Talk:Seneslau

---

Untitled

Yes it says "probably" because it's not known for certain, but it's still worth mentioning. I don't see what this campaign anti-Slavism is all about, but it needs to stop. —Khoikhoi 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A dubious map

The map added to the article under the title "Migration routes of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Pechenegians, Cumanians and the great Tartar invasion on Romania's territory" is totally misleading, because:

1. The map’s title refers to “Romania’s territory”, but the Tisa never was a border river of Romania, and the territory between the Prut and the Dniester rivers is now an independent republic.

2. The map describes a situation which never existed at the same time: e.g., between c. 610 and c. 1002, and after 1187 the Danube was the northern frontier of the Bulgarian Empire and not the Byzantine Empire, while the supposed "voivodates" (if ever) existed in the 9th century or in the 13th century.

See, for example, John V. A. Fine, Jr.: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelth Century (ISBN 978-0-472-08149-3) pp. 33-37., 187-188., 197-199.

3. The “Voivodeship of Gelou” and the “Voivodeship of Menumorut” (if ever existed) had been occupied by the Hungarians by 910s even according to the only source which refers to their existence (Gesta Ungarorum); therefore, the reference in the map to the 9th-11th centuries is misleading.

4. Although in the 13th century the Gesta Ungarorum refers to the three voivodates of Gelou, Menumorut and Glad (and only the Gesta Ungarorum refers to them), earlier sources refer to other polities in the territory, for example:

• The Bavarian Geographer in the 9th century listed the Bulgars and some Slavic tribes (e.g., Meheranos) living in the territory presented by the map.

• Around 950, Constantinos Porphyrogennetos wrote that the territory on the rivers Tisa, Cris, Mures and Timis had been part of Great Moravia before the Hungarian conquest (around 896), but he also mentioned that at his time the same territory was part of “Turkia” (=Hungary). Moreover, he added that 4 Pecheneg tribes lived around 950 on the territories between the rivers Danube and Dnieper east of the Carpathian Mountains, and the Pecheneg’s territories bordered “Turkia” (=Hungary). Similar descriptions can be found in contemporary or nearly contemporary Muslim writers’ works.

See, for example, Kristó Gyula: Kristó: Early Transylvania, 895-1324 (ISBN 963-9465-12-7) pp. 63-65.

5. The Bolohoveni never lived in the territory where the map locates them.

See, for example, Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5) pp. 93-97., 161-162.

6. The “Principality of Transylvania” was formed around 1570 as a consequence of the Peace of Speyer.

Consequently, I think that the map should be radically changed or deleted.Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The view of Zlatarski and Koledarov

Zlatarski suggests that the king of Hungary exempted Seneslav's lands from the king's donation to the Knights, because these lands didn't belonged to him - "The first question which cause data from the papal charter, is: why Bela IV excluded from the offerings two mentioned voivodeships? He motivates himself with the provision that the Vlahs previously held these voivodeships, i.e. until 1247 - a very untenable ground, that he wanted to conceal the recognition that these lands at this time was not under his authority, but at the same time, he thought that these lands ware still belongs to him because they were inhabited thy emigrants from his country - Transylvanian mountains..." ([1], p. 373)--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your remarks. However, I do not understand them. Sorry for it.
  • So when the king of Hungary exempted the lands from the donation, he made it because he could not grant those lands to the Knights? Why did he do this? Otherwise, the king did not write that he did not grant those lands because those lands had up to that time been held by the Romanians. He ordered that the Romanians should held those lands even after the donation with the same liberty as they had up to that time held it. The diploma is cited in Vásáry op. cit. p. 146. Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I, from my side, did not understand something, too. Do you expect from me to made an original research of primary sources? Not I, but Zlatarski states that the Hungarian king could not grant those lands to the Knights and his oppinion is a fact. Do you want to argue with Zlatarski?--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Vásáry's cited work is a reliable source, similarly a reliable source is Curta's work cited below. These two historians cite and interprete the letter of grant (please cheque on the cited pages). Zlatarski's wording contradicts to the text of the cited primary source (that is to the letter of grant of Béla IV of Hungary), therefore his interpretation is dubious. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know Vásáry's cited work. If in it or in another reliable book, the interpretation by Zlatarski is determined as dubious, I agreed to reflect it in proper, correct manner in this article. Until then, please do not forget what is Wikipedia:Disputed statement:

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It contains unlikely information, without providing references.

It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

The interpretation by Zlatarski is a fact. There is a proper reference and I think we just need to find a form of expression. It is very easy to verify the information about this interpretation.--JSimin (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Zlatarski refers to a primary source (the letter of grant of Béla IV) and based on a sentence which is not inclueded in his source states something. Therefore his statement (1) contains unlikely information (2) without providing references. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the information of Rashid al Din about the Tatar attack in 1241, "Princes (Tatarians) moved mountains to enter the country of the Bulars (Bulgarians, according him) and Bashgirds (Magyars, according him)..." Zlatarski argues that once passed the Carpathians Tartars invaded the countries controlled by Bulgaria. As other authors, he identified Misheslav who met the Tatars to the south of the Carpathians with Seneslav.--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• • How can Misheslav be identified with Seneslav? Could we also identify him with Béla IV or King Louis IX of France?

You can do whatever you want - identifications and conclusions. If they are made in proper manner, by reputable scientist, I will gladly add them in the article. In this case, your and my personal opinions do not matter. (However to me this identification (shared by at least one Romanian scholar) seems logical.) Please, remember Wikipedia:No original research--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Zlatarski did not cite the primary source properly, his interpretation is dubious. I would like to emphasize that this is not my original interpretation it is the interpretation of the above cited scholars whose work was written in the 21th century. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask: Do these historians enter into a discussion with Zlatarski or just they have a different (maybe right according you :) ) interpretation? Whatever is the answer, our role is not to hide comments in historiography or to give our own qualifications. Please, remember that this page is not a scientific forum or some kind of Historiographical Court. "Dubious" do not mean to give judgments, but refers rather to the technical aspects (see above).--JSimin (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not want to hide information. But if an interpretation is based on a non-existing sentence in a primary source, it should not be presented here.Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

According Zlatarski "Hungarian king Bela IV bestowed in 1247 housed in Transylvanian border .... knights, 1, to defend it "contre païens, Bulgares et autres schismatiques", and this proves once again that the Bulgarian lands were located adjacent to Transylvania, and 2. to stop miss a single person from the kingdom of any nationality or any situation, without specific permission of the King, from the which it is clear that the placement of knights Transylvanian border was intended to stop the exodus of the Wallachian population of Transylvania because Wallachian emigration outside the Magyar country to that direction was already taken such proportions that the king decided that it is necessary to take precautions".--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• • King Béla IV donated the Knights the land of Severin (Curta 2006 op. cit. p. 407). As Turnu Severin is on the Danube (which was the border of the Kingdom of Hungary and Bulgaria), the knights defended the kingdom's borders on the Danube.Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what exactly you mean by that? Zlatarski wrote that in 1233 Hungarians attacking Bulgarian lands north of the Danube, in Western Wallahia, and succeeded in capturing the entire area of today's Turnu-Severin, forming the bordering Severin banat. Due to this success Magyar King added in his title rex Bulgariae et Cumaniae.--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So if my understanding is correct, the fact that in 1233 the king of Hungary occupied the "land of Severin" proves that in 1247 the northern territories of the land of Severin were under Bulgarian rule. Dubious, even if it was interpreted by a historian in the 1940s. I would like to emphasize that this is not my original interpretation it is the interpretation of the above cited scholars whose work was written in the 21th century. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe you are puting a sign of equality between "land of Severin" and Oltenia as a whole. Moreover between Severin and Muntenia (the land of Seneslav). Concerning the time of the researhings (Zlatarski - 1940, Koledarov 1989) I have to recall that Historiography is not Chemistry, Medicine or IT and not always recent studies are the most correct. But even it is so, we are not ones to judge and maybe you have to pay attention what we have to determine as "dobious" and on other rules. (Generally, most of historical sources have been published long before Vásáry or even long before Zlatarski).--JSimin (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read my above remark on the quality of information provided by Zlatarski. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• • So when the king wrote of "a single person of any nationality" did he refer specifically to the Romanians? King Béla IV must have been a person who enjoyed misticism: he not only pretended that he could dispose of the land of Seneslav and Litovoi, but he also referred to the Romanians under secret names.Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is really interesting for me, but it does not change the fact that Zlatarski examined the text in the light of the exodus of the Orthodox subjects of the Hungarian king. It is the right of the sceintists (Z.) to draw conclusions and the right of the readers to disagree (you). :)--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, see my last remarks. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Koledarov in general endroses Zlatarski and gives a detail that I currently can not check. He wrote that the (Romanian author) D. Onchul assumed that voivodeships of Seneslav and Litovoy were linked politically with Bulgaria and subsequently came under the dependence of Hungary. His source is: Bogdan, I. Romîni şi Bulgari. Raport cult şi politintre aceste dona popoare conferenţia. Bucureşti, 1981, p. 37. (Коледаров, Петър. Политическа география на средновековната българска държава, Втора част (1186-1396), София 1989 (Koledarov. Petar. Political Geography of the Medieval Bulgarian State, part II. From 1186 to 1396, Sofia 1989), p. 25)--JSimin (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I can accept any assumption based on reliable sources, but I think the assumption should at least be substantiated and it also should be emphasized that it is only an assumption. As Litovoi is only mentioned in two letters of grant issued by kings Béla IV and Ladislaus IV of Hungary, there is no point in creating stories by denying the content of the only sources which refer to him. Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that you are trying to assess the primary sources and to offer only truth. I am trying to give a historiographic oppinion, based on interpretation of the primarly sources and the situation in one region (Bulgarian-Hungarian-Vlach-Tatarian... relationships). I'm sure you will agree that our job is not to do original research. So, I want to suggest to try to find a modus to express this historiographical view without imposing our personal oppinion.--JSimin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, I do not want to use primary sources. I cited two authors from the 21th century. If a historian (Z.) states that the text of a primary source contain a sentence and this sentence cannot be found in the primary source, the historian's interpretation is dubious. I would like to emphasize that any assumption can be presented based on reliable sources but I think highly dubious sentences should not be presented here. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you that you are trying to follow the rule to restrict the original research. I would be glad if you limit the brave qualifications, too. Therefore I hope you will pay attention to the rules stated above - about the meaning of the tag "Dobious". Naturally, you can try to find way to express that the interpretation of Zlatarski (which for me personally is quite logical) is not supported by recent researches on the matter.--JSimin (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to follow the rule to restrict original research, I have not made any original research. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)