Faction - Kingdom of Hungary

[Romano-Dacis]

1) I've never stated that Transylvania was a voievodship in the 9th and 10th century. I could discuss Gesta Hungarorum with you, but would be very unproductive.

2) The question is simple: do you agree or disagree that Transylvania was ruled by a voievod/vajda in 1345?

[snipa]

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

i try to find for u a good description about Ispán-Vajda system in english.
A short explication: The royal representative in the region (Erdély) was
called the ispán (comes sicolorum), whose primary function was to lead the military units in case of war.
Here u can see all of "ispán/vajda" in Erdély:
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdélyi_vajda

(ok its in hungarian language but u can read the names and the king name who appointed the vajda, here is an information that "vajda" appear in 1199... and another information from one document of Kálmán kings: "Erdély hercege" which mean prince of erdély. in 1111 )

The case why hungarians use "vajda" nowadays that nobody understand whats mean Ispán. I suppose u are a bosnian, and im sure in bosnia also there are some ranks, titles what u cant translate to english. Ispán is a same situation. We have another "nádor" which almost similar with ispán. But i cant translate for u! Absolutly not...

for a nonhungarian its a little bit difficult to understand this system.
first of all nowadays when we use "Transylvania" its not according to historical Erdély. There was a right in hungarians crown system that the actual prince (crown prince) was the leader of the 1/3 part of hungarian kingdom. This 1/3 part included dalmatia and erdély. So the Bán of Croatia, and Ispán/Vajda of Erdély was under the prince! And the prince was under the king.
Btw this system was the source of many king vs prince war/fight because 1/3 part of medieval Hungary was realy big.

Ispán was also separated: alispán (mean low-Ispán) főispán mean high-Ispán. So alsipán was under főispán.

[snipa]

1) I've never stated that Transylvania was a voievodship in the 9th and 10th century. I could discuss Gesta Hungarorum with you, but would be very unproductive.

2) The question is simple: do you agree or disagree that Transylvania was ruled by a voievod/vajda in 1345?

1) ok! its not necessary to discuss again from this!

2) seems to me u do not understand the system yet. The correct define is:
Erdély(as i wrote not correct to use Transylvania but its not important) was leading by vajda/voievod and ruled by the King. The vajda was only the royal representative. If the vajda made a mistake the king change him! This was the case why some of vajda was appointed 2-3 times...

[Bosnae]

Thanks for the clarification, quite usless complication and bureacraty their, however after i read that hungarian Wikipedia.... well hungarian language is for me kinnda funny language just like all Ural-Altai languages Finish and so on, it sounds so different compared to the other germanic or Romanic languages.

[Kavhan Isbul]

I am going to grab some popcorn and enjoy the rest of the enlightened discussion here. I am especially interested in learning more about Transylvania in the 9th century (800s). Please keep it going!

[Romano-Dacis]

You should have come here earlier then Kavhan, since the discussion has reached an anticlimactic conclusion of "not really relevant and no one's going to convince anyone else."

[Kavhan Isbul]

You should have come here earlier then Kavhan, since the discussion has reached an anticlimactic conclusion of "not really relevant and no one's going to convince anyone else."

Well, I think this was obvious from the very beginning, but just like nobody is about to get convinced, I was also with the impression that nobody was about to give it up. Maybe I am wrong - we shall see.:hmmm:

[Silesian_Noble]

OMG this is madness. The fruitless offtopic is still going on. Where are admins? Someone should pay with his head for such ignorance of the rules. I've completely lost interest in this project because of this stupid fight. And I can bet that I am not the only one. Bravo guys, bravo.

[Romano-Dacis]

It's no longer going on. We're talking about the organization of Transylvania, not the first inhabitants. ;-).

I don't know where the admins are, probably on vacation!

And c'mon SN, turn that into .

snipa, I have to disagree with some of the things you wrote. First of all the comes sicolorum was not the ruler of Transylvania (Erdely/Ardeal, whatever you want to call it). The comes sicolorum was the representative of the szecklers. The comes sicolorum was a minor dignitary compared to the voievod, so I'm not sure where you got your info that the voievod was under his command.

[Romano-Dacis]

Alright, here's what I'm getting from one of my sources, Istoria Romaniei, Vol II, P. 258-260. I've shortened it down, since I have no interest in copying 2 pages of text.

In the 14th century the voievodship of Transylvania manifested the same tendencies towards autonomy as it had before. Although the attempt by Ladislaus Kan to transform Transylvania in an independent political unit failed, Transylvania still continued tendencies towards quasi-autonomy
...
The voievod, named and empowered by the king, chose his own assistants/council from among his familiaritas, which were his own personal vassals. Generally when the voievod was changed those under him were changed as well.
...
Around the mid-14th century, like in the century before, we find one "duke of Transylvania", in this case Stefan/Steven/Istvan (1349-1351), the brother of Louis I. This ranking was considered superior to the voievod, as the voievod became a dignitary of the duke, who was a member of the royal family.
...
The authority of the voievod was gradually diminished by the king, such that he only reigned over 7 comitates of Transylvania: Interior Solnoc, Dobaca, Cluj, Turda, Tarnava, Alba, and Hunedoara. Between the years 1263-2465 the voievod of Transylvania also had the title of comite of Solnoc, while during the time of Toma Szecheney, the voievod also held the title of comite of Sibiu.

There were however regions of Transylvania which, by regal ordinance, were did not depend on the voievod's jurisdiction... some of these were later placed under the voievod's authority. For instance, in 1344 the judicial immunity of the episcopacy of Transylvania was limited against the voievod, and this was again confirmed in 1395... the Eastern regions as well as Maramures and Banat were not a part of the voievodship. The territories populated by the Saxons and Szecklers were again immune from the voievod. While the Saxons were able to maintain their autonomy, the Szeckler autonomy became illusory ever since the reign of Iancu de Hunedoara/Janos Hunyadi (1441) when the title of comes sicolorum is held by the voievod as well.

Some regions of Transylvania were also under the control of Romanian princes, like Fagaras and Amlas being under Wallachian control from the 1370's until the late 15th century, and Ciceu and Cetatea de Balta which were donated by Matei Corvin/Matthyas Corvinus to Stefan cel Mare of Moldavia.

[snipa]

I am going to grab some popcorn and enjoy the rest of the enlightened discussion here. I am especially interested in learning more about Transylvania in the 9th century (800s). Please keep it going!

first, sorry for my horrible english!

the main written sources from this time (9-10th c.) created by byzance, bulgarian, germans... this documents probably according to the reality because those were created in this time!

short summary:
- 791 autumn: Frank's failed campaing against Avar. Avars lived from pannonia to black sea (included Transylvania).

- 795: Avars vs Avars war. 2 chief of Avars (khagan vs jugurrus). The "jugurrus" and his follows lost! Khagan got the full leading.

- 795-796 winter: the Frank campaing against Avars began again. Avars lose strength and lose lands in west of pannonia.

- 802-804: Krum bolgar khan attacked Avars too from south. Bulgars banished the Avar khagan. We have information about many avar warriors were captured by bolgars and later they were part of bolgarian army against Byzance.

- 810: balkanian slavs (abodriti, timociani) settled down in places of Temesköz(Temes) and Szerémség in Transylvania.

- 824-826: nformation about that some problems were appear between Frank and Bolgars(probably they border in pannonia). Diplomacy missions were failed.

- 827–831: Omurtag khagan of bolgars attacked Franks in middle of pannonia. (middle of Danube place). Bolgars captured Szerémség, East-Slavónia and some south places of Tisa land and Maros land. (no correct info where was their border around Tisa river)

- 832: Malamir khagan of bolgars had a peace with East-Frank empire. Bolgars keep their captured lands. (from 825 there is no more informations about "timociani" but we know that from 832 the "abodriti" slavs were under Bolgars rule.) The bavarian Geographus wrote that the north neighbor of bolgars was "east-abodriti" slavs who lived in east-charpatian in Transylvania.

- 862: Magyars came to the aid of Ratislav in 862. ((„Hostes… qui Ungri vocantur, regnum… depopulantur” Annales Bertiniani a. 862).) Ratislav rebelled against his lord, hired Magyar troops to help him, and with their aid he won his independence. war: magyars&moravians vs frank&bolgars!
BTW this is the first first written mention about Magyars appeared in pannonia+transylvania. In this time they lived in Etelkoz(This territory is south of Kiev, bordered by the Donets on the east and the Carpathians on the west. On the south, the Black Sea and the Danube separated the Magyars from the Bulgarian empire.). Arab traveler's memorial: They attained a high level of knowledge relative to working with metals such as iron, silver and gold. Besides these peaceful occupations, they also pursued military careers, raiding the northern steppes and selling captured Russian-Slavic inhabitants to Greek slave-merchants in the ports of the Black Sea. They were also ready to lease smaller or larger light cavalry units (their army numbered 20,000 horsemen) to foreign princes and kings for the anticipated reward of booty and spoil, and a regular money payment. If they found an easy target, they repeated their raids on their own initiative.


- 863: Bolgars attacked Moravia.

- 864: Magyars revisited the Danube without invitation in 864.

- 881: Svatopluk was supported by 2 magyars armies. „Primum bellum cum Vngaris ad Veniam, Secundum bellum cum Cowaris ad Culmite” – Annales Iuvavenses maximi a. 881" one of magyars' army reached land of vienna.

- 883: Also a Bolgars attacked Moravia.

- 892: Arnulf king send an emissary to Vladimir (Laodimir) khagan of bolgars with a request. "Do not allow of buy salt by Moravians" ! („Ne coemptio salis inde Maravanis daretur”: Annales Fuldenses a. 892). From this the historicals knows that Bolgars taken the control of south-transylvania (there were the salt-mines). But no exact date when they did!
Also in 892, a Hungarian army, at the invitation of the Frankish emperor, Arnulf (king of the Eastern Flanks 887-889, emperor 896-899) crossed the Carpathian Mountains and helped Arnulf to defeat his rebellious vassal, Sviatopluk.

- 893: The new khagan of bolgars is Simeon. Bolgars vs Byzance war began. VI. Leo emperor of Byzance sent his best emissiary to magyars. Nikétász Szklérosz had a meeting with 2 main leaders of magyars (Arpad and Kurszan) in low-danube place. Alliance between magyars and byzance. One hungarian army leading by Levent who was son of Arpad attacked the back of Bolgaria. In three battles, the allied Hungarian-Greek(Byzance) forces defeated the Bulgarians and occupied their capital.

- 894: while the bolgar byzance war was continue. Svatopluk requested a help from magyars against Frank. Another magyars army went to Transylvania and stay there because Svatopluk was die. Next year they joined to Magyars main army with szeklers.

-895: The Bulgarians struck back in the same year, invaded Etelkoz, and massacred the defenseless population of the main Hungarian settlements before the Hungarian armies had returned home. At the same time, the Petchenegs, allies of Simeon, also invaded Etelkoz from the East. This disastrous situation forced Arpad to leave Etelkoz for good, along with the survivors of the Bulgarian-Petcheneg attack. Without waiting for the army of Levente, which was still in Bulgaria, and another army which was raiding the Khazars north of the Caucasian Mountains, seven Magyar tribes by 895 A.D. crossed the Carpathians and occupied the entire basin without significant resistance on the part of the local Slavic, Bulgar, and Croat population.

„Exinde montes descenderunt per tres menses et deveniunt in confinium regni Hungariae, scilicet in Erdelw”. The Magyars' moving time was 3 months from Etelköz through charpatian mountains to Erdély/Transylvania.
(The Magyars thus entered on possession of their new homes, speedily and completely, far more so than, as far as we know, any of their predecessors. Their total population, which could provide about 60,000 soldiers for the army, probably amounted to not more than 200,000 to 250,000 souls.)

- 896: peace between Byzance and Bolgar. Byzance Bolgar armies defeated Levente's army. Levente was killed in a battle.
Magyars settled down in pannonia and transylvania. Following this conquest, the Magyars continued to live in a tribal federation under the leadership of Arpad and his descendants. Neither did their occupations change: agriculture, animal husbandry, commerce, selling slaves and horses in exchange for goods they needed for themselves. They continued their raids on feudal Europe in alliance with other princes or alone.

- 898-899: raid campaing in Italy 5000 hungarians defeated 15000 Longobard near to Brenta river.

- 900+: After the year 900, almost every year they led a raid against the West, Italy, Dania, Hispania, Germans or the Balkans. They also participated in ten larger campaigns in which 8,000 to 10,000 cavalrymen were involved. Only twice did they suffer a defeat.

sorry for me it was little bit long!

[Romano-Dacis]

so should i belive that u know better this situation like hungarian documents? pls it was an integrated part of the kingdom every 2nd hungarian documents has mentions from Erdély/Transylvania.
The szeklers region was included into historical Erdély. And Erdély was leading by the king representative. Not so difficult!

Since you keep referring to these "hungarian documents" how about you provide me with one. I've even read about the comes siculorum on hungarian-history.hu and I've yet to read one book which confirms what you wrote. Perhaps you'll provide me with your source?

Yes, as i wrote u "comes siculorum" was used in full of kingdom. But in Erdély the leader title was changed to vajda around 1199. Its not mean that the "comes siculorum" like title was ceased. Every regio in Erdély had a "comes siculorum" and they were under the vajda. The vajda was under the king.

So there were szecklers in the whole kingdom of Hungary?! Do you even realize what "siculorum" means? Provide me with one source which backs up what you say.

"comes siculorum" first mention 1111!

Actually that's "princeps" (prince) not "comes siculorum." In 1111 we are told of Mercurius, princeps Ultransylvanus. After that guy there is literally 60 years of silence on the leadership of Transylvania, until we happen upon Leustachius in 1176, who is entitled "voievod" in the Codex Diplomaticus by Gusztav Wenczel.. So we literally have this succession of rulers in Transylvania.

-Mercurius (prince of Transylvania) [1111 and 1113]. This is followed by six decades of silence, most likely caused by political upheaval in restructuring the region.
-Leustachius (voievod of Transylvania) [1176 to 1199] (notice how the title of prince is now defunct).
-All others that follow were also vajdas or voievods.

For Hunyadi. In this time it was possible that a noble had more titles not only
one.

1439 Hunyadi János was Bán of Szörény
1441 Vajda of Erdély and Bán of Temes.

He had 3 title at the same time.

You missed the point. I was telling you that the office of vajda/voievod is not a successor to the comes siculorum because they both existed at the same time.

as u can read this "autonomy for szeklers" was nominally! You belive or not but "comes siculorum" was before the vajda! But dont forget we have correct king's documents from this time!

I think you need to re-read your own documents or at least tell me where you're getting this info. I'd also appreciate a source which mentions Leustachius as the comes siculorum in 1176. Who knows, maybe you have magical king's documents not even mentioned in books on hungarian-history.hu, I dunno. All I can say is that Wenczel refers to Leustachius in his Codex Diplomaticus by the title of voievod. Give me a source for the "comes siculorum" title.

I fail to see how your statement about Fagaras contradicts what I wrote. I said the region was under Wallachian control, and it was, since it was under the administration of the Wallachian voievod. Yes, the territory was given to Vlaicu when he became a vassal to the Hungarian king (he was also given the banate of Severin and Amlas as well). Interesting enough that you left out the fact that the territories remained under Wallachian control even after Vlaicu ceased being a vassal; even as Louis I and Vladislav-Vlaicu were at war!

[Kavhan Isbul]

Snipa, pretty much everything you wrote is correct, except for the paragraph below. The Romans never defeated Simeon. The Magyars defeated him on multiple occasions, but neither the Romans nor the Magyars ever really took possession of Preslav, the Bulgarian capital back then. It was captured about a century later first by Sviatoslav of Kiev and then by the Romans.
So the last sentence is factually incorrect, although it is correct to say that it was during Tsar Simeon's time that most of Transylvania was lost. Moldova was perhaps also lost, given to the Pechenegs in return for their help in the destruction of the Magyar settlements. It appears Simeon left its defense to the local Boils, who simply did not have the resources to resist. I am not sure how "Romania" figures into this part of the history of the region, but I am sure we will learn soon from someone with access to Romanian historiography.

- 893: The new khagan of bolgars is Simeon. Bolgars vs Byzance war began. VI. Leo emperor of Byzance sent his best emissiary to magyars. Nikétász Szklérosz had a meeting with 2 main leaders of magyars (Arpad and Kurszan) in low-danube place. Alliance between magyars and byzance. One hungarian army leading by Levent who was son of Arpad attacked the back of Bolgaria. In three battles, the allied Hungarian-Greek(Byzance) forces defeated the Bulgarians and occupied their capital.

[Romano-Dacis]

Kavhan, I've sent you a PM. If you're truly interested I can discuss with you the summary of Romanian history in this time period, but I'd rather not bloat up this thread.

[snipa]

Since you keep referring to these "hungarian documents" how about you provide me with one. I've even read about the comes siculorum on hungarian-history.hu and I've yet to read one book which confirms what you wrote. Perhaps you'll provide me with your source?

if u can speak in hungarian i can give u mass number documents.
but i'll try to find some english translating!

here is the national history:
http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/59.html
check the 285. section title: KIRÁLYI VÁRMEGYÉK ERDÉLYBEN (u can search it)

from this section i make a short translate for u:

- records from hungarian documents: 1097 „Mercurio comes Bellegratae” its mean ispán of fehérvár (Gyulafehérvár) (u can read the "comes")
- the vajda like title appear end of 12th c.
- but 1200,1201 2 mentions about ispán instead of vajda after this point all hungarian records called the governor of transylvania like "vajda/voievod"
- ispán of fehérvár (comes sicolorum) who was royal representative in erdély: mentions 1177, 1183

So there were szecklers in the whole kingdom of Hungary?! Do you even realize what "siculorum" means? Provide me with one source which backs up what you say.

ABSOLUTLY YES! The szeklers was a military little nation within hungarian nation. We have villages' names from west-hungary, from north-hungary also from south-hungary which has "székely" name! They lived in the full kingdom! The szeklers were settled down all of the kingdom's border and their main job was defend the borders... i wonder that this one is new for u in turn u think u are so "well-informed" from history of Hungary!

Actually that's "princeps" (prince) not "comes siculorum." In 1111 we are told of Mercurius, princeps Ultransylvanus. After that guy there is literally 60 years of silence on the leadership of Transylvania, until we happen upon Leustachius in 1176, who is entitled "voievod" in the Codex Diplomaticus by Gusztav Wenczel.. So we literally have this succession of rulers in Transylvania.

yes, 1111 and 1113 Mercurius princeps ultrasilvanus
the first mention from "comes sicolorum/ispán" 1177

1150 II. Géza: the first saxons settled down in Erdély by the king
1166: the first attack by Byzance in Erdély. From this point was realy important who is the ispán/comes/vajda in Erdély to stop Byzance conquering.


Codex Diplomaticus is a collection from hungarian documents. But this collection from 1236 to 1536! i have this codex! And as i wrote u the last mention about ispán of fehérvár who was leading Erdély was in 1201 after only vajda/voeivod!

-Mercurius (prince of Transylvania) [1111 and 1113]. This is followed by six decades of silence, most likely caused by political upheaval in restructuring the region.

ahhh now i see why you fighting with me! your statment is absolutly false!
we have informations from this time but it was not important who was the ispan to 1166... Also we dont know who was the ispán in Pozsony or in Pécs etc... in this time! But its not mean that there was any political upheaval!
some:
- 1110 Könyves Kálmán king of Hungary adjusted the rights of ispán/comes of Erdély: military right(recruit army to defend the border, lead szeklers in war), tax right(collect the tax for the king, jurisdiction), he got a high salary from the king, he had right to use king's castles in Erdély, he had right to collect duty from salt market.
- 1120 Álmos prince founded a church in Erdély, village name: Meszes, it is in east border of the kingdom
- 1138 church build in Arad
- 1147 church build in Kolozsvár
- 1150 saxons settled down in Erdély by II. Géza
- 1150 church build in Ákos (Erdély)
etc... etc...

BTW the first written mention from the name Erdély: 1075 "Ultra siluam" in hungarian "Erdőn túl or Erdőelve" -> Erdély

-Leustachius (voievod of Transylvania) [1176 to 1199] (notice how the title of prince is now defunct).
-All others that follow were also vajdas or voievods.

Lesták was an ispán!
yes, from 1201 the governor title was vajda!

You missed the point. I was telling you that the office of vajda/voievod is not a successor to the comes siculorum because they both existed at the same time.

both existed from 1199 when vajda was appear instead of ispán in Erdély... but under the vajda there were ispáns towards!

I think you need to re-read your own documents or at least tell me where you're getting this info. I'd also appreciate a source which mentions Leustachius as the comes siculorum in 1176. Who knows, maybe you have magical king's documents not even mentioned in books on hungarian-history.hu, I dunno. All I can say is that Wenczel refers to Leustachius in his Codex Diplomaticus by the title of voievod. Give me a source for the "comes siculorum" title.

the first mention from "comes sicolorum/ispán" 1177 which prove that Lesták from Rátót family was appointed by the king in 1176. Why u deny this one?
Why u important how hungarians named their governor, baron etc? If someone knows exactly this system its a hungarian historical, right?

i do not understand why u think that u a romanian had a better knowledge from Erdély in medieval time! Why u belive that u know better the governor system in Erdély in turn it was a hungarian system not any other!
pls let me to believe in our documents! which was created in time!

I fail to see how your statement about Fagaras contradicts what I wrote. I said the region was under Wallachian control, and it was, since it was under the administration of the Wallachian voievod. Yes, the territory was given to Vlaicu when he became a vassal to the Hungarian king (he was also given the banate of Severin and Amlas as well).

simple because the "under Wallachian control" is not a correct expression for a donationed private possession (and a count title) which depend on vassal status... i suppose when u use "under Wallachian control" u mean Fogaras was part of Wallachia, correct me if u mean other! Because its a false statment...

[snipa]

Snipa, pretty much everything you wrote is correct, except for the paragraph below. The Romans never defeated Simeon. The Magyars defeated him on multiple occasions, but neither the Romans nor the Magyars ever really took possession of Preslav, the Bulgarian capital back then. It was captured about a century later first by Sviatoslav of Kiev and then by the Romans.
So the last sentence is factually incorrect, although it is correct to say that it was during Tsar Simeon's time that most of Transylvania was lost. Moldova was perhaps also lost, given to the Pechenegs in return for their help in the destruction of the Magyar settlements. It appears Simeon left its defense to the local Boils, who simply did not have the resources to resist.

Thanx! is it possible that in this time Bolgaria had another capitol? I dont know... Are u sure that Preslav was the capitol in this time? Maybe the Byzance&Magyars army captured another important town?

btw I have no informations when and how die Simeon. Do u know something about this?

I am not sure how "Romania" figures into this part of the history of the region, but I am sure we will learn soon from someone with access to Romanian historiography.

Maybe u will surprise! Btw I also want to know! Romano-Dacis pls sent me in PM or write here as u like! I promise i'll not respond to your post which according to this!!!

[Romano-Dacis]

You have the Codex Diplomaticus? Well this will make things easier then! In Codex Diplomaticus Arpadianus Continuatus, go to Volume VI, page 486. You'll be quite surprised to see waywoda in the year 1176. Maybe you missed that page, I dunno. My version's published in 1870 in Budapest, so the page numbers may be a little different.

The comes siculorum is not the comes of Alba. They are different titles.

Lesták was an ispán!

Prove it. It's written quite clearly in Wenczel's little book on page 486 of volume VI, "Leustachius waywoda Transivaniae." He was also the comes/ispan of Dabaca, but that is another title which he held together with voievod.

I'll even give you another source, in Hungarian, from the Cluj museum of Transylvania:
http://www.familyhistory.ro/admin/da...070521Wass.pdf
just search "Leust" and you should find the section at the top of page 213. It says quite clearly "1176... Leustak (Leustachius) vajda"

Why u important how hungarians named their governor, baron etc? If someone knows exactly this system its a hungarian historical, right?

How about because we're researching for a mod and want to get the damn titles right?

simple because the "under Wallachian control" is not a correct expression for a donationed private possession (and a count title) which depend on vassal status... i suppose when u use "under Wallachian control" u mean Fogaras was part of Wallachia, correct me if u mean other! Because its a false statment...

Fagaras was a region under the authority of the Wallachian voievod. Clear enough? It wasn't a part of Wallachia since it was listed seperately under the voievod's title e.g. "Io Mircea, great voievod and lord of Ungrovlahia and the parts over the mountains, herzog of Amlas and Fagaras and lord of the Banate of Severin and of both shores of Podunavia [Danube] to the great Sea [Black Sea] and lord of the fortress of Darstor."

[vilil]

Nice discusion!
@snipa
Romano-Dacis posted some Hungarian documents, like Codex Diplomaticus... You said it was from 1236. Why you dont post some documents before that year. And please state which document, in which museum it is...

[\Vazul's Ghost/]

"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)."

Quoted from a post I made ages ago. Thats were I stand in the argument.

[snipa]

Nice discusion!
@snipa
Romano-Dacis posted some Hungarian documents, like Codex Diplomaticus... You said it was from 1236. Why you dont post some documents before that year. And please state which document, in which museum it is...

firstly here is a picture from Codex Diplomaticus Arpadianus Continuatus (Wenzel Gusztáv)

Attachment 15362

as u can see: its a collection from 1234-1526
and it was my statment!

and here is the best (not only from my point of view) if u are interested from history of hugarian kingdom:

Collectiones Digitales Diplomaticae Hungariae 1.0
included:
Codex Diplomaticus Patrius I-VIII.
Regesta litterarum ad episcopatum et capitulum ecclesiae Veszpremiensis pertinentium (Kumorovitz L. Bernát)
Codex diplomaticus (Fejér György)
Codex Diplomaticus Arpadianus Continuatus (Wenzel Gusztáv)
Codex Diplomaticus Patriae
De fontibus decretorum synodaliumque tempore Sanctorum Stephani et Ladislai nec non Colomanni regum Regni Hungariae conscriptorum (Závodszky Levente)

here is the picture:
Attachment 15363

i offer u if u want to read many authentic hungarian documents!