Talk:Vlach law

RecentUndo

"As was before, spliting the Hungarian and Romanian sourced viewpoints, restore historian POV naming who say that, morover that was unnecessarily duplicated by the recent edit."

Given that this is a page of Top-Importnace for Romania and of High-Importance for Hungary, it makes sense to have the Romanian POV first as more people interested in the article are going to be from Romania. Not to mention, when talking about a people it makes sense to start with their own accounting first and only after that with the accounts of the foreigners. What is the reasoning for the Hungarian POV being fist? TheThorLat (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheThorLat,

the problem is that you mixed the Hungarian and Romanian POV, you mixed the sentences, which causes confusion, in that way nobody know which thing held by which one. It is clear and understandable to use "Romanian historiography..." "Hungarian historiography..." keep separate. That chapter is the "Vlach law in the Kingdom of Hungary", which was a Hungarian law = law in Hungary, a taxation form and not only Romanians (Vlachs) lived with that law. You duplicated Pop Aurel thoughts, he talks about "end of the Vlach law in 1438", it is about the timeline, why do you want change the timeline and talk about end of the law first? Morover many other sources in the article talk about Vlach law still centuries later than 1438, like this Romanian historian source even in 1658 [1] which mean Pop's view is just one opinion. Also I do not understand what is the business with Hunyadi family or any nobility with Vlach law, Hunyadi family was high-noble family in the Kingdom of Hungary and established in Hungary when they got estate from Hungarian king, nobles were not transhumance folk like people with Vlach law. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

the article has a lot of etc, because there`s a lot more to be sayd... you`re welcomed to add more... Greier 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Afferent"

"afferent juridical rituals": how on earth can a juridical rituals be "afferent"? Makes no sense to me at all. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Social organisation of the population"

"social organisation of the population" looks like a joke. What do "Caloianul" and "Calusari" have in common with "social organisation of the population"? 67.84.143.238 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Please read what the template says: "Statements consisting only of original research may be removed." Please also read WP:OR. It is not me who had to prove that the deleted text contains original research, but those who write the article are required to add proper citations. Please do not refrain doing so before reverting the text. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has no quality. It is an obvious synthesization of several different laws in history.--Zoupan 06:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Lex Antiqua Valachorum → Vlach law – We should use its English form [2] Fakirbakir (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Fakirbakir (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support "Vlach Law". Is the proposed target "Wallachian Right" or "Vlach law"? "Vlach Law" -llc gets 66 gbook hits, "Wallachian Right" -llc 6, "Lex Antiqua Valachorum" -llc 2. 08:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by It need to be said (talk • contribs) Blocked editor. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support "Vlach law". As per above. Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kis-vlachföldek.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Vlach jog

Hi Borsoka. Can I ask for a longer description of why are you removing the Hungarian-language text from the introduction? Vlach is a Hungarian word, and ch is a sound in Hungarian even if outside the alphabet. Vlach jog is the designation of the law in Hungarian, and it is completely relevant. See Vlach jog in Wikipédia. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you refer to a reliable source published in Hungarian using this term? Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon? Gyalu22 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Pontosabban? Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

vlachjogú falu

a 13–16. sz.-ban létrehozott, → kenézek telepítő tevékenysége révén benépesített, kezdetben legtöbbször román- és ruténlakta település. A legelső vlachjogú faluk Erdélyben jöttek létre. Számuk egyre szaporodott, és elterjedtek a Felföldön, Morvao.-ban sőt Galíciában is. Mivel a vlach szó a 15–16. sz.-ban már elsősorban nem népet, hanem foglalkozást, életformát jelentett, a vlachjogú falu sem volt törvényszerűen román vagy rutén népesség lakóhelye. Ekkor már szlovákok, lengyelek, horvátok és magyarok is telepedtek az idegenek beköltözésének kedvező, szabadabb vlach jog szerint. A vlachjogú faluk jogállásának legfontosabb sajátosságai a következők voltak: 1. A letelepített lakosság bírája a telepítő kenéz, ill. örököse volt, a kenéz fölött pedig a királyi tisztek törvényszéke ítélkezett. – 2. A népre kivetett bírságok és büntetések összegének egy harmada a kenézé lett, két harmadát pedig a falvak a maguk szükségére fordíthatták. – 3. A falvak terményük tizedével megválthatták országos közmunka kötelezettségüket. – 4. A lakosság királyi ötvenedet adott állataiból. – A vlachjogú falukban pásztorok, nagyrészt juhtartók laktak. A vlach jog a hegyi pásztoréletforma jogrendszere. Ott telepítettek e jog szerint, ahol a természeti viszonyok a földművelésnek nem kedveztek. A 15–16. sz.-ban már a vlachjogú falukban élőket hívták vlachoknak, függetlenül nemzetiségi hovatartozásuktól.

https://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02115/html/5-1437.html Gyalu22 (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Rendben. Már értem. A kommunizmus idején ezt a terminológiát vezették be az oláh/román jog helyett. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. We can find sources using this terminology from earlier:

https://mek.oszk.hu/10100/10104/10104.pdf

https://adatbank.ro/html/cim_pdf1121.pdf Gyalu22 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. An early interesting example of PC. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Academic sources

Hello Aristeus01!

[3]

Could you tell me what is not neutral point of you for you? Could you explain why did you overwrite to deface the meaning of sentences what was declared in a Hungarian academic source? (I always provide links, you can translate by google, and check it yourself if you do not beleive it) The Vlach law was part of the legal system in Hungary, and settlements which was established according to that law were part of Hungary until 1920 in the 20th century, which means Hungarian historiography has many documents and knowledge regarding the history of their (or former) settlements. Could you explain what is your problem with the "arose" "established" words? Do you think all today's settlements in Hungarian Kingdom were existed from the time of the dinosaurs? In the world everywhere many new settlements were established when the population increased during the centuries. And also many new Hungarian settlements were established during centuries whitout Vlach law far from Transylvania. Or do you think you need to keep silent the establishment time only for the Vlach settlements? I suppose many new settlements were established in Wallachia also during centuries, even Bucharest if from the 15th century. Historiography has knowledge certain settlements where established. In the sourced Hungarian academic source regarding medieval settlements in the Hungarian Kingdom the "arose" "established" words were in the context, you cannot supervise Hungarian academic source because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But if you have a different opinion in other reliable academic source, please put it that those settlements are "not established and not arose in that time". However I do not think that Romanian source would know different establishment time of certain settlements in Transylvania.

[4]

Could you tell me why did you remove a complete chapter from Hungarian academic source regarding the taxation regarding the Vlach law? Could you tell me what is not neutral point of you for you? Could you tell me why did you remove some words what was declared in the academic source? The removed sentence is clearly say that "in the Hungarian sources", and it is fact all Hungarian sources describe the Vlachs in this way regardless that you like it or not WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Or do you have problem with the "immigrants" "settled" words? Why? It is quite normal that people are immigrated and immigrating all the time, like Avars, Onogurs, Hungarian conquerors, German settlers... immigrated to Carpahtian Basin, or many Hungarians emigrated to Moldavia (Csangos), or many Englishmen, Spains, Frenchs, Germans immigrated to American continent, or in the 20th century many Hungarians, Poles, Italians, etc immigrated to USA, or these decades many Romanians, Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, etc immigrated to UK, Spain, Italy, (many also emigrated back), nobody have problem with that to talking about immigrant groups. Even in the Vlach article we can see a map about the moving of shepherds. I see you do not like when the Hungarian source say the Vlachs "migrated" or "settled" and you want to censor the Hungarian academic source. Or do you think only the Vlachs never migrated anywhere? Then why do we have sources about Vlach migration and Vlach law in Poland, in Moravia (Czech lands), in Croatia? The migration is really a natural form of the transhumance lifestyle, that is why the Vlach law was established, you basically try to remove the reason of the establishment of the Vlach law. Why? Anyway the Hungarian academic sources declares what you want to remove, and you cannot overwrite its content.

Hypothetical map projecting the transhumance paths of the Vlach shepherds in the past

OrionNimrod (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

According to Romanian historiography the law was there before being recorded in documents. That is what customary law mostly means. As per definition and the nature of it, codifying it in the Hungarian law does not mean it was created by the Kingdom of Hungary. Is this something we agree on?

If that is the case then editing only from the perspective of the documents emitted by Hungarian authorities is POV. It is also POV because it repeats arguments used in the ”immigrationist theory” without giving the opposite view as well. A NPOV section should try to avoid that.

Or you can insist to keep it this way and I will add an equal amount of text from Romanian perspective. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 "There" Where is there? Many kind of customary law was in every countries as you can see in the main article.

Sourcing Hungarian academic sources means I can use only the content what is there in the source. This is not hidden what is the Hungarian academic mainstream POV, as those sentences emphasize many times "Hungarian historiography", but altering the content what was declared in the Hungarian source is not correct, I also not intend to change the content in mainstream Romanian academic sources, but you can present. As you can see I was happy that you found a modern academic (what is not fringe) Romanian source and also I used that content to extend the article, but I did not change the meaning of that content. So Romanian source also presented there. Morover the topic is the Vlach law in the medieval Hungary. I also provided British source Martyn Rady, you showed me his theory about the Hungarian conquest he is on the side of the Pecheneg theory (like some Hungarian historians in the past), I think regarding the kenezes his content is same like Hungarian sources.

I cannot do anything, because universally all Hungarian sources have nothing with Daco-Roman things, so I realized now that is why you said for you the full Hungarian national library is unreliable. Also I cannot do anything that you do not like what are the old historical records regarding Vlach law and work of the kenezes, and modern Hungarian historians working from historical sources, and they will declare what is their knowledge about this if you like it or not. Marty Rady also say: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." Which means Hungarian historiography will not make baseless/sourceless fictions/specultions in their history regarding their own country to satisfy the followers of the Daco-Roman theory which was invited by Romanian nationalistic purpose. (Like I really do not understand why nobody has any records in that huge area for centuries long timeline about the allegedly "always majority Romanians" as Daco-Roman theory claim: x)

Statuta Valachorum Here many non Hungarian sources claim the same regarding the later Vlach law and the Vlach settlers. Blame them that all of them "repeats arguments used in the immigrationist theory”. Or here: 1 or https://www.balkan-history.com/wallachian-colonization/ OrionNimrod (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Map

Hi Aristeus01!

I see you engaged to put a photoshopped map in the topic. [5][6] your caption: "the Romanian-speaking areas under Vlach law in 13th century (1200-1300) in Kingdom of Hungary" "the map shows large territories inhabited by Vlachs"

Some days ago you put a map about "Romanian settlements between 801-1400" [7] Where west Hungary and north Hungary is full with allegedly Romanian settlements. Sorry but I do not see any consistency when you put random maps in the articles. In your previous map you showed large area inhabited by Romanians in full Hungary, in north and in west between between 800-1400, now you put a map where large lands inhabited by Romanians only in the eastern regions between 1200-1300. How possible this contradiction between your maps? Why do you miss the allegedly large Romanians in west and north Hungary in this case what you claimed just some days ago? Morover you said that I am pseudo-scientist if I do not agree with that map, are you pseudo-scientist too today because you miss that large Romanians from other regions? Do you have any explanation for this big contradiciton between your maps?

The academic Romanian, Polish, Hungarians sources say Vlach law emerged everywhere and also in Hungary first from 14th century (1300-1400), the maps shows Hungary 1250-1300, which is an earlier timeline. And according to the sources in the article Vlach law was used in many other places not only in the marked areas, and sources say Vlach law was used also for example in Saxon areas, morover even the Romanian academic source claims that settlements with Vlach law does not mean that everybody was only Romanian there. Also that map should create by academic scholars who know exactly which settlements which regions were used the Vlach law, and using Vlach law in certain regions does not meant that regions were "full Romanian populated and only Romanian speaking" as you claimed.

The map was made in 2019 by a Romanian user who is blocked now, because he violated many times Wiki rules:

(Own work) = clearly not an academic work File:Kis-vlachföldek.png

Moroever he admits, the base of the map was this map: which made in 2008 and it is already on the article: File:Hungary 13th cent.png (you can see Romanian population showed there also) and the source of that map was an academic map: [8]

You claimed this is the academic source of your map: Mihályi János : ''Magyar diplomák a XIII és XIV századbol''. I bet you did not check it. As I said the map is fake and the provided sources also fake. That work did not exist, only this: "Mihályi János: Máramarosi diplomák a XIV. és XV. századból." Which made in 1900, and collection of documents from 1300-1400 in Maramaros not in all Hungary, and of course no map there: [9]

It is very tricky the user provide many random source to pretend his map is based on real sources. This is also a marked source: Czamańska, Ilona. The Vlachs – several research problems [10] Again, no map there, even not much talk about Hungarian regions. This is also marked: Balcanica Posnaniensia - Acta et studia n° 22, february 2015, again no map there [11] (Romanian academic source) Even I see they are writing about the Vlach law whitout any Daco-Roman content, seems it is embarassing for modern Romanian academics. I see modern Romanian scholars are different than the Pop Aurel line with the Romanian nationalcommunist ideologies.

Which means the Romanian user just photoshopped big Romanian areas by own fantasy (a Daco-Roman fan art) to supervise and overwrite a Hungarian academic map.

I quote again your favorite British historian, Martyn Rady: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." Your claim contradict him: "the Romanian-speaking areas under Vlach law in 13th century (1200-1300) in Kingdom of Hungary" "the map shows large territories inhabited by Vlachs". Martyn's claim is fact, the Hungarian academics say the same (Or do you have any sources before 13th century regarding Vlachs in Hungary?) so this the reason why Hungarians do not care with the Daco-Roman theory which make fantasy (a fiction by political purpose to prove Romanians were first in Transylvania to justify the dictate of Trianon), a sourceless fantasy about the "always majority Romanians" in Hungary. So Hungarian historiography will not imagine "always majority Romanians" in medieval Hungary before 1200 if they have zero historical things about this, at least could you understand this Hungarian reason? I can say the Daco-Roman theory is not a theory but a real religion, because you do not have sources/evidences just strong belief, like flat earth theory also have followers with strong belief.

This is also strange, that you did not like this map which is a modern academic work by Hungarian scholars regarding the history of their own country: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdom_of_Hungary_-_Ethnic_Map_-_1495.jpg

I know you admitted that all Hungarian academic works are not reliable for you and you would like see this kind of maps regarding Hungarian history which made by Romanians: [12] where full Hungary is actually "Romanian" :) that is why I do not understand now why you satisfied to show Romanians only in eastern areas.[13]

This map is presented in a very big book (3kg weight), this is my pesonal photo, I took the picture in one of the biggest book shop in Hungary, which we can find in every shopping mall. It is an academic modern view, a reliable source, even published in English. I think Hungarian academics will not ask pardon from you because they dared to publish work regarding of the history of their own country, even if you do not like it.

http://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/kiadv/mna3_en.html

https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html

OrionNimrod (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

I would prefer using no maps at all, since the issue is contentious.

Alternatively, if that map is "fantasy" and we insist on using maps, we can use the following which is from a published book:

Aristeus01 (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This was drawn by a Commons user and the books in its description are sources, not where it was used. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01!

1.

The provided maps based on academic sources, recorded settlements, and recorded documented regions, borders, not really ethnically things. Many articles use them, I was able to show you the academic map which was the base to the drawed map. But I see this is a fetish that you want to show ethnic Romanians everywhere in that medieval times in Hungarian maps even if they are fake maps and even all of them contradict each other, because they show Romanians different places.

2.

If you cannot post fake maps, I see you make every effort to try to remove the Hungarian academic source regarding the history of Hungary regarding the history of their own country. I contacted with the director of the MTA research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences Geographical Institute and if need they will happy to allow to use that map in Wiki. (Or I can recreate the map as personal work based on a real academic source and not based by fantasy, but this not need.) The director said this map is a product of 30 years research. He said in that map they favored to the Romanians, because in the reality the Romanian areas were much smaller in the historical sources, and they colored villages as Romanian even if the wandering Romanians were there only for a week based on the sources.

3.

Could I ask you how many fake maps do you have? What does this map means? Full Romanian population/settlements in the green area?That map was created by the same user (sockpuppet): [14] It is again a photoshopped Daco-Roman fan art. The title: "Romanian Political Formations 9-13 (800-1300) Centuries".

It is well known, national-communist Romania produced this kind of fake historical maps which was the base of the Daco-Roman religion fan-art: Romania 8-13th century:[10][11]Sorry but today is 2023, this is not our problem that you live in an old world with different political religion.

I quote again your favorite British historian, Martyn Rady: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."

How possible the existence of the above mentioned and photoshopped Romanian political organizations in that huge (about 300 000 km2) area between 800-1300 (500 years is a long time) if no sources know about them, and why no sources in that huge area in a such a long time about the allegedly "always majority Romanians"? In the international maps I do not see any of them in that timeline. How possible that no Romanian settlements [15] in west and north Hungary as you claimed some days ago as real science? How possible that Romanian maps are very different what you want to publish?

Your map say the Hungarian chieftain Gyula (title), Gyula II, Gyula III was Romanian, any explanation? I see characters from the Gesta Hungarorum (original Latin text) in the map which characters mentioned nowhere else, so modern historians claim that they are fantasy enemy characters. In the original Latin text none of them are "Romanian" and in the English translation only Gelu translated to "vlach", however original text say "blassi, blacorum", so not all scholars agree with this translation. And Glad, and Menumorut not at all Romanian in the text, so I really do not know how they became "Romanian states".

I am very sad that you never answer to my questions in a converation. Could you answer to my questions?

See, in the international maps I do not see any of them in that timeline (probably all of the pseudoscience according to you), but you can google other maps, you will see the similar result:

814

1097

1190

14th: we can see Romanian politican organizations: Wallachia + Moldavia

OrionNimrod (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

Don't be sad. I will answer your questions, it's just hard to select them from such a long reply, dealing with so many things. Please try to ask one or two at a time. Remember, we are here to discuss specific issues, not to engage in verbal battles. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok Aristeus01, the topic is your maps because you wanted to publish them.

Question 1:

All of your maps contradict each other, because they show Romanians different places, 3 maps and same timeline, Romanians are different location on all of them:[16], File:FormatiuniPoliticeRomanestiSecolele IX XIII.jpg, [17] What is your explanation for this big contradiction, why other map does not show Romanians in west and north Hungary?

Question 2:

How possible the existence of the above mentioned and photoshopped Romanian political organizations in that huge (about 300 000 km2) area between 800-1300 (500 years is a long time) if no sources know about them, and why no sources in that huge area in a such a long time about the allegedly "always majority Romanians" which claimed by Daco-Roman theory? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

Thank you for formulating your questions this way!

1. All 3 maps (which are not mine per se) show Vlachs/Romanians from different perspectives: Vlach Law, toponyms of possible Romanian origin, and late Middle Ages political organisations. Hence 3 different maps/interpretations.

2. Kingdom of Hungary sources barely mention ethnic groups in the 10th to 11th century Transylvania, certainly not to the extent of a full demographic survey, dealing mostly with administrative issues. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We have many Hungarian and many non Hungarian sources regarding the region and many events, things about many folks, but nothing about "always majority Romanians" in that huge area for that long period. But finally you admit that you have no sources which means that the base of you theory is just a strong belief. Could you accept the sourceles/archeologyless thing is the reason why Hungarian historiography do not deal with the Daco-Roman religion? Why should they invent things what they do not know? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Where do I "admit no sources"? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01! Do you think Marty Rady has no right? (Hungarian historians also do not know any) Perhaps do you know any sources before 1200? Cool! Could you show me? Old sources between 800-1200 about Romanians in that huge area (full Kingdom of Hungary) including Transylvania + west Hungary as you claimed in your map that is was full with allegedly Romanian settlements. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

Yes, here is the main source: https://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/B176/pdf

I also have a question for you:

In 1169, Stephen III of Hungary gives several villages to a monastery in Szentjobb, among them Aqua, named after the local Apa family? Why did the king wrote Apa as Aqua? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 I asked old historical sources. Your linked book is just a linguistic study.

"In 1169, Stephen III of Hungary gives several villages to a monastery in Szentjobb, among them Aqua, named after the local Apa family? Why did the king wrote Apa as Aqua?" I do not know what is the context and from where, link it please, page number. Btw "apa" means "father" in Hungarian and "anya" means "mother", "após" means "father in law" in Hungarian, also "Aba" was a Hungarian clan, "apa" in Hungarian etimology dictionary this is ancient finno-ugric word. "aqua" is a Latin word, means "water", like everywhere in Europe used that word. Almost all medieval Hungarian documents were written in Latin, and Hungarian words were written many times in latinized form. What do you want to say? In a text "aqua" in every documents in Europe means huge Romanian population?

This is again off topic. I asked old historical sources. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

You asked for sources, not contemporary documents. Please be specific.

The question is not off topic. It's in line with the discussion so far. I take it you do not have an explanation? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 Read above, I asked old sources about Romanians between 800-1200 from the territory of Kingdom of Hungary, west Hungary, Transylvania. I ask because because you want to put that maps in English articles, I ask because your maps say: 800-1200 Romanians in that huge area: Romanian settlements [18] (you emphasized this), Romanian speaker population in large area, large area inhabited by Romanians [19] (you emphasized this), Romanian political formations File:FormatiuniPoliticeRomanestiSecolele IX XIII.jpg political formation: any rulers, coins, cities, armies, battles, trading with others, etc? It should be I think, except if these political formations are just fantasy like the Lord of the Ring: Gondor, Mordor, Rohan, Numenor, Gondolin, etc. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

You do not answer my questions, but demand me to answer yours.

Here is the link: Istoria Transilvaniei | Hideg Gheorghe - Academia.edu

, page 357 As for those political formations that is just your opinion (and of Hungarian scholars). Luckily, history is not written and published only from one POV, especially when dealing with contentious issues. Those maps are made after published information by Romanian historians and researchers (Drăganu, Filipașcu, Curta).

Is that problematic? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01, you know historical existence and presence of states has clear international history. Still I do not know any sources about that hundred of Romanian settlements in west Hungary. I see your book is a collection of old Hungarian sources. Where do you see Romanians between 800-1200 in that text? Could you show me? I do not see. Also sorry but I do not see any Romanian political formations in the page 357 which shows an old Hungarian document from 1169. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

at that page you can find the document about Aqua, which is still an opened question.

Could you please explain what do you mean by "presence of states has clear international history."?

Check the map if you find the text difficult, you'll see Romanian toponyms in West Hungary dated from 11th century. Then ctrl+f in the text and see the reference. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01,

1.

In that document linked by you, which collect Hungarian sources (btw you stated earlier all of Hungarian source are not reliable), I do not see anything about Romanians before 1200. So the question is still open: whitout contemporary sources (800-1200) why do your maps claim Romanian settlements + large areas inhabited by Romanians + Romanian political organizations between 800-1200 in 300 000 km2 big area? It is a simple fantasy like countires in the Lord of the Ring.

2.

There are many historical sources+archeology+etc for existence of states, which presented on historical maps. Like this, made by non-Hungarian historians: File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg That states existed at that time, Sorry, I do not see any Romanian political organization there. Or there File:Europe mediterranean 1097.jpg And Google other international history maps between 800-1200: none show any Romanian states.

3. [20] Do you mean aqua striga around Győr? From 1231?

"Aqua" is a Latin word means "water", as you can see the old Hungarian documents were written in Latin and many Hungarian cities had Latin names in old documents like Székesfehérvár is Alba regia which is the same meaning in in German (Hungarian as the Latin: "white royal", like Hunyadi János is John Hunyadi in English because we are talking English. Tell me why "aqua" would be Romanian toponym in west Hungary if this a Latin word, or even no records about Romanians there? I bet, in England, Spain, French you will find many Latin toponyms, do you think it means that there were huge Romanian population because of Latin toponyms everywhere in Europe?

Hungarian source: sztriga is a brook in Győr county mentioned in 1231 (aqua striga = brook striga)

https://mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/nevarchivum/varmegyek/gyor.html

I really do not know how can you place Romanian settlements there because a brook mentioned in that name in 1231 in west Hungary whitout any source which mention any Romanian population, and this is not 800-1200. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

I suggest more familiarity with language study. If we are to call linguistic and etymological research "fantasy" we might sound amateurish.

Anyway, until balance is restored in the article I do not agree with using only one map or the other. If that is not to your liking may I suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ? Aristeus01 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

OrionNimrod, ok, based on your personal religion "brook/water striga" "aqua striga" name in 1231 in west Hungary means only: Romanian settlement with large Romanian population. Amen :D Just dont forgot, Romulan also means Romanian settlement in an alien planet :)

Which balance? Actually what is your problem with the map which showed Hungary in 1250 in the Kingdom of Hungary section?

Or showing Romanian recorded documented settlements by academic source? It is problem now? I supposed you like to show them. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

What is your problem with showing both sides? This what the wiki asks us to do.

Are you saying Draganu, Carta, and Filipascu are not academic sources? Aristeus01 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 Both side? I see only 1 map:

The original one which based on an academic map:File:Hungary 13th cent.png

And the same which was recently modified by the blocked sockpuppet Julieta:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kis-vlachföldek.png

So I restored the original map in the topic of the Kingdom of Hungary section.

I see you engaged to force in the English Wikipedia the third fake map: [21] I really do not know what is the connection with the Vlach law in Kingdom of Hungary. I discussed above why this is fake, which is cleary not a modern academic map, but a photoshopped by the same user based on national-communist fake maps as showed above. Morover it is very strange that we have no sources about Romanians between 800-1200 in territory of Hungary but you imagine Romanian political organization (states!) in that huge area: Cities? Rulers? Coins? Warfare? Sources? Etc? = Nothing. The irony, that you say all Hungarian sources are unreliable, but for this map the 300 years later written Gesta Hungarorum is the base as only this Hungarian document contain the name of the fantasy enemy characters of the Hungarians. In this case it is good to use Hungrian sources? Right? Double standard? However I really do not know that the Hungarian conqueror chieftain Gyula how can be "Romanian organization"... OrionNimrod (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

All the sources and arguments you are asking for are already on the page "Origin of Romanians".

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, with both sides of a coin presented. Are you saying only Hungarian view is valid to be added here? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 Anyway I do not know what is the bussiness with your map with the vlach law topic and with the kingdom of Hungary section. A photoshopped fantasy fake map is not another modern academic historical view. You did not provide any old sources about Romanian political organizations in that huge area for allegedly 500 year timeline which imagined in the fake map. (or show me link page number in old source before 1200) International maps, historians, old sources, do not know about these "Romanian states". Are you deliberately blind to see the presented international history maps above? And you can find more in google. Fantasy characters like Menmarot and Glad as Romanian organization? How? I linked original and English translated Gesta Hungarorum (by your favorite Martyn Rady), the text does not say at all that they would be "Romanians" also it is total nonsense to claim the Hungarian chieftain Gyula would be Romanian organization. Follow that logic, I can say Gandalf was Romanian too however Lord the Ring book does not say this, can I present fantasy Romanian state of Gandalf in historical Europe map because it is my view and I make a fanart? :) I see you dont react my arguments, dont answer my questions, dont provide requested proper historical source (page number, text wich support you). Do you think pointing to "aqua" (from 1231) in a map near Austria word means Romanian states in that huge area 500 years long? (your evidence) :D OrionNimrod (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)k

@OrionNimrod

Please, we are continuing a discussion ad nauseum. Belittling and personal attack type of phrasing like "deliberately blind" are not ok nor do they help with the argument. I do not see any way we can agree on these issues, I do not see any logic in the arguments you are giving and no academic answer to the problems I raised. Instead we go down the road of making fun of the other, and that is not a conversation I am willing to have. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01, sorry but is not my problem if you do not like logic in my arguments. I hope it will be easier in this way:

1.

That map (the green-yellow Romanian political) has no bussiness with vlach law topic, and in the kingdom of Hungary section. Agree or not?

2.

You showed a map where 500 years long (800-1300) in a huge area (300 000km2) are Romanian states. In the international history maps we cannot see any of these states = that states did not exist = fantasy. Dont you understand this logic? Or do you claim all international historical maps are wrong? Those maps not made by Hungarians. And you can find in google more maps, you will not see that states on international maps.

3.

Martyn Rady (quoted above) (+others+Hungarian historiography) does not know about any Romanians in records before 1200 in that area. If we have no records how can we image 500 years political orgainzations in that huge area? The historical existence a state need many things, arcehology, cities, many records, rulers, wars, many contact with others, many items, etc. but we have zero records. Dont you understand this logic? How can you imagine a state for that a big area if we have no records about this there?

4.

You showed no evidences, sorry but saying that "aqua" (a brook name) word near Austria from 1230 does not prove the existence of an 500 years long states in a very different area in Transylvania and today's Romania. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

1. No, it is representative for the formation of the Romanian voivodates, which are part of the Law.

Also Britannica, a more academic source that the mess wiki is states:

"The Hungarians, who had settled in Pannonia at the end of the 9th century and who entered Dacia in the 10th century, overwhelmed the Slavic-Romanian duchies, or voivodates, that they encountered there."

2. Plenty of maps, international as well, show with lesser detail Romanians in the area 1 2 3. So no, I do not agree with what you say.

3."There can be little doubt, however, that a Romanian population dwelled in the region (of Wallachia), although it is impossible to estimate either its size or its principal economic activity. Linguistic evidence suggests a Romanian presence in Hunyad county from at least the eleventh century." and he continues "It may well be, as Hungarian historians universally maintain, that the sudden entry of the Vlachs into the Hungarian historical record around 1200 was a consequence of Romanian immigration from the Balkan interior. It could, nevertheless, also be taken to indicate the new political importance attaching to the Romanian chieftains of Transylvania and the Lower Danube which made their presence for the first time worthy of record." So strong disagree. Only in your (and armchair historians) opinion archaeology=ethnology. No professional archaeologist puts an = between one object and a state or ethnicity. McDonalds in Budapest does not mean it's an American city.

4. I showed and pointed at evidence repeatedly, including the part from "Origin of Romanians", historian and linguists, even Hungarian documents. Your statement here is a blatant falsification.

In general, all you have said here is a false, with no sign of being willing to entertain an idea without agreeing with it, just dismissiveness and logical fallacies. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01,

1.

Plenty? International academic modern which one?

Your map examples again a photoshopped work by Romanian users, your example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern_Europe,_VI-VII_centuries.png this is the original:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bulgarians_and_Slavs_VI-VII_century.png

I asked academic international atlas, not fan arts. Nice that you show me any another Romanian fant art: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20100217005035!A_view_on_6th_to_8th_cent.jpg

That map is the map by the world of the Gesta Hungarorum made by Hungarians, not international history map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gesta_hungarorum_map.jpg For example Gesta mention Cumans there, however they arrrived only 200 years later. Also that maps does not show big Romanian organizations, just mention Vlachs in a small area (who are blassi/blacorum in original text). On that map I can see Khazarland on Menmarot's land and Bulgarianland on Glad's land, so no Romanian states there like in your map.

2.

Still I do not know what is the bussiness with the vlach law of the fictitious Gelou land. Or I do not know what is the bussiness with the vlach law Menmarot/Glad lands who were not at all Romanian in the Gesta.

3. So Martyn Rady also do not know nothing, all your Daco-Roman theory and "always majority" Romanians there based only on fictions, speculations and strong belief (religion). No historical records, but only speculations enough for you to fill up 300 000 km2 huge land full with Romanian population.

4. What did you show? Please again, exact text, page number, link. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

and we are back to saying whatever in desperate attempts to win arguments. There's no reasoning here. Not interested in conversing with you. Please move on. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 for several request, again you was unable to show any exact thing, (link, book, exact text, page number) as evidence for your map… OrionNimrod (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

Denialism and appeal to the stone, as displayed in your last comment, are not "victories". We are well into an ad nauseam conversation. Again, please move on. Aristeus01 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01, still I am waiting old sources which give evidence for your maps (proper way: link, book, exact chapter, exact text, page number) If you do not show, it proves you do not have any or if you have please show me! OrionNimrod (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, I found this in the book of the British-Romanian (non Hungarian!) historian Dennis Deletant regarding the "3 Romanian kings" subject, which relate to the above map which you want to put the article, he says it is clearly a national communist propaganda: "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos." OrionNimrod (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

I asked (and still do) for no map to be added since they are used to illustrate a point in favour of one side or the other of the continuity-immigrationist debate, or use one of each. Which map is ok or not is open for discussion, neutrality is not.

It is the editors responsibility to stick to NPOV. I can help with sources if needed for the topic you just quoted, for example:

(46) The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum. Truth and Fiction, Centrul de Studii Transilvane (Bibliotheca Rerum Transsilvaniae, XXXIV) Cluj-Napoca, 2005 | Alexandru Madgearu - Academia.edu

but I will not add or remove content on these article just to argue one theory in particular or argue with you. Again, a sole editor can and must be able to present a topic with most if not all views included.

Best of luck! Aristeus01 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01!

The topic already present many views, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, British, etc sources. That map shows simple the border of Hungarian Kingdom because the topic is the Kingdom of Hungary in that section, which is same like in all international maps. That maps does not show any immigrations or any continuity, this map is not about that. While you wanted to put a fake photoshopped map where the original map (what you do not like) was changed by sourceless user fantasy. So this is not neutral view to use the original one and the falsified map what you like (btw I like the Lord of the Rings maps also, but I cannot use them here). After you wanted to put another fake map which based on national-communist fictions fantasies, "3 Romanian kings", I quoted even Romanian historian. Your intrigues was not success to remove modern Hungarian academic sources about the history of their own country, the copyright was provided by Hungarian academy: [22] I also do not know what is the bussiness the Gesta Hungarorum (stories until King Saint Stephen 11th century) with the Vlach law in the kingdom as a legal documented thing from the 14th century. I have a quote regarding this: British (non Hungarian!) historian, Carlile Aylmer Macartney writes in his critical and analytical guide of Anonymus "All Rumanian medievalists refer to Anon, but none of them is worth reading on the subject" + "this is not evidence that he introduced the whole person of Gelou or the presence of Vlachs in Transylvania". But I do not know what is the bussiness Gelou with the Vlach law... OrionNimrod (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

End of Vlach Law

Hi @Gyalu22

You stated in your edit that the Vlach Law was no longer active by the 18th century. I came across this source mentioning it in 1735. Do you have any sources at hand that can provide some clarity? Aristeus01 (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't explicitly state that, I said the map refers to later times. The description of the article ends in the 15th century apart from a mention of the Vlach Statutes. If you have evidence that the Vlach law was active in the 18th and 19th centuries, there's no problem with the map from that side. (However I don't know what the source says, can you quote it maybe?) From the other side, you don't give any reason why it is better than the painting. From my experience, maps of migration paths are not favored more in articles of transhumance peoples. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Article, what Pop Aurel said:

"According to Romanian historian Ioan-Aurel Pop, in Transylvania, after the establishment of the Union of Three Nations and the suppression of the Bobâlna Uprising in 1438, the Vlach law gradually disappeared while the Romanian masters and boyars (which enjoyed the Universitas Valachorum) had to choose between three solutions: the loss of all rights and the fall into serfdom, having to migrate beyond the Carpathians to Moldavia or Wallachia, or merging into the Hungarian nobility by converting to Catholicism and adopting the Hungarian language."

I do not think Vlach law was disappeared, even I saw Vlach law things by other Romanian historians in later times. According to Pop, he acknowledges the Romanians had a really great life in Hungary by the Vlach law if he says without Vlach law (with they enjoyed according to Pop) they loss rights. Btw in medieval Hungary and everywhere in feudal Europe all serfs had the same rights, this was not an ethnic based thing as Pop pretend that "Romanians how was suppressed in Hungary", every serfs were suppressed, Hungarian serfs also, that is why it was Hungarian peasant rebellions. If allegedly the Hunyadis are Romanians (according genetic test they had ancient Carpathian Basin genetic, so not really), I bet they really enjoyed that they were part of the Hungarian nobility, Hunyadi was the biggest landlord, governor, his son king. Or the half Romanian Nicolaus Olachus was the primate of Hungary, interesting that these great achivements depicted as bad thing by Pop Aurel. Probably the "bad" Hungarians forced Romanian nobles to became equal with all privileged rights with lot of estates and titles, I can imagine how bad "choose" was this for them :) It is same like many people migrated in USA and they children became great Americans, nobody forced them. It is also interesting, that nationalist Romanian authors like Pop, always emphasize the "very bad cruel" treatment of Romanians in Hungary by Hungarians, and they forgot to mention what was the life of the peasants in Wallachia, and even in the 19-20th century: Slavery in Romania until 1859, 1907 Romanian peasants' revolt 20,000 peasants were killed in Romania, while in Hungary it was peasant revolutions 400 years earlier.

This sources write about people how became the privileged classes of society by Vlach law in the 1600s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/325892.

The Vlach law had many benefits, but the serfs were serfs and the their ethnic did not matter. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod True, true, the serfdom was not about ethnic lines. I don't know how much Romanian historians make this distinction, although there are books discussing the "Romanian noble families", and I rarely if ever seen anything about the Hungarian serfs in Romanian studies. I think mostly internauts prefer this "national-communist" approach, as you call it, of saying Romanian in Transylvania=serf (to Hungarians). I was having a giggle reading about how after the WWII the communist and orthodox sides resolved to calling Greek Orthodox Romanians "Hungarians". I guess this mentality perpetuated to the days of the Internet. As for Pop he ravishes in this narrative style that is often more belletrist than historical, writing history in broad lines, at a national level, but I for once would love to read something that is more specific, like the development of serfdom in one area of Transylvania compared to another. As for Hunyadi I don't know what to say, I read somewhere else that the genetic studies point at a Balkan origin of the family. Anyway, I am hopping to find more in-depth studies on this topic. Which brings me to my next point:

@Gyalu22 my question was genuine, although I don't deny I dislike the current image and prefer the one I proposed. However, I asked! I mean by that I want to have a conversation based on facts and sources before making a decision. A recent example: Pannonian Romance is probably the best form of the article since it was created, based on facts and general consensus, precisely because we talked and eliminated scholarly opinions and non-academic sources. The insistence on having a 19th century drawing of a Vlach shepherd when we dismissed an image referring to previous century shepherding activities is illogical, to put it politely. This article will never make it to a GA status in these conditions, it probably should not even be a B, and what we want is to improve and expand Wikipedia, right?

Extract from the linked source:

"In 1735 the villagers from Rășinari initiated their first action in court, as complainants, because the Magistrate of Sibiu continued via facti Rășinari’s spoliation of numerous rights. As a matter of fact:

a) their juridical rights pertaining to the Jus Valachicum were violated; the same happened to

b) the tenure rights of the Romanian shepherds from Rășinari over their pastures in exchange for the payment of the tax quinquagesima or terragium,14 given the fact that the Magistrate imposed them the payment of an increased fee of 200 Hungarian florins, by also arresting 20 innocent jurors from Rășinari." Aristeus01 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, we are here to improve articles. But that I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm against improvement. It means we see it differently.

I'm aware the painting was made in the 19th century, but as far as I know casual Vlach costumes didn't change noticeably from the last time the Vlach law was referred to. I don't feel determining that is my task. You brought a map connected to 18th and 19th century Vlachs. If you can prove that the law was in use in the 19th century, the map is good for the article. Only that then your sole reason to put it via replacing the other image disappears. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The costume has very little to do with it as a similar style was used by Hungarian shepherds in the Puszta:

Juhász

Hungary (28218789376)

The point of the map is that if the Vlach Law extended to 1735, so 18th century, it is well within the map's timeframe as the legend on the left upper part says: ways of transhumance as recorded in the 18th and 19th century, and ways of supposed until the 18th century, not 19th only. So all I need to prove really is that Vlach Law or a reminiscence of it was in use by 18th century, something that I already have a source for. And the reason does not "disappear" since the mapping of an activity is more informative than the image of one individual. You wish to keep images of Romanian shepherds, by all means, here is one from Roman times Alba Iulia as well:

File:Alba Iulia National Museum of the Union 2011 - Roman Shepherd Relief, Apulum.JPG - Wikimedia Commons Aristeus01 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's not all you need to prove. It isn't correct to mention one appeal that refers to the law from the first half of the 18th century and by that right use a map about the remaining and irrelevant 150 years too. Also, it's very informative to show what kind of people we are talking about, how they look like. That's why in the List of nomadic peoples article you see zero maps. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, this is the genetic study: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(22)03019-5 (note, Q1 (most top) ranked scientific journal, it was many months long the supervision process before the the journal published) Not me, but the researchers who did that study said in many interviews the result supports the Hungarian theory.

The Corvinus' genomes have the highest shared drift with Neolithic European samples, Hungarian Neolithic samples such as Kőrös culture (6000–5500 BC), Linear Pottery culture from the Great Hungarian Plain (5500–5000 BC), Lengyel culture (5000–4400 BC), Bodrogkeszetúr culture (4000–3600 BC). This clearly shows that the majority genome components of the Corvinus were present in the Carpathian Basin thousands of years ago, which is in agreement with Admixture results: [23]

John and Christopher carried the Y-chromosome haplogroup is E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c ∼ The Y-chromosome is passed only from father to son.

The history of the haplogroup is complex than saying "Balcanian haplogroup": [24] Haplogroup E-V13 became one of the most widespread male lineages in Europe, reaching far beyond the borders of Europe and the Mediterranean, as Asia. There are also very close archeogenetic sample matches from Germany, England, Denmark, Spain, I think those people were not Romanians because they had the E-V13 haplogroup. Skanderbeg, Garibaldi, Wright borthers, Lyndon B Johnson, Larry Page also had/has this haplogroup. (This is not my haplogroup, but the DNA company shows significant amount of shared genomes with Hunyadi family to my personal DNA, as I said it is not a surprise if people living in the same place hundred years long has many shared genetics.)

Today this haplogroup is more frequent today in the Balkan (in Albania), however it is widespread across in whole Europe. Hunyadi originated from the south part of the Kingdom of Hungary, which is matching with the distribution of the haplogroup. The distribution of the haplogroup are almost similar in today’s Hungary and Romania (today same amount of Hungarians and Romanians have this haplogroup).

Closest Y-chromosomal haplogroups samples around the world:

- Sample from the Otrar-Karatau culture of the Iron Age Kazakh steppe (245–343 AD) (Scythian steppe): this is the most close sample to Hunyadi (the location is near Alai Nura where is many Saka site and near to Tian Shan Huns: 1 From this (non Hungarian) study Gnecchi-Ruscone et al., 2021

- Sample from Medieval Sardinia (1300–1400 AD)

- Sample from North Rhine Westphalia Germany from post Roman times

- Sample from Saxon Palace England

- Sample from Viking age Denmark

Closest Y-chromosomal haplogroups samples from the Carpathian Basin:

- Sample from an Avar person (650–675 AD) (Onogur, so-called "griffin and tendril" culture)

- Sample from an elite Hungarian conqueror (895–950 AD) (Karos Hungarian conqueror cemetery)

- Sample from a medieval Hungarian nobleman who was buried in the Hungarian Royal Basilica of Székesfehérvár

I do not think the Romanian nobles from 1400 had Avar/Hungarian conqueror/Hungarian nobleman ancestry and these are the closest local sample matches. Supercomputers are matchings the million of DNA datas, based on the analized and uploaded archeogenetic samples. For example the Hungarian scholars determined the full genome sequence, before this technology was not so modern, and the previous DNA studies 10-20 years ago analized much less data from a DNA.

According to mytrueancestry, the closest ancient sample matches to the Hunyadi family are the Scythian, Visigoth and Scordisci samples in average. The Scordisci were a Celtic Iron Age cultural group centered around today Belgrade (Vojvodina, which is also very near with the family origin place). Closest modern sample matches to the Hunyadi family in this order: West German, Flemish, Serbian, Hungarian, French, Central German, East German, South Dutch, we cannot see Romania in the top 8. I think it would be worth to analize the remains of Sigismund's father who buried in Saint Vitus Prague to check the theory of Sigismund's parentage is true or not true.

Btw Hungarian scholars are constantly analyze the old population of the Carpathian Basin, it will be many published study, they plan to publish the Sarmatian period, and ancient locals, etc, and they recently analized the Aba family about 30 medieval nobleman remains from Aba family in an excavation site. Interesting but the Aba family claimed the similar Attila ancestry as the Arpads, and those graves in the excavation had coffin with Turul bird, and they had many genetic matches also with Asian Huns like the Arpad family genomes, I think it will be published soon.

OrionNimrod (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, Gyalu22

There were shepherds everywhere in many nations, there were Hungarian shepherds also, today also. The topic is the medieval Vlach law which started in the 14th century in Hungary and mostly regarding to the Vlachs (however not only Vlachs lived under Vlach law but other transhumance practising people) and regarding the transhumance way of life as you can see many sources say that. The image depicts a Vlach + shepherd. Which image would be more perfect to describe the Vlach law? Do you have a better image from 14th century?

I know you removed also them form the Vlach article earlier, could you tell me the reason why these images are a problem? What is the real reason?

File:Raffet - Berger du Banat.jpg

File:Théodore Valerio, Pâtre valaque de Zabalcz, Romanian shepherd from Zăbalț, 1852.jpg

I mean the article is not about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%20of%20princes%20of%20Wallachia Wallachian rulers (no shepherd image there), but about Vlachs who are related to the shepherding.

Hungarian shepherd images in the relevant articles:

Puszta

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poesta

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pásztor

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pásztor

https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juhász

https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/photos/hungarian-shepherd

Regarding this map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transhumance_ways_of_the_Vlachs.jpeg

It is created an user by own fantasy, it is hypothetical, what is the reliable academic source behind this map? I do not know that map is a Romanian or English, but if English why that map use not contemporary placenames? I see that map is fake, "yellow: areas inhabitad by Romanians" Cluj and Timioara marked as Romanian populated land, if you see the demographic section Cluj-Napoca#Demographics Timișoara#Demography or these maps https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Kingdom_of_Hungary_-_Ethnic_Map_-_1784.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Ethnographic_map_of_austrian_monarchy_czoernig_1855.jpg File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg it is clearly visible that map is wrong regarding the Romanian populated areas in 18-19th century Hungary, also many Szekely and Saxon areas painted as Romanian. 1/3 of Greece was Aromanian and Meglenoromanian inhabited in the 18-19th century? We could ask the Greek users about that map too.

There are many sheep herds in Transylvania in the 21st century, but I bet they are not related to medieval Vlach law:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08KZugZx5o8

Morover, Pop Aurel said the Vlach law was disapeared in the 15th century, or should we change that section, because others say different?

For example this Hungarian map File:Hungary 13th cent.png based on academic map: https://djnaploja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/magyar-kirc3a1lysc3a1g-xiii-sz.jpg?w=620 OrionNimrod (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod and @Gyalu22

One by one, so we do not lose track:

• another source confirms that the Vlach Law was active in the 18th century, reduced to southern Transylvania:

Enacted “Jus Valachicum” in South Transylvania (14th-18th Centuries)

• the "fantasy" map is as "fantasy" as any map created from a written source. One of them I got access to:

UNITATE ROMANICĂ ŞI DIVERSITATE BALCANICĂ.CONTRIBUŢII LA ISTORIA ROMANITĂŢII BALCANICE. EDITURA FUNDAŢIEI PRO, BUCUREŞTI, 2004

confirms the locations represented for the Balkan peninsula and the southern parts of Romania, so the sources are valid, and the map is not hypothetical, certain routes are and that is clearly indicated in the legend, the vast majority are attested so historical and factual.

• representing areas as inhabited by Romanians and representing them as Romanian majority are two different things. The map does not make the claim that only or the majority of population was Romanian and if that possible confusion is what makes you concerned it can easily be clarified in the caption.
• yes, if multiple other reliable sources disagree with Pop his opinion should be noted with the right weight.
• "my problem" with those images is that they represent an individual claiming they represent a group, and worse the images were of 19th century Romanians in an article that deals mostly with Aromanians in the Middle Ages (something like 19th century Bashkirs in the Middle Ages Pannonian Basin).On this article that image is like taking a picture of random contemporary George and saying "this is how all people in England looked!" "Even the women?" "Especially the women... and the children. All of them."
• as for demography maps comparison, it goes back to my previous comment on the demography. If the map said "Romanian majority" I would agree with you, but it doesn't so...

Aristeus01 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a question, you would like to put a map which shows Vlach shepherd movements, but why you do not like a picture about a Vlach shepherd? I ask because I do not see the logic.

The article deals mostly Vlach is medieval Hungary not about Aromanians, where are the Aromanians in the Vlach law article? And the images show Vlach shepherds, Vlach law related to the transhumance way of life, sheep fifty tax etc, you can see in the article. Those imagas are clearly related. The image description also simple: a Vlach shepherd in the mountains.

Everybody know that every people look different and a Vlach man image cannot represent a Vlach woman, that is just a drawing, mostly represent the clothes and the sheperding way of life. The artist used real life things for his drawing. Should we use a photo? But all images would be just one random person, you also added a random Vlach woman image to the Vlach article lead.

Here the images also represent the hussars:

Hussar you can see many kind of clothes and faces. Random people, but we have those images.

We cannot say hussar images do not relate to hussars.

Also the puszta article shows random Hungarian shepherds because they are related to the article.

Or what do you think, what images would be related to the Vlach law article? More images, which one? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod I think you need to read my reply again. I mentioned Aromanians about the Vlachs article, not here.

Vlach law applied to Aromanians in its Serbian version too, if we talk about this article.

I don't have a problem with using images of shepherds in this article, the problem seems to be using the map and its relevance, which I already refuted. The article however is about the law which regulated the activities so that is what the images should be about. Or do you mean to say it's about 1 shepherd and his two dogs? Aristeus01 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see this in the article from Pop:

“The last written document attesting the Universitas Valachorum dates from May 1355, when the general assembly (Congregatio Generalis) of the Transylvanian estates was convened in Turda.”

I think this “last 1355” is really contradict for all sources what we are using from many other historians (including Romanian and other non Hungarian historians). OrionNimrod (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think removing it would be best. I can't access the source to verify the content. Aristeus01 (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That is why I did not touch, I hoped you can check it in the source. Maybe Pop wrote about different things in his work regarding the date of 1355. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be some missing part of the sort "The last written document attesting the Universitas Valachorum attending the general assembly" but without the source we cannot even attribute it as a scholarly opinion. Removed. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Taxation of shepherds

Hi @OrionNimrod

There are reliable sources that say not only Romanians paid a tax on animals, for example:

Transylvanian Hungarian Minority Fighting for Autonomy — Who Are the Szeklers? | Hungarian Conservative

So somewhere in that paragraph something is wrong. Either Romanian shepherds were not the only one paying taxes on animals, or the tax is not on "animals" but on sheep specifically, or the other sources but the one in the article are wrong.

I lean towards the second option. First, the phrasing "kept many animals in the forests and mountains" is vague, by all sources they kept sheep, not horses and chickens and wholly mammoths. Then the second and the third sentences make sense. The 4th sentence however is again in need of review as "subsistence farming" is not the same with specialised sheep herding, and "agricultural output" refers to any sort of output from agriculture not just crop yield.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Aristeus01 (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Aristeus01,

Of course serfs paid tax and animal tax, but I think they are referring only for this way of the taxation: "sheep tax/sheep fiftieth" which was the taxation only people with vlach law. In you link regarding the Szekelys the historian mention oxen and not sheeps, but I suppose if others paid after their sheeps it was different taxation than the "sheep fiftieth". It means 2% tax :D I would be very happy today if I would pay only 2% tax, but people are paying much more tax. The Hungarian serfs also paid more taxes than 2% (just think tithe (10%) and other taxes) that is why historians say the taxation of Vlachs with vlach law was very favorable, it also incited the immigration. The same historian Arthur Köö said in other study that sheep fifty was very uncontrollable, because nobody can check how many sheeps born in the herd of the Vlach shepherd, it can be easy for cheating admiting different result, so it became even more favorable.

[25]Marty Rady wrote the same about Romanians, page 93: and to providing fodder and livestock, including delivery of the quinquagesima (the ‘fiftieth sheep’)

[26] More info from the history of Transylvania book:

The dual village-names also reveal that the Romanian settlements were segregated from those of the other nationalities. This segregation is explained by enduring cultural and religious differences; the Hungarians and Saxons belonged to the Roman Church, while the Romanians were Greek Orthodox (sources from the late 14th century mention 'Vlach chapels' in the Romanian half of twin villages). Although the Romanians assimilated an agrarian way of life, shepherding remained their principal occupation. In 1461, when the crown's agents came to collect the 'sheep fiftieth' tax in villages of the Mezőség, two landowners reported that 'they had delivered sheep the previous year, but this year they had no Romanians'.[21] Evidently the Romanian shepherds had tried to practice transhumance between the Mezőség and the central Transylvanian mountains; however, those thickly-forested mountains {1-491.} had no natural alpine pastures, and thus summer pastures had to be created by forest-clearance. The sheep grazed on the new saplings but avoided the thorny undergrowth, which soon spread to cover the pastures. The shepherds in this area, which came to be known as the 'Móc region' (mócvidék), grew weary of the annual chore of clearing the thorn bushes from their summer pastures, and gave up transhumance. They thus settled near the Hungarian and Saxon villages where they had previously wintered, founding the 'Oláh' part of the twin villages. Their enduring attachment to shepherding is illustrated by the fact that, in the Middle Ages, all Romanians in Hungary had to pay the 'sheep fiftieth' tax.

In the 14th century, there were no Romanians in Transylvania who had full noble status. In the Romanian districts of Hunyad county and of the counties of Severin Province that still belonged to Hungary, judicial affairs were handled until the end of the 1400s by castellans, who were appointed by Transylvania's voivode or by the governor (bán) of Severin, and assisted by jurymen selected from among the cnezes. The cnezes performed personal military service and paid land-rent and sheep-tax for the villages under their administration.

[27]

The original occupation of the Romanians in the Balkans, just like north of the Danube, was nomadic herding, and more closely, sheep herding. This occupation was so characteristic of the entire nation that the Greeks already in the XI. century, the folk name "Vlach" was used in the sense of "shepherd", as the Greek empress Anna Komnena clearly states in her historical work: "and those who only lived a nomadic lifestyle were called Vlachs in popular language".6 This is the general Eastern European approach can also be found in our country, we will highlight only one of the countless data: In Pest County, in 1483, "Gyenge Johannes wolahus seu pastor" is mentioned.7 The Romanians in Hungary preserved their ancestral occupation for a long time, partly until recent times.

The Romanians (vlasi) often mentioned in the charters of the medieval Serbian kings and in general throughout the Balkans are always shepherds, namely nomadic shepherds who do not form permanent settlements. It is typical that the XII-XIII. 19th century Serbian kings, whenever they donate peoples to monasteries, use this expression: "sela i vlasi", i.e. they give villages and villages, and while the villages are named, the villages are listed by name, one by one, obviously because they did not permanently live in a place, but wandered with their flocks in the surrounding mountains.

Even more convincingly than the above, the intimacy of the relations between the Romanian pastoral culture in the Balkans and Hungary is proved by the "national" tax of the Romanians, the uhötvened. This tax to be paid according to the "Olach law" (zakon vlachom) is also detailed in four documents of the Serbian kings, which essentially consists of giving 2 sheep and 2 lambs for 100 sheep, or one lamb and one barren sheep for 50 sheep39. Just as the king expressly states in the donation letter of the Banja monastery that the Romanians, unlike other taxpayers, do not pay the big tithe (i.e. the fiftieth)40, he states just as clearly in our country, e.g. the statute book of the Várad Chapter from 1374 states that the Romanians "differunt omnino ab Hungaris in dandis collectis"41. The fiftieth, which we called "quinquagesima" and in the Balkans "travnina" (i.e. grass money)42, is stated in complete agreement with the certificates from Serbia and Croatia, not only in our certificate from 1446 (de quinquaginta vero ovibus unam ovem cum uno agnello solvere deberent)43, but dated at the Torda Parliament in 1548. VIII. etc. which for the first time regulated the taking of the 50th nationally. According to this, for every 50 sheep, 1 lamb and one year-old sheep, and for 100, 2 lambs and one year-old sheep must be paid44. In Hungary, early on (first data from 1331)45 it became a custom to redeem the fiftieth in money, and even on some (church) estates, instead of a fiftieth, a tenth of the sheep was taken.46 However, this does not change the fact that the Serbian travnina and the Hungarian quinquagesima are one and the same. tax gender and their original form are exactly the same. In Hungarian territory, it already appears as a universal tax of the Romanians in 1256, although it appears for the first time as "quinquagesima" only in 1293 OrionNimrod (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)