Talk:Stephen I of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Saints Stephen I of Hungary is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Stephen I of Hungary is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Hungary
Hungary Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Comments:

Contents

[edit] Old Talk

Where have the writer of this article found the info on his children? I've only known about Imre and Ottó. As for Ágota being his daughter, I thought this was already dismissed as not proven. In the article of her daughter Saint Margaret of Scotland she is called "a kinswoman of Gisela". Alensha 22:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed outdated info on Stephen's children. Hopefully someone will write an article on Andras I, a leader of the anti-Istvan party. Ghirlandajo 10:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic encyclopedia gives baptismal date as 985 for both Geza and Stephen, and then accession in 997. A little medieval dictionary I have gives 975 for Geza's baptism and gives no date for Stephen's. It's a problem.

Opinion seems to favour 985 or 986, or when Stephen was ten: perhaps the earlier date derives from an assumption that he was baptised as an infant.

I've mentioned this before, but genealogy =/= history. One good article is worth at least ten circular stubs.

All the accounts I have read state that Stephen was born a pagan (with the pagan name Vajk), and both Him and his father were baptized together at the same time, when Stephen was ten years old. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this event occured in the year 985.

I like the wikipedia experience. Stephen I was referenced from some places, I looked around, and created the nonexistant page. Later walking the other way around I found Stephen I of Hungary and quickly went to Stephen I to merge it. I was late, as Someone else have already merged it. :-) grin

Muahahaha! Now if we could find a nice picture of him or his crown.... -- Someone else 23:22 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


You know the problem: nearly impossible to tell the copyright status of the pictures. Like [1] for the crown and [2] (Photo of a sculpture) or [3] (robe, National Museum). grin 23:46 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
The photo of the sculpture should be OK as fair use; the copyright in the sculpture has expired, and the photograph itself is not a creative work. Just be sure to fill in the fair use rationale if you decide to use it. Of course it would be far better if a Hungarian user could take an original photo of the sculpture an donate it under GFDL. Securiger 06:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mother's name is Sarolt and not Sarolta. grin 12:00 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

The article seemed to say the "Book of Wisdom" meant the Bible, but apparently it's the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom. Stephen's reference seems to be the passage "He pleased God, and was beloved, and living among sinners, he was translated. He was taken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul." (4:10–11) —JerryFriedman 00:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about the Hand? Next to the relic in Budapest there is an iscription stating that the hand was found intact on a battlefield 40 years after the battle. There is no mention about the rest of the body.

[edit] Vajk meaning Hero - or something completely different?

  • Vajk(meaning hero) - please provide reference to the meaning of Vajk -- Criztu 15:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • actually I've always heard that it means "rich" or "lord", not "hero"... it is said to be a name of Turkish origin. On some websites they say the name in Romanian is Voicu. Does it have a meaning in Romanian? Alensha 2 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)
I don't know its meaning, but in Romanian, Voicu is an old and rather common name. bogdan 12:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Vajk is generally considered to be derived from the Turkic "bay" meaning hero or lord (rich is probably supposed to be the same). I have never heard of another ethymology and this is the standard explanation in Western and Central Europe at least. Juro 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
Hm. You mean "Bey"? I'd be interested on how /voik/ was derived from /bey/. They don't look very similar... bogdan 12:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
V can be evolved from B, if it could happen in Hebrew, then it could happen in other languages too. Although his mother was from Transylvania, and she might have known the name Voicu, I don't think there was any reason to give him a Romanian name. On the other hand, Hungarian language has been influenced by Turkish, and even on the Holy Crown the ruler of Hungary is referred to as "King of Turkia". I tend to believe his name was of Turkish origin. But, of course I'm no linguist and no historian, just a wikipedian :) – Alensha 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If fact both Hungarian Vajk and Romanian Voicu is a name with Turk origin. So St. Stephen did not bore a Romanian name and the father of John Hunyadi did not bore a Hungarian name.

According to the official (legally accepted) Hungarian Given Names Register (see http://www.origo.hu/utonevtar/index.html?id=1095 in Hungarian for details), the origin of the name "Vajk" (enlisted as "the pagan name of king St. Stephen") can be explained in different ways. Originally "Vajk" means "fats" or "grease" [? possible compare with contemporary Hungarian noun "vaj" (="butter) which is related to the Finnish "voi" of the same meaning]. Another explanation can be a diminutive form of the Turkish name "Bay" (which means "rich", "having plenty of"): maybe Bay-k(a) > B/V change: Vajka > shortened: Vajk, thus meaning "small rich". Note: B/V transvolution, mostly in loanwords, is a known phenomenon in Hungarian, see the Roman Latin name of Savaria/Szombathely for example.

[edit] Hont, Pázmány, Nyitra

The ethnicity of Hont and Pázmány is not relevant here: according to any reliable sources, they were German, according to Slovak POV-pusher user Juro, they were Slovaks (I guess Jesus was a Slovak as well). Calling Nitra a Slovak christian center is anachronism: Slovaks have a national identity since the 19th century. Since Hont and Pázmány are figures of Hungarian history, they should be called as Hont and Pázmány. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.93.165 (talk • contribs) .

I am not the original author of that part. The rest of this comment stems from one of those typical Hungarian fashists (probably even organised) vandalising the wikipedia since several months. To any reader: just ignore any recent statements of Hungarian users in the wikipedia regarding anything concerning Romanians, Slovaks and related topics. Juro 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

??? – Alensha 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if someone came up with an exact proof of whether these two noblemen were truly of Slavic ancestry and not just having property in a territory (of highly diverse ethnic composition) that was later to become Slovakia? As for Nitra, it was indeed an ancient Slavic Christian center in the Moravian Empire but I fail to see its relevance in an article about St. Stephen. The questions of Slovak ethnogenesis (national identity) is a bit complicated, with conflicting theories about that would go beyond the scope of this article. WiseGentleman 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

"He often disguised himself as a peasant whenever he traveled and freely gave money to any poor people he met (in one account, Stephen was beaten and robbed by a group of beggars to whom he was giving alms, but he forgave them and spared their lives)." -- is it some kind of folk tale? does it belong in the article? Alensha 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding Princes of Nitra Principality succesion box, Saint Stephen´s name in Slovak (He was a prince of recent Slovak Nitra) and paragraph about distinguishing historic Kingdom of Hungary from Hungarian/Magyar kingdom and republic in 20th century. Thanks for not deleting the whole thing, you are welcome to edit it though.

The purported "distinction" between the Hungarian Kingdom and Hungary is clearly out of place here, what is true that the whole Hungarian history is characterized by the continuity of the Holy Crown. Overemphasizing any Slovak connection of St. Stephen is clearly POV, especially if no direct proof is offered. The fact that Magyars were "less civilized" also needs some further clarification and proof in order to survive deletion.

[edit] Crown

I'm pretty sure the crown is NOT in the Parliament Building. I saw it last year (2005) in Matthias Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.108.185 (talk)

It is in the Parliament Building (it's never been taken anywhere else since 2000, not even for a few days' display). You must have seen something else. KissL 09:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The year 1000 is wrong.

It's 1001. Saint Stephen was crowned on August 20, 1001.

Not exatly, he was crowned in the first day of the new millenia. According to medieval customs this could be December 25th 1000 or January 1st 1001. August 20th is the day of elevation of his body during the canonization process.

I agree, it's definately 1000. I have a book called A Concise History of Hungary (copyright 2005) that states "Stephen was crowned on the first day of the new millennium (25 December 1000 or 1 January 1001)." I also heard about it while living in Hungary. (Sorry, I sounded like a jerk when I first wrote this comment; that's why it is rewritten.)

Christmas Day, 1000. I don't know what lies you're reading. There's a copy of the Holy Crown in the Matthias Church, you must have seen that.


[edit] Grateful Dead?

is this the st. stephen referred to in the grateful dead song st. stephen?

[edit] Ruling prince of Nitra?

Stephen was not a ruling prince, but a duke of Nitra. Without doubt there was a continuation between the principality of Nitra and the Hungarian Duchy of Nitra, but confusing the two is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.240.186 (talk) 16:49, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruling Prince or Duke of Nyitra?

Since I am no historian only a keen reader of history, I am not the appropriate person to answer this question. My actual knowledge however is reflected by the modification I made: "dukátus" is an institution that was in use since Árpád to divide territorial powers among the family members. I am also aware of the conflicting opinion, saying that it was instituded only later, after the death of St. Stephen. The theory of a functional Nitrian principality in the life of Stephen is advocated by Slovakian historians but denied by Hungarian ones. In my opinion, both views might be true or might be wrong, but I think the correct procedure (and in line with wikipedia's standard) is not to name one opinion as "authentic" but to show all prevailing points of view. User from IP 195.168.244.56, however, insists on his truth as an absolute one, instead of discussing it.

I ask you 195.168.244.56 and everyone else to discuss this matter and forge a text that is acceptable for everyone (maybe showing both versions). Setting "national pride" aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Nitrian principality was a duchy according to OLDER (Slovak or Hungarian) literature since 1048 and it is now unanimously considered a principality - not duchy - even after 1048 in Slovakia. But that's not the topic of this particular article. Iow, you can say it was a principality or duchy after 1048, but before 1000 - i.e. for Stephen - the title was simply the general "title" prince (which doesnt imply that it was an independent state and nobody claims that, if that's your problem). 195.168.244.56 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 195.168.244.56! Could you name any Hungarian source that admits the existence of the Nitrian principality 100 years after the so called Honfoglalás (the arrival in the Carpathian basin)? I think you can't. This theory was simply made up by Slovakian historians to provide for something "slavic" to fill the medieval history books after cc. 900, and if you would read your referred source, you would find that there are no actual proofs in that book, only unproven hypotheses. Vajk could not be "ruling prince", neither in Nitra nor elsewhere, since Géza (his father) had that title until his death in 997, and there could be only one ruling prince (nagyfejedelem in Hungarian) in the whole country. (Note that the Hungarians had a quasi tribal society that time made up of 7 tribes and the ruling prince was an elected-inherited ruler ABOVE the tribal coalition, i.e. he ruled both his tribe and the remaining 6 tribes). It was exactly the succession of "ruling prince" title that caused the pagan revolt of Koppány. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.41.26 (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have only corrected the quotes, I have no time (and do not see why I should) to discuss these issues not directly related to this article. As far as I remember, the fact that Stephen ruled Nitra results from a Hungarian or German chronicle. Its definitely no invention (maybe you do not realize what kind of source you have in this article, its THE modern source on Slovak medieval history, written and reviewed by the best current experts on medieval history, nothing in the book is an invention and 1/2 of it are references, mostly Hungarian ones)....Btw, "prince" does not mean "supreme" prince. It was normal at that time that both the "main" ruler was the prince and his "subordinate" rulers were princes. As an example, a chronicle says on Svätopluk (Great Moravia) that he, the prince, consulted his princes. That's just playing with words. Maybe you are confused by the adjective "ruling" but thats just a necessity in English to distinguish a "prince" in the old meaning from a modern "prince" (royal son). 195.168.244.56 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way, and I don't mind if someone who has been blocked indef twice returns as an anon as long as he's constructive. However: please name that chronicle, and please save us the pain of having to read about what you do or do not have time to do. KissL 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know who "has been blocked twice", what you are talking about, who you are (probably 84.206.41.26?) and do not understand your tone. The source is in the article. The article contains 0.00 sources and you want primary research for the only source in the article??? And in this tone?? Where are the sources of the rest of the article? And pleace save "us" the pain of having to check each sentence in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.244.56 (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is no good saying you don't know what I am talking about (since I linked it from my comment) or who I am (since it is linked from my signature) or whether I am 84... (since I have said expressly that I do not have a solid opinion on the matter at hand while he visibly does have one). And I do understand (and know) this tone quite enough: if by some miraculous coincidence you are not Juro, you are his twin. But as I said, I don't mind as long as you are constructive, so let us not talk about this.

I have not asked for research; I simply asked you to name the Hungarian or German chronicle that supports the fact that Stephen was the ruling prince of Nitra but not a duke, as you have asserted above. Statements like "as far as I remember" or "maybe you do not realize that [...] is THE source" are useless as arguments, since they are inherently subjective (and this is entirely independent from the fact that the article as a whole would need a lot more sources, as you correctly point out). KissL 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are 8.... or not? I am still sorry, I do not understand neither this, nor the rest of what you are talking about and still do not understand the reason for your aggresive tone. What do you mean by "twin" - is that supposed to be an insult? For the the rest: Obviously, the source is not a useless argument, if you think that, you are obviously no historian and have no idea of Slovak history, in particular, otherwise you would know the book. "As far as I remember" means, "I am giving you this information, although I actually do not have to, because it is not relevant because you have the source in the article, but I try my best to remember." Next, you are asking for primary research (chronicles are primary research), which I am not ready to perform, since I dont have the time for that (whether you like that or not), there is a perfect scientific secondary source in the text, other sentences in the article have not even secondary sources and since you are approaching me with sentences like ("and save us the pain of"). Finally, you are confusing two things, the prince/duke issue has been answered already both here and in edit summaries (the source is in the article), your(?) new question question was whether he was the ruler of Nitra at all. Since I am not ready to conduct the primary research, I can give you some references of the respective section in the book, and you can do the reaserch yourself: Gyorffy, Gy: István király és müve; Gyorffy, Gy.: König Stephan der Heilige; Gyorffy, Gy: Der Aufstand von Koppany; Legenda maior S. Stephani regis 5, SRH II; Legenda minor S. Stephani regis 3, SRH II; Legenda S. Stephani regis ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta 4, SRH II; Chron. Hung. comp. saec. XIV. II 63. SRH I; Simonis de Keza Gesta Hungarorum II 43; Vajay, Sz.: Grossfürst Geysa. Good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.244.56 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 195.168.244.56! I am happy that we can discuss matters in civilized manner and not by vandalizing each other's work. I think that my draft text compromise, detailing both opinions but deleted by István later on, was a good basis. You can check the text in the article's history. Actually, if you refer (or your secondary, terciary source refers) the works Győrffy you have to know that - contrary to the theory of late professor Kristó - Győrffy stated that the institution of dukátus was already practicized in times of Honfoglalás (895), and not only after cc 1050 (as Kristó states). As you do, the majority of Hungarian historians also supports Kristó's view, who, however, has hardly any reference to Nitra in his (otherwise detailed) works read by me. But, if your source refers to Győrffy (I cannot sheck it since I don't speak Slavik languages) I cannot imagine that Győrffy had any other opinion than Stephen was the _duke_ of Nitra. I dont actually know, how you translate the ruling prince terminology, but the Hungarian equivalent is clearly _nagyfejedelem_, of that it could be only one in pre-kingdom Hungary. As I know, the period 995-997 is minuscule considering the later deeds of Stephen, please explain me, what is the reason (besides the proof of legal continuity between the Moravian empire and the current Slovak state) to mention this thing in this article. I am looking forward to your answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are looking for things which are simply not there. Nobody is trying to prove any continuity and even if it was the case the long reflections you have added are unsourcable POVs and above all there is absolutely no reason why such reflections should be in an encyclopaedia. On the contrary, I do not understand what is wrong in mentioning the simple fact that Stephen was the ruler of Nitria before 997 (whether he was it for 1 month, 2 years, 5 years or whenever); I see from your comments and from your edits that you have some kind of nationalist or similar problem with this fact, but I simply do not understand how this is can "hurt" anybody. Secondly, no, as I have explained, not "nagyfejedelem" but "fejedelem" (knieža in Slovak, Fürst in German), that's the point. Nagyfejedelem would be a "grand prince" or something like that in English. Another possibility would be to call him chieftain (because I suppose that's what he de-facto was in a tribal system), would you prefer this term? I'm sure you wouldn't. I see no third possibility. Of course Nitria was a kind of appanage of Geza, but "duke" (Herzog) is a formal title and as such it is not attested for that period (you cannot be a Herzog "automatically"). Thirdly, I am sure you have quick access to Gyorffy's books, so why dont you just cite from them? I have no problem with that. That does not mean that you delete the Slovak source at the same time (after all Nitra is in Slovakia and is primarily Slovak history as of 2007). And why do you expect me to justify what is written in whatever book? I am not the author of those books. I can only repeat that is nowadays usual in Slovakia to define Nitria as a principality even after 1048, not to mention in 995, on the grounds that it was more "autonomous" than thought previously. This was not the case say 20 years ago, but on the other hand 20 years ago there was the problem that the topic Nitra was virtually prohibited in Czechoslovakia as a symbol of Slovak attempts to separate from Czechoslovakia (due to some events before WWII) - the popular historian Dvořák decribes this in one of his last books. 195.168.244.56 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You will be shocked, but I have nothing against the word chieftain (törzsfő) in this context since it WAS a quasi tribal society (even for some decades after 1000). It is a part of our history, my only question is: are you sure that he was the chieftain? There were 7 tribes, but his tribe was ruled by Géza. I don't think he had such a position. I agree therefore that Nyitra was rather a form of appanage, and I suggest to explicitly write this fact instead of using the highly misleading expression of "ruling prince". I have nothing against it if you put it in this form. As you can read from my previous post if you read it carefully, Györffy's theory on the institution of appanage (dukátus) is not accepted by the larger part of Hungarian historians (who accepts Kristó's theory instead, this theory is the one you mentioned), but it is highly possible that Győrffy lists several appanages (by his word: duchies) given to family members since Árpád. If you insist, I will check it for you, but I think it's not worth it, if we can agree on using "appanage" instead of "ruling prince". Reading your words I think we all mean the same, we discuss only the actual words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What sleeping does: a possible solution. What about using the expression "lord of ..." (meaning "... ura" in Hungarian, which was actually the contemporary use - with some spelling differences of course)? For example, "Stephen was the lord of Nitra between...". It's just like "Koppány, the lord of Somogy" (Koppány, Somogy ura) or "Gyula, the lord of Transsylvania". Correct me but I think that the reign of Stephen in Nitra is of same nature as the rule of Koppány in Somogy. I suggest again to avoid the expression "ruling prince" because it's highly misleading IMO.

Look here: Koppány. Do you see the "prince" title there? You do. So, Somogy can have a prince but Nitria not? Or do we have a kind of "prince-lovers" conspiracy here? Secondly, if you have a source for "duke" for the 995, we can write prince (according to ...)/ duke (according to...). Do you have a source for "duke" or not? (you have not said if the source in the article directly says it or not). However, the prince alternative will not be deleted, because it is frequently used (even here, see Koppány) and well sourced (as the only sentence in this article). (Btw, I am "fascinated" how many "users" (Istvan, Lato..., Kissl) try to lie in this article in that they falsify a quote from a scientific text (and add aggressive comments). If this is how all articles have been written in this "encyclopedia" by them, they can be "proud" of their work. This is a shame.)195.168.244.56 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide a difflink where I "try to lie in this article [by] falsify[ing] a quote from a scientific text" or refrain from making such defamatory allegations. (But since all of my recent edits to this article were minor and changed nothing substantial, it will have to be the latter.) I wonder if your accuracy in checking your sources before forming an opinion is similar in scientific matters – if it is, well, that is a shame. KissL 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It would help greatly if the involved IP users would register, colon-indent for legibility, and refrain from ad hominem. The point could then be much more effectively discussed. István 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont know which IPs I am talking to, but some of you guys have tried to change prince to duke in a sourced sentence. In other words, you have tried to falsify a scientific source. I call that a lie. A source says what it says, not what you think it should say. You should reconsider your contributions here (no offence), if you do not understand this point. 195.168.244.56 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You have directly accused three users (self included) of writing lies and POV ("agressive comments") in this article. Please provide diffs to back up your claim.István 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nice reference for Koppány, but you also know that a prince who rules a territory and a ruling-prince are not the same. (Look for example at the article of Géza who was in fact a ruling-prince.) Responding your comment you made in the last edit: just look at that edit of this article where I first put in the reference. The reference was Gesta Hungarorum, and Kristó's book was also mentioned, but it was not a reference for the article! Kristó in his book (Kristó Gyula: Magyarország története) has a summary on the different theories on the institution dukátus, detailing his view (no duke in time of Stephen) and other views as well. The interesting fact is that he has no paragraph mentioning this Nitra period, neither as principality nor in any other way. My first time edit was based on this lacking reference: I concluded that your supplement must have been based on some Győrffy related literature (and I was right:) ) and was only ill-translated to ruling-prince instead of duke. Now I correct the reference to Gesta Hungarorum, and I consider this topic closed. Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one linguistic hint (once again): "Ruling prince" IS the same as "prince" in English (fejedelem), as far as I know. Nagyfejedelem is a "grand (ruling) prince" not just a ruling prince. If you use "ruling prince" for nagyfejedelem here in other articles, it should corrected.

Hi 195.168.244.56 and 86.101.111.129! I missed the best part of de debate:( First to react the last post: no-no 195.168.244.56. You are mistaken. 86.101.111.129 happened to have right in this linguistic question: a ruling prince is always a ruler, besides being a prince (as the name indicates). My short research in wikipedia shows the validity of this convention: look at for example István a király where you find the following: "Dramatis personae: István, Hungarian prince, later ruling prince of Hungary...". But you can look at other texts also: ruling prince and prince are different terms. You 86.101.111.129, however, overmistified and overcomplicated the question with the term "lord". A much simpler solution would be enough: use the term prince without "ruling", and forget about the polemy of duke or prince since it is off topic in this article. The reference for Gesta Hungarorum is also obsolete. My suggestion: "István, still being a prince, resided in Nitra between 995-997. reference: ref#2" Other parts of the paragraph should be deleted, along with the link to Nitrian principality, which, in turn, is also off topic, and highly debated also (that principality did not exist in his original form in 995 any more, therefore Nitra was no more than an appanage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.41.26 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, as I said above there two "princes" in English, the prince (Prinz in German) and the prince (Fürst in German). The second one is sometimes called "ruling prince" to prevent exactly the confusion, which your above contribution seems to exhibit (we are not talking about prince as a royal son). The rest has been discussed above and you have a source in the text. Also, I think the lord solution is a good idea. The prince/duke debate IS relevant in continental Europe and I remember having read articles above it in the past (I dont remember where anymore). It is also partly an issue of the translation of Latin terms like dux etc., because sometimes dux is a prince, not a duke...a very complicated issue. Regarding the link, it was an appanage principality and that is not disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.244.56 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


From the book History of Slovakia (Dejiny Slovenska) by Dusan Kovac (Hungarian language edition by Kalligram 2001., Bratislava):

"From the beginning the Hungarian state was divied into duchies administered by members of the Arpad dinasty. The part-principality of Nitra was such a duchy in the territory of modern Slovakia. Nitra was a significant governing centre before Great Moravia and remained an important state centre during the early Arpads. Duchies subsisted even after the centralisation efforts of prince Géza and the first Hungarian king Stephen I. These - eminently the part-principality of Nitra - could be seen as remnants of the Great Moravian era." 80.98.240.186 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It would be necessary to (a) verify the wording of the original Slovak text and (b) whether this is just a simplified statement (extending the after 1050 period to all periods for simplicity) or whether this is Kovacs opinion (then he should be quoted, but Kovac is a historian primarily dealing with modern history). The wording should be verified, because for example "part-principality" is supposed to be what is called údelné kniežatstvo ("appanage principality") in Slovak, but Teilfürstentum (part principality) in German and some other languages, although the content of those terms is not necessarily the sam. The translator decided to choose the latter term and thereby somewhat changed the whole meaning. 195.168.244.56 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

2. OK, I have found something. According to Kronika Slovenska 1 (ed. by Kovac,p. 117): "Nitria until 1108...was an appanage principality (not duchy) lead by a prince from the Arpad dynasty. Therefore the Latin designations dux and ducatus are translated as prince and principality in connection with the Nitrian principality." This text is from a box dedicated to the use of the terms prince and principality and when looking at the context, the above quote refers to the after-1048 period (implying that it should hold all the more for 995, I suppose). 195.168.244.56 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. What about the Duchy of Somogy, Bihar, Slavonia, Transylvania or even Styria? These all were appanages administered by members of the dinasty. The same system. Why should we translate Nitra as principality and all the others as duchies? I am not a historian, but this is strange. I personaly prefer the word "duchy" because it is closer to the original latin (ducatus). Even if their meaning is not completely the same. For examle the area of the Duchy of Slavonia consited Slavonia proper and the Kingdom of Croatia. It is clear that in English language duchy is usually a part of a Kingdom.
After all what is the precise difference in English between duchy and principality?
2. part-principality: I have translated from Hungarian. The term was "részfejedelemség". I do not know the original Slovak.
3. As far as I know the contemporary Hungarian term was "ország" or "úrság". The domninion of an "úr". The úrs were originally tribal chiefs, but later the title was used exclusively by royal princes.
4. This dispute is theoretical. I am completely satisfied with the current expression: "lord".80.98.240.186 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Remember, when Vajk ruled "Nitria" that Hungary was (officially) pre-Christian in the first millenium (e.g. in 995) but officially Christian in the second (e.g. in 1048). To settle the point of whether Nitria in 995 was a "duchy", "principality" or other, requires first verifying that the Árpáds at that time utilised these Christian-European references, and that historians aren't simply forcing the description to the (christian) readers' familiarity, e.g. as would describing a medieval Japanese Shogun as a "prince" (or "duke"); in such case it would be quite pointless to argue whether a Shogun was a "prince" or "duke". Back to Hungary - the passages I have seen do not give clear indication, rather write around it, e.g. "Vajk ruled over Nitria" etc. but that is not evidence for forcing a specific title, e.g. "duke", "lord", "prince", "ruling prince" etc. If there exists no such evidence then I'm afraid the point should be dropped, and simply "Lord" (from the Hungarian "úr") should stand. István 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You are right. When I originally changed "the ruling-prince of Nitra" to "duke of Nitra" I changed it because a ruling prince is a sovereign prince and after the the Hungarian Conquest there was no such thing. Nitra continued to be a local power centre and it is logical that its lords used the remnant of the earlier administration structures, but its a different qulity. By the way I did not imagined that this will cause such a large dispute. 80.98.240.186 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
hang around here long enough and you will see much bigger disputes erupt over far smaller points ;-)István 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)