your post in this thread, because ur tales and fictions are realy amusing and funny...

but i'll reply to u as well in pm...

[Bosnae]

Yeah, me to i also wanna know whtats going on

[snipa]

Everything went well till you and Cimbye come.
Fiction?Romanians aren`t speaking the most latin language?

Dacis your could PM the most tard things he said i`m curios.

hmm if i reply to your question the argument will begin again!

btw the argument was begin by your friend!

check it if u want!

[Silesian_Noble]

Someone should tidy this place as it is all trashed with fruitless Magyar - Romanian conflict, which repels everyone 'normal' player who visit this place to get some information about Hungary in TTW. I suggest you should create new thread dedicated for Romanian and Hungarian fanatics (yes fanatics, as their discussion had slipped out of any control long time ago) where they could fight each other over and over and none normal supporter would ever looked into that dumpster. The thread should be given nice and political name like 'historical debate abount Transylvanian roots' but signed with worning 'entry on your own risk'.

Apart of this all mess, can someone make an update summary with what was really decided about Hungary in TTW? Because I assume you are human beings and you won't risk the supporters wealth (who come here with peacefull attitude) and force them to read all this bloody and stinky never ending Carpathian war epic. Amen.

[Romano-Dacis]

I've sent a message to someone with mod powers to clear this whole place up. With regards to Hungary I believe Sarmatian or Matko was considering implementing parts or all of Magyar mod, but we will of course make our own additions of unique buildings, traits, and different units. However, since this was Matko's topic, and since Hungary is not as big of a priority as Bulgaria and Wallachia are currently, anything more concrete than research on Hungary hasn't been done yet. I wish Matko was here to give you a more informative response. All I know is that we will be doing Bulgaria, Wallachia, finishing Serbia, and then doing the Banate of Bosnia before we start things like skinning and modeling on Hungary.

[Romano-Dacis]

I stated that Transylvania was a voievodship, which we can all agree on since Leustachius was given the title of "waywoda Transilvaniae" [G. Wenczel, Codex diplomaticus, VI, p. 486]. It only became a principality after 1541. Do you have any evidence to offer to the contrary? This is pretty common knowledge, it's even available on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulers_of_Transylvania

The Voivode of Transylvania (woyuoda Transsiluanus) was one of the barons of the kingdom. The voivode was, in effect, a territorial governor or viceroy appointed by the Hungarian crown. He was also the chief magistrate and military commander of Transylvania's (seven) counties (except some administrative untis eg free royal cities, Universitas Saxorum and Szekelyland), and this power inevitably drew the Székely and Saxon territories into his sphere of influence however these territories were governed by counts who were nominally independent of the voivode.

Even Hungarian historians agree with me on this, in fact, you're the first person to tell me this is wrong. Just check was Istvan Lazar wrote in "Transylvania: a Short History", p. 62

When barely a month later they retired towards the East, through Trasylvania, there Lorand of the Borsa family, the Transylvanian voivode defeated them in battle and took many prisoners.

Or how about Peter F. Sugar, A History of Hungary, p. 121

...Transylvania's geographic location; it was a wborderland most often attacked by the waves of later migrants coming from the East. It therefore needed a special defensive organization. A high official, the vajda[clearly voievod/voivode] was placed in charge of the entire region.

Therefore, Peter F. Sugar agrees with me: Transylvania was a militarized border region, under the control of a voivode (written vajda here, same thing) who was in essence a viceroy of the Hungarian king like the Ban of Croatia. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

[pacco]

I think that someone need to CLOSE this thread!
NO sense anymore!
Why don´t you guys descuss about those things on MSN or PM´s?!

[snipa]

my oppinion its not an OFF subject!

TRANSYLVANIA
Erdély, Siebenbürgen, Erdeuelu, Ardeliu, Transsilvania(Ultra Silvum)

The Formation of Transylvania
The Hungarians had established their rule over the region of Transylvania firmly since 1003AD, when Saint Stephen formed an ispán, or Comes as they were known in the Latin used by the nobility in the time, in the old Roman Apulium (Gyulafehérvár), thus setting up a mirror system of Comitatuses (megyék) managed by Comes (ispáns and foispáns) as was used in Hungary proper, with a few key differences. The fact that Transylvania lay on the far eastern border of the Kingdom of hungary meant that it was subject to the waves of aggresive immigrants from the east like the Cumans, and the Kypchaqs and so on. To accomodate this the Come of the region of Alba (Fehér) was appointed as the over-arching administrator of the region of Transylvania. Until 1193 the term Vajda never appears, and instead this administrator appears to have been reffered to as the ispán. From the founding of the Comes system the ispáns of Szolnok (Doboka) and of Alba allernated between one another as the administrator of Transylvania. This ceased in 1263, when the roles of the Comes of Alba and Szolnok were terminated, along with the gradual reformation of the comitatuses from royal to noble ones. From this point all the Comes of the Comitatuses of Transylvania were subject to the authority of the Vajda, who had the right to appoint them and call local assemblies in which unique Transylvanian laws were passed. These laws had to be affirmed by the King, and could not directly contradict the laws of Hungary proper. The first Vajda is recorded as being Zoltán Erdoelue a relative of King Stephen. By the 14th century the three most imortant people in Transylvanian politics were the Vajda, the Bishop of Transylvania and the Abbot of Kolozsmonostor (outskirt of present day Cluj-Napoca).

your statment was:
"BTW I find it kind of funny that Transylvania, a distinct political entities (a voievodship with is own leader and estate) is displayed as a fully incorporated part of Hungary! In reality its relation to Hungary was like Croatia's; it was under a crown union."

well, your statment was absolutly false!

- as everybody can read the vajda system was appear from 1193
Btw:
- in hungarian land system the historical "erdély" land was 57.000 km2
- the current Transylvania include Máramaros, Bánság, Kőrösvidék is 103.000km2

so when u say transylvania was a voivodeship in 9-10-11th c. like wallachia and moldavia in end of 14th c. it's false or simple lie u can choose one of them!

now i hope its clear for everybody!

[Bosnae]

OK Ok
I'm curious, wher can i read about that the "vajda system" appeard in 1193?