Talk:Universitas Valachorum

Meugarium

Does anyone know to whom "Meugarium" refers? Maybe Bulgarians? - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

References

Four references are broadly cited, but no statement in the article is at all clearly sourced from any of them. I added one citation I found while searching for "Meugarium". - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WHEN did it exist?

As of now, there isn't even a century indicated for the establishment of the institution.

The end of it is just hinted at. Was there an act (royal decree or alike) which explicitly dissolved the UV?

I understand we're talking about little-documented, old history, but still: history without dates is called legend. Arminden (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Universitas Valachorum is mentioned twice: in 1291 and 1355. Borsoka (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, we have that. Didn't Köpeczi know yet about the 1355 document? In the 1980s he wrote (or accepted as editor a colleague writing) that 1291 was the last time the UV was summoned to a general assembly. Pop wrote in 1988 about it, quoting a document quite visibly published in 1977 (Documenta Romaniae Historica, C. Transilvania, vol. X (1351-1355), Bucharest, 1977, p. 325-327, no. 312).

Anyway, that wasn't exactly my point. No mention doesn't mean non-existent. Köpeczi also doesn't see the lack of mention in the 12th century as a proof that the UV didn't exist, but that historians must extrapolate backwards from 13th-century documents, which isn't fully satisfactory. My point was: if there are no sources explicitly noting when and why the UV a) came into being, and b) was abolished, then we at least need to know what historians are writing on the topic. Using the word "legend" was meant as a tease & push for editors to address the topic. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any serious historian proposing that the Estates of the Realm existed in Hungary in the 12th century? The universitas valachorum did not come into being and was not abolished. There were occasions when the leaders of the Vlach community (whose status was different from the status of Hungarian noblemen, and the Saxon and Székely leaders) were invited to a joint judicial assembly in Transylvania, but joint assemblies were unusual in this period. As the most prominent leaders of the Vlach community were rewarded with nobility, they dissappeared as a separate group. A similar process can also be detected in case of the Cuman, Pecheneg and Jász leaders. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, have some patience, no more quick blanking please!

@Borsoka: hi. As I have written yesterday in an edit summary: it was me who placed the refimprove tags, less than 24 hours before you blanked a large part of the article. The article has been dormant for ages, now I'm working at adding sources or placing the actual source references next to statements which did obviously originate in those sources, but the editor didn't know how, or bother to, place the ref info where it belongs. Yesterday I've added ref to several passages, I've introduced more info, and today I had to take a day off - only to find even more arbitrary blanking from you, even of referenced material. This is in no way allowed by Wiki rules, let alone it being reasonable - or respectful with other people's work, and the user's right to information. So please,

1. let me do my bit and then
2. discuss here,with arguments, what you disagree with, and see if we do come to a result. If not,
3. we'll ask for arbitration by a third party.

That's civilised, common practice - and the Wiki proper & required editing method. Until then, I'll return the article at the state I've left it in yesterday, and will continue working on it tomorrow. If I get stuck or stop working at it for a week, go ahead and do as you please; otherwise, please see above. Köszönöm. Arminden (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I do take issue with your edit summary style. Writing "If we do not have information, do we need to mention it? Could we say, we do not have information about atomic bunkers in the Roman Empire?" is condescending, offensive - and factually wrong, which reverts the intended ridicule & insult upon him who issued it.

The one who made the statement you erased about the 12th century is your late countryman, respected historian, and for a while Secretary-General of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Béla Köpeczi. Since we're dealing here with human sciences and not with mathematics, and with events 8-900 years old, it is not only allowed, but actually a must, and good & common academic practice to present theories about important matters on which no documents have survived, based on educated, informed guesses. If you want to reduce the topic to the level of a village bar discussion after the fifth bottle of pálinka, "show me photos for proof or I'll smash your head in", then we've got nothing to talk about.

Structures are built up over time. Parliaments and assemblies don't come into being over night. Köpeczi, as a historian, knew that well. You cannot have a ready-to-go Romanian universitas out of nothing, and after being called up once, it remaining on standby for sixty years, inactive but ready, maybe-maybe someone will invite them again.

The other two edits which accompanied the blankings are not sarcastic, but deeply flawed and POV. "Ethnic Romanian noblemen, along with ethnic German, Slovakian, etc. noblemen were part of the "Hungarian nation"." Wrong. There was no "Hungarian nation" in the 12th, 13th, 14th century and many more to come, as there were no other nations anywhere else either. If you mean: mediaeval "nation", understood as an Estate of the realm, that's again inaccurate, as the documents clearly make a distinction between groups. What an ethnic group considered to be their leaders or, in their own eyes, nobility, was still far from being officially recognised by the powers that be as part of the Second Estate, the nobles of the kingdom. The rules varied greatly in time, and the later, Western-raised kings of medieval Hungary tried (and eventually managed) to change the early, tribal feudal system of the time of settlement and kingdom-building. Centuries are not passing in vain. All German and Romanian nobles, to become accepted part of the Second Estate, had to become Magyarised, as a matter of fact, be it the Apa/Apafi, Cândea/Kendeli, the counts of Kelling, or whoever, which fully alienated them from their former communities. Being Catholic did matter, and it eventually became crucial. We're not talking post-1867, we're talking 12th–14th century here.

You erased a standard mention of the year the source is dated to, "at least as of 1988". It's not allowed and wrong. As you can see even from the few sources quoted, the Banat topic for instance was almost unknown and missing from major history books, as were other documents, overlooked until they were brought to everybody's attention. So yes, "as of 1988", similar to "as of 1989" when basing a statement on the English translation of Köpeczi's "Shorth History". I don't know what they have published in the last 30-plus years. Do you? If yes, you're most welcome to quote those sources.

You write "contradictory statements, perhaps we want to mention the facts", and the "mentioned facts" you presented are - not some contribution of yours, but word for word (less "at least as of 1988") an already existing paragraph, in my exact wording, put together by me the previous day. That's logically self-defeating (and arrogant). Also, there is no single contradiction in the blanked paragraphs. Maybe they do contradict your opinion, but nothing in the rest of the article.

Blanking on a whim is out of question. Not presenting reliable sources as arguments for any edit is not acceptable anymore. Sarcasm and counterfactual edit summaries are a good base for reverting the edits. Standards must be kept. Arminden (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. We are not here to present our theory about historical facts, but to present scholarly views. Unreferenced texts can be deleted any time. Please also read some books about Central European history before commenting on the meaning of the term "Hungarian nation" in this period. Please also read the sources before associating late-13th-century and 14th-century general assemblies in Transylvania with parliaments. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)