Talk:Great Moravia

Template:Vital article

Titel of the Mojmirids

I think it is really important to use constitent titel for all rulers of the Moravian realm. In my opinion the best solution for this is the titel Knez. While the latin sources mention Moravian rulers by diffent titels (dux, comes and rex), the old church slavonic sources use without exception the term kъnędzь (Knez), like for example Boris I of Bulgaria. However, the different intepretations of this titel should be explained in a note, because some historians translate this titel as "King" (f.a. Goldberg, Havlík), others as "Prince" and others as "Duke". --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should follow the usage in reliable sources written in English, according to WP:NOR. Do the majority of reliable sources written in English follows the above approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is that historians are discortand about the correct titulation, for example Goldberg and Havlík, two of the most important historians about this time, mention all moravian rulers as "Kings". Some others just refer to Svatopluk as King, while others mention all rulers as "princes", "grand princes" or "dukes". I think thats something we can not ignore. The Czech historian František Graus (Rex-dux Moraviae, 1960) and the Slovak historian Miroslav Lysý (Titul mojmírovských panovníkov, 2013) wrote articles about that. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually only the index to Goldberg's book mention all Moravian rulers as kings. For instance, Moimir I's title in the main text is "prince" or "supreme ruler" even if Goldberg adds that Moimir was "in essence a king" (page 138); Rastislav is titled as "client ruler (dux)" (page 140, 244). We should avoid to introduce a title (kъnędzь / Knez) which has never been used in connection with Moravian rulers in the relevant literature (WP:NOR). I suggest that we should use a neutral title (ruler, monarch ....) if the exact title is not important, and apply the title which was used by the primary source if it is relevant (for instance, many historians think that the title "rex" used in connection with Svatopluk I by the pope is relevant, because it suggests that the Moravian ruler had been crowned king). Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, how about the changes I have made in the article Mojmir I, is this acceptable for you? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an excellent summary. My main concern is that it has almost nothing to do with Mojmir I (for instance, he was never titled as comes by any source and Old Church Slavonic sources make no mention of him). I suggest that the text should be copied into this article (for instance under the title "4.2 Monarch"). Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Remark:

"We should avoid to introduce a title (kъnędzь / Knez) which has never been used in connection with Moravian rulers in the relevant literature".

The title "kъnędzь" is correct for Great Moravian rulers. Not only theoretically, but it is also used in old Slavonic texts. See e.g. Pannonian Legend here [1], p. 12, the last paragraph, the 4th line, the 1st word. In the Cyrillic alphabet, it looks like КНѦӠЮ. The text describes how Cyril was sent to Moravia because Moravian "knez/knyaz" requested philosopher from Emperor Michael.Ditinili (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Püspöki-Nagy's concept?

Püspöki-Nagy's concept? Should we put here all strange theories? (from Czech or Slovak r. - I think hungarians will not like it). Pls hold wiki in real (main) science's stream.

Tomas

Please read WP:civility before distinguishing editors according to their nationality, and WP:NPOV. Püspöki-Nagy's concept of two Moravias is shared by other scholars as well (they are cited in the article - interestingly, only one of them is Hungarian). Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nitrava

Notice - This has been continued on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Great Moravia, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, I understand that you want to prove "how ridiculous" Boba's view is ([2]). Even if this approach is quite unusual in our community, you are more than welcome when making edits in order to prove it. However, you should remember that we are building an encyclopedia here. (1) If there are articles dedicated to Nitra and the Principality of Nitrava, we should mention all relevant debates in connection with that town and polity in those articles. (2) The identification of Pribina's Nitrava with Nitra, and especially the development of the name is quite marginal in the argumentiation presented by Boba: he dedicate about 10 sentences to this issue in his long book. We should present his views fairly, without emphasizing points that he did not emphasize in connection with Great Moravia (I repeat that the same issue can be relevant in connection with the Nitra or Principality of Nitra articles). Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is probably not so "marginal" part of his theory, because some editors tried to use it as a serious (?!) argument against an identification of Nitra. It seems that some people really believe these pseudo-arguments, so it's better to describe this problem into more details. It's very important to make it clear, because we are talking about formation of the empire (Great Moravian empire, that's why it is here) and identification of one of its main centers. We all probably know that Boba is not an etymologist, Boba did not know (more or less) anything about archeology, Boba is not even a reliable source. But if somebody (not me) decided to cite him, we should explain it correctly.--Ditinili (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read my above remark: there are more than 100 pages in his work, and there are 10 sentences dedicated to this issue. As I have mentioned several times, his views of Nitra can be mentioned in the articles about Nitra and Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Nitra article is about a real town, not about Boba's hypothetical location in "Hunnia-Avaria". Boba's theory is described here and this is a part of his theory, so it belongs here. Let's keep it on one place. Once upon a time, there were two editors, who cited and defended his opinon. Now, when it is clear how weak it is, one of them changed opinion a strated to believe that this is only a small unimportant part of his work.Ditinili (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Would you refer to my (or other editor's) remark stating that it is an important part of his theory? I do not remember that I have whenever made such a statement. Would you refer to my (or other editor's) statement when I "defended" Boba's opinion? If you refer to the above debate, please read it more carefully: I tried to understand the quite strange argumentation about secondary and primary forms which were or were not adopted by the Hungarians or/and the Slovaks, etc. Sincerely, I am still convinced that you do not understand the Slovak scholars' view, but I do not (and did not) want to continue that debate, because I did not want to delete it from this article. On the contrary, I do not say that it should be hidden: I say it should be emphasized in the proper article (Nitra or Principality of Nitra). Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you are a rational human being and you did not waste so much time by unimportant statement. Or.. am I wrong? However, it does not matter. If not only wikipedia editors here, but for example Czech historian Dušan Třeštík considers topic important enough to analyse this Boba's argumentation in details (like also others historian) it obviously has some importance.

"I am still convinced that you do not understand the Slovak scholar's view". LOL. You who do not speak the language can understand it better? OK. :-) --Ditinili (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty sure that you cannot understand the core of their argumentation although I do not understand the language. However, I have read many scholarly works written in languages I can understand. If my understanding is correct, you say that Boba's view of the development of the name of Nitra should be mentioned here even if he did not emphasize it, because his opponents dedicated many pages to prove that he is wrong in this respect. Interesting approach. All the same, the whole argumentation could properly be presented in the article about the Principality of Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty sure that you cannot understand the core of their argumentation although I do not understand the language. LOL. OK. Sorry, I cannot take such statements based on your belief seriously. If you do not trust me, you can consult whatever I wrote here with the Czech editors, who speak the language on native speaker level (or to 98%). More, half of works referenced by me are from Czechs like Trestik, Havlik, Merinsky, etc.

"...because his opponents dedicated many pages.". I can disagree with your opinion that it is not important or emphasized part in Boba's work. But my opinion is not so important, because that's exactly the interest of respected scholars (respected ulike Imre Boba) which made it relevant from an encyclopedic point of view.Ditinili (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, read how 21st-century scholars refer to the debate: "healthy debate" (McCormick); the core problem which was adressed (the Franks seems to have been marching to the south from Pannonia when invading Moravia, according to the sources) by Boba "will have to be explained" (I refer to their works cited in the article). Do you think that such statements refer to a fringe theory? Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you speak about McCormic, you speak about general publication about an evolution of the European economy from an author who has never ever published a single work about Great Moravia and never (as far as I know) participated on any archaelogical research related to GM. I have no doubts that he is a qualified expert in his area of interest, but this is not the area where is not an recognized expert. Thus, he can hardly be some authority and "judge". "Healthy debate" and "growing number of scholars" literally means that in 1971 he was one (Boba) :-), and later other four historians (some Japanese, Puspoky-Nagy, Bowlus and Eggers) published similar works during 45 (forty-five) years. That's the team which can meet on a smaller archeological site or write one peer-reviewed collective work. Have you an idea about progress in archaeology since Boba work (outdated already in 1971)? Ditinili (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And Kristó (a leading Hungarian historian), and Miklós Szőke (a leading archaeologist), and .... Of course, you can be convinced that McCormic's and Machácek's remarks are not relevant. However, they were published in peer-rewied works. Consequently, their views are more relevant for WP purposes than yours or mine. Borsoka (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

machacek says that nitra is not nitra? Wow? Where and when?Ditinili (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Machacek does not say it and I did not state that he whenever made such a statement. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

so, which machacek remarks are allegedly "not relevant"?Ditinili (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The core problem which was adressed (the Franks seems to have been marching to the south from Pannonia when invading Moravia, according to the sources) by Boba "will have to be explained" (the whole text is quoted in the article). Interestingly, you cited his work in the article to prove that Boba is the representative of a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me cite Machacek properly, especially the part which you have left:

"No power centre has so far been found in those regions of the Carpathian Basin where Bowlus and Eggers placed the core of Great Moravia. Hungarian archaeologists have clearly shown that during the ninth century there was a conspicuous shrinking of the settlement network in the southern parts of the region between the Danube and the Tisza, with no new sites being established by immigrants from the south, as Eggers maintained. While some Avar-age sites may have continued into the 800s, so far no cemetery or settlement in the area has produced any evidence of a migration from the Balkans or from anywhere else. (...) The core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what is now the Czech republic." This is according to Machacek "unambiguous conclusion". In other words he explicitely confirmed that Boba's, Bowlus' or Egger's views are completely wrong, but he very tolerantly and rationally respects such trials (Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moravia else where within the Carpathian Basin.). It does not mean that we will cite such controversial works as something more than an alternative. --Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

...and "The serious problems of geo-graphical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east), which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained..." Borsoka (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are contradictions in written sources, all of historians known about them. That's why Boba's and company theories do not work - the written sources cannot be overestimated, the archaeology cannot be ignored and the sources cannot be used selectively (as you also do). Nevertheless, Machacek very clearly rejected existing southern theories.Ditinili (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Consequently, there are academic works which suggest or explicitly say that Boba, Bowlus and other scholars representing a similar view do not represent a fringe theory. Nobody stated that archaeology should be ignored. However, we should address all relevant contradictions between written sources and archaeological research (in accordance, for instance, with Machácek's approach). Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, that such works exists. You can cite them and we can evaluate them exactly as we did for McCormic. Ditinili (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. With whom did you evaluate McCormick? Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

With you - according to rules of wikipedia, for example "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." While e.g. Marsina is recognized expert in the area, McCormic never published any specialized publication about Great Moravia and is focused in other, more general topics.Ditinili (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not evaluate him. Please read his book cited in the article: he wrote of the the economy of Great Moravia and the missions of Cyril and Methodius several pages. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Several pages about economy, etc (?!). Impressive. This makes him an expert in the field?Ditinili (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. He studied Great Moravia and his views were published by Cambridge University Press. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean "he studied"? Is it his primary area of interest? How many publications about GM he published (I do not mean "several pages" somewhere in another book)? Number of citations of these his dedicated publications about GM?Ditinili (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:Source and WP:NOR before asking strange questions. That his views are relevant have been decided by editors of Cambridge University Press who published his work. We (WP editors) are not in the position to challange their decision. Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The questions like "is it his primary area of interests" or "how many publications about the topic he published" and "what is number of his citations related to these publications" are very relevant in the context of "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." It is fully compliant with WP:Source and has nothing with WP:NOR. Is GM his primary area of interest or not? His publications about GM ("not several pages somewhere")? Ditinili (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I sought community assistance on the relevant notice board to close this never-ending debate ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Population - undue

"Middle-Eastern" character of the population is overemphasized. The sections looks like a compilation of several questionable statements written in a pursuit of sensation. I began to believe for a while that the country was not inhabited by the Slavs, but some Turkish people. "Middle Asian" animals like "horses, cattle and goats" are common everywhere in Europe, "Alanic stock" of the Moymirid dynasty is not supported by any written source. "Turbans" were not typical for the Moravian Slavs - primary sources should be used with caution. Juroslav (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please, feel free to contribute to the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Some of my observations:

* Archaeological researches indicate that the Moravian population had ties with Iranian and Middle-Eastern territories. This is not so wrong but I miss some information that the influence of Iranian ethnic groups on Slavic ethnogenesis is considered in general. Had they more "ties" to the Middle-East than other Early Slavic tribes? It seems so from the article. Is it typical GM feature or just a general statement which can be applied to any other Slav of that time?

* The ornaments and motives of the jewelries originated from the Near East, similar analogies were found in Syria, Egypt and Iran. This is also a little bit misguiding. Are alleged Egyptian analogies more typical for Great Moravia than Carolinian, Central-Byzantine and Dalmatian? Definitely not.

The style of the abodes and types of domesticated animals, like horses, cattle and goats, were Middle Asian. See above.

Some hypotheses propose that the Moymirid dynasty was of an Alanic stock Is such theory widely accepted? Is it just a speculation? There is not any mention about other, maybe more relevant theories.

Surprisingly, there is not any mention about cultural ties to other Slavs. Only to Iran, Egypt, etc, what makes the text at least unbalanced.Ditinili (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the subsection is unbalanced, but definitely not undue. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Pls, read: This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas... Ditinili (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Merehani

Since there are several views on Merehani, I have copied text from the article into Merehani.--Zoupan 05:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Transtheissia

What does "Transtheissia" (see File:Great Moravia Svatopluk.jpg) mean? Is it a territory across Tisza? --Djadjko (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Ditinili (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Northwestern part of Hungary

Hello Trimnapaschkan and Borsoka, I would like to reopen the case of proven/possible territories image. In an archived discussion (Territory in the head line) we had a chat over the Great Moravia territories. Borsoka argued that neither the map presented by Spiesz, Caplovic (2006) on page 365, nor Kirschbaum (1995) on page xi present the territory south of the Danube in northwestern Hungary as part of Moravia (18:02, 24 September 2013 UTC). However, Anton Spiesz and Dusan Caplovic book "Illustrated Slovak History: A Struggle for Sovereignty in Central Europe" clealy shows it as a territory of Great Moravia in ca. 894, which can be seen for example: here or here. I do not have access to Kirschbaum`s book (1995), however as this is the same case as with the eastern Slovakia areas (look at 22:47, 28 September 2013 UTC), I think that if he is the only one, and all other scientific maps shows it included (well presented by Trimnapaschkan), I would say that this area (Panonia - 8,10,20,21 and 22) can be mentioned as sure territory, same as we did with the eastern Slovakian area (01:37, 29 September 2013 UTC). What do you think? Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

German scholars would not agree with it. According to Pirchegger (or Wolfram): "Moravian territory never extended into Pannonia" (In: Charles R. Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788-907, p. 12). Fakirbakir (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bona also says that "historians have treated the reports in the Hungarian Chronicle about Svatopluk's reign in Pannonia as fact, however it is rather late tradition of questionable historical worth" (In: Istvan Zimonyi, Muslim Sources on the Magyars in the Second Half of the 9th Century: The Magyar Chapter of the Jayhānī Tradition, 2015, p. 302). Ergo, this topic "Moravian occupation of Pannonia" is (at least) disputed. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about contemporery sources, Hans Pirchegger lived in 1875-1973, also, your mentioned paragraph begins with: "Until recently, German-speaking schollars have been.." Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Jirka, would you please refer to pages in Spiesz, Caplovic, because I did not find maps on the front page of the book. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Page (as you said before) is 365. Can be found here, then go to 365. Looks like you was mistaken, or you meant another map.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above message. I did not mention Pannonia in connection with the above cited sources. I referred to the Great Hungarian Plain ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh I overlooked, that you were talking about two different areas. In that case, you was not contested areas south of Danube but the lands between the Danube and the Tisza? But look here (18:02, 24 September 2013 UTC) - "The above cited maps (Kirschbaum, and Spiesz, Caplovic) do not present any territories to the south of the Danube and the hills in northwestern Hungary" was your words. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for it. Yes, Spiesz et al presents Pannonia as a part of Moravia. However, I still maintain that it is a quite unusual claim. Could we write that 9th-century Hungary included Germany, France, Italy and Spain, because Magyars pillaged those territories for decades? Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a quite unusual comparison. Unlike to Hungarian raids to Spain, (Great) Moravians founded a political unit directly in the neighborhood of Pannonia, so you are comparing incomparable. It is worth noting that e.g. in Slovakia there are place names like Moravany nad Váhom, Zlaté Moravce, Hontianske Moravce and others reminding a political expansion of Moravia. There are similar names also in Hungary like (extinct) Maroczsiget, Morva, Morácz, Morócz tető, Moróczi földek, Marót, Pilis Marót, Puszta Marót, etc, often with Slavic place names with a military motivation in their neighborhood.Ditinili (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You may not know, but the Hungarians established a political unit directly in the neighborhood of Germany and raided Germany for about 5 decades. Why do you think that the above Slovakian place names show the political expansion of Moravia, instead of the well-documented arrival of Moravian colonists to present-day Slovakia? Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What do we think about it is irrelevant. The image was changed.Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The map is awful now. I am going to change it. Read the whole paragraph in Bowlus's book. Germans scholars do not agree with "Moravian occupation of Pannonia" nor Hungarian scholars. It's a dubious matter. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed that megalomaniac map to a better one. It's a reasonable compromise IMO. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about contemporery sources. We agreed earlier on this map, new is awful.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your map is getting more and more megalomaniac. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO is getting more realistic. What do you want to propose? Change south of Danube territories to be more similar to your map ? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No consensus. Your previous map was a bit better, but this new one is ridiculous. I do not agree that the Frankish Principality of Lower Pannonia (Balaton Principality) was OCCUPIED by Svatopluk. German scholars DO NOT agree with it (I already mentioned). I even offered a compromise when I did choose to display user Hxseek's map. His map shows the northern territories of the ORIENS as part of Moravia. Stop Megalomaniac Moravia. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop being angry and please start to debate rationally. So again, do you want to argue that just northeastern part should be highlighted like here or here ? I guess it is because this map present just territories under Rastislav. If you want to contest rest of Panonnia you should present any contemporery source, as I said Hans Pirchegger lived in 1875-1973 and this paragraph begins with "Until recently". Please specify more your arguments. Thank you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

When did Svatopluk occupy Pannonia? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Regino states that in 884 Pannonia was held by Arnulf of Carintia. According to MacLain [5] Arnulf held Pannonia until the mid 890s.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is quite vague, what does the mid 890s mean? As can be seen for example on Spiesz and Caplovic map (365) here, this is area in ca. 894. Also, the words are not that: Arnulf held Pannonia until the mid 890s, but that he was installed in Lower Pannonia (at the time), and this realm retained its cohesion and importance to the mid 890s. By the way, what do you proposing, to change southern (Lower) Pannonia under and around Balaton (scroll one page down at your source, or look here, or even your proposed map) into possible territories? Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You asked for primary sources yesterday. I demonstrated Regino's account (source is in the article) to you. According to him in 884 it was Arnulf who held Pannonia. In 892 Arnulf attacked Moravia successfully and some scholars even say that "others warn against conceiving of Moravia as a state with core areas or clear cut boundaries as it never achieved that level of development"[6] So, I am asking again --> When did Svatopluk occupy Pannonia? What are the evidences for "occupation"? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC),

Szoke, a well-known scholar and expert of Frankish Pannonia states that "This comitatus (Balaton Principality) was never part of the Moravian Principality "p. 436 Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Some scholars say is really a fantastic prove. Evidences are in presented historians books (source above or in archived texts and maps). I am asking you again, which area are you contesting: Balaton Principality - Lower Pannonia? Change as you have presented in Hxseek's map? Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

However, when I am looking at the Béla Miklós Szöke's work (p.411-412), according to articles and artefacts found here (and I know that he was conducting researches here since 90s), he clearly declares that they do not have to reflect Great Moravia expansion, and mentions that this comitatus (Pannonia was divided into several comitatus) was never part of the Moravian Principality. In that case, we have at least two (along with Kirschbaum) who denied to view this area as a Great Moravian territory. I would say, that we should wait what others say. But in my opinion this southern part of Pannonia should be marked as possible - as Fakirbakir proposed in another map (Hxseek). Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Guys, it seems that you mix several problems:

* Had Great Moravia "clear cut" boundaries (in general)? No, and it is not something exceptional for early political entities.

* Did Svatopluk expanded to Pannonia? Yes, he did.

* Were these territories permanently joined to Great Moravia? No, they were not.

* Does it mean that these territories cannot be included in the map, if somebody want to present the maximal extent of the territories controlled by him? No, it doesn't.

Jirko, you are a native Czech speaker, check České země od příchodu Slovanů po Velkou Moravu II (Z. Měřínský). Ditinili (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

*When did Svatopluk expand his rule to Pannonia? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Svatopluk's control over the region of Northern and later Middle Tisza River in dated by some authors to 880-882 (Bulgarians definitely controlled territory around the mouth of Tisza in 886 and salt mines in Transylvania in 892. Where exactly did Svatopluk's power reach in this direction is not known, also what kind of dependency was between him and a local population). In 882, Svatopluk fought with Bulgarians, this event is generally localized to the region of Northen Tisza where both political units should have a common border. In 833-884, Svatopluk fought in Pannonia and get a military control over the territory. The sources do not say anything about leaving the entire territory south of Danube (nor about a permanent control of a concrete region). E.g. in 892, Arnulf's messengers had to choose a more complicated path to Bulgarians (following Sava), what might support an opinion that at least part of Pannonia was still controlled by Moravians. Another source is onomastic, see e.g. this map with reconstructed place names in Slovakia and Western Hungary [[7]] - this rather supports an opinion about a longer presence of Moravians. This is only and example, e.g. Krajčovič analyzed the problem of Great Moravian military bases and trade routes vs. placenames in Pannonia in 21 pages.

I suggest to:

• draw the core territories with some level of uncertainty (e.g. cross hatching)
• draw the regions where the expansions were aimed + basic legend
• describe the character of the each particular expansion in the article + relevant views --Ditinili (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Svatopluk fought in Pannonia and get a military control over the territory" What is the source for this statement? I think it's just speculation based on the Annals of Fulda ("Pannonia's being laid waste"). Regino's observation states "the contrary", he says that Arnulf held Pannonia in 884. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Fakirbakir: "According to MacLain [8] Arnulf held Pannonia until the mid 890". The cited page does not contain such statement. What is really written there: "This evidence therefore suggests that Arnulf had been installed in this extended Lower Panonian realm which retained both its cohesion and its importance through to the mid-890 at least."

Fakirbakir: "Regino's observation states "the contrary", he says that Arnulf held Pannonia in 884" This is probably only another misunderstanding from your side. Regino's "Pannonia" obviously does not mean the whole Pannonia (as you interpret it), such interpretation is questioned also by MacLain (= your source) on p. 135.

(What is the source for this statement? My source is Měřínský, Zdeněk (2006). České země od příchodu Slovanů po Velkou Moravu II. Libri. p. 723. ISBN 8072771051. I am not a professional historian to check contemporary documents referenced by the author, he reconstructs events in several chapters.)

Wikipedia editors should not evaluate primary sources (they are not professional historians).

Instead of arguing about primary sources, I suggest to rely on professional scientists. Please, let me know if my proposal (06:19, 4 February 2017) is acceptable. Ditinili (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you assume that Regino did not write that Arnulf held Pannonia in 884? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't assume anything. I say that your own source says on p. 135 that Regino's term "Pannonia" cannot be interpreted so literally (as you do). I suggest you to not interpret primary sources and read WP:PRIMARY. Ditinili (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, when MacLain tries to interpret the political situation in Pannonia around 884 (based on Regino's account), he also mentions Duke Brazlavo and Margrave Arbo beside Arnulf of Carinthia, but do not mention Svatopluk. [9] Fakirbakir (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This may or may not be interesting, but a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in some work (argumentum ex silentio) cannot be used anyway. I only noted that your statements are not compliant with your own sources. Instead of arguing about primary sources or who is right, let me know if my proposal is acceptable. --Ditinili (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"but he did not conquer or take possession of Pannonia"Zimonyi 2015, p. 298 Fakirbakir (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I proposed 3x how to deal with this problem and how to reach a consensus. You did not react 3x, I am leaving the discussion. (Muslim sources??) Pls, read my previous comment about arguing who is right and my last sentence from 06:19, 4 February 2017. Ditinili (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that Zimonyi is not a reliable source (a medievalist with an MTA doctor degree)? I will not accept any map which shows Pannonia as a Moravian-occupied/annexed territory ("proven territory"), because this matter is at least DISPUTED by specialists (e.g. Pirchegger, Wolfram, Bona, Zimonyi, Szoke, MacLain and a lot of others) If you don't understand this then you should really leave this conversation. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I am saying that you are not able to understand my proposal. Bye. --Ditinili (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It is futile to propose anything because nobody will draw a new map based on this discussion. Actually this conversation is just an endless debate. If User:Jirka.h23 had wanted to take a neutral attitude on the matter he would have restored his previous less dubious map. But he didn't. I wonder why.... Anyway, Moravian control of Lesser Poland, Silesia, Eastern Austria, Transylvania, Banat, Vojvodina, Transcarpathia and the Hungarian Great Plain areas are also problematic but who cares.... Fakirbakir (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

But this map is not dubious, the only one who it now contests is you. I would prefere to wait what others say (now we have just Ditinili's response and he disagree with you), I have expressed my position above already. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ditinili, thanks, Zdeněk Měřínský wrote, that when Arnulf sent his messengers to Bulgaria, informations mention Svatopluk traps, this proves that a large part of Pannonia to the river Drava, including the territory of the former ruler Kocel had to belong under the sovereignty of Moravian ruler, or it was at least under his control as its sphere of influence, and this was at least since 884 (p.891). His book "The Czech Lands from the Arrival of the Slavs to Great Moravia II." is the largest synthesis of its subject. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also posting his map of the Great Moravia presented on page 723. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"But this map is not dubious, the only one who it now contests is you"----> What?...(facepalm). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the only one who contests this map is you now. What do you do not understand on that? Ditinili disagree with you, Borsoka argued earlier with a map, which however proved to be different, Trimnapaschkan do not yet expressed himself. So let just wait what others say. By twe way, what do think about my last two comments? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Jirko, you are wasting your time. Simply describe all relevant views. You can definitely include the map in the article (not necessarily in the info box) with a proper description (e.g. according to x.y.). Ditinili (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I still believe that I am not wasting my time, as we have spent quite a lot of work over this map already. I will wait for their answers (or from anyone interested in this manner). To include map with description according to x.y., is not a good idea as I guess that Fakirbakir will disagree with this anyway. Fakirbakir and Borsoka, what do think about my comments about Měřínský? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Borsoka. Your map is dubious. For instance, According to Szoke the comitatus of Mosapurc (Braslavespurch) was never a part of Svatopluk's Moravia. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Read Zimonyi pls,[10] (or MacLain) before you say that Szoke is alone with his view. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me. It looks like Borsoka is not going to comment these sources here in talk page (I am still not sure with Kirschbaum, as I do not have access to it), but according to me, I agree, I have changed the map to be more similar to your proposed map. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

... the Cyrillic alphabets as they are now known in Bulgaria, Belarus, Macedonia, Mongolia, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine

Why these countries? Either more should be listed or Mongolia removed since its script adoption was several centuries later and was not related to spread of Christianity.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Moravia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325040146/http://www.proglas.sk/Metod.htm to http://www.proglas.sk/Metod.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)