Talk:History of Slovakia/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Archive 1 Archive 2

Socialist Slovakia

Device (CoA) of socialist (communist) Slovakia in 1960 - 1990 and of the Slovak Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1968 - 1990:

However, even during difficult historic periods, even in spite of considerable human and material losses, and without having their own state, the Slovakian people knew how to keep their vitality, their language and their culture in order to continue to develop them. They began the era of Lights full of hope and ready to assume their role in the national renaissance, ready to lead their struggle for the rebirth of their State.

This article seems to be in desperate need of some neutral phrasing :) The Middle Ages section in general is rather terse when it comes to actual information, compared to the length of the period it is describing. -- Shallot 22:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The whole article is quite strange in some points and is even a copyright infringement in most of its parts. But it is better then nothing. I am presently working on a version for the German wikipedia, because there they have almost no text at all and will then (hopefully) try to rewrite the English article - because it is the best thing that can be done about it instead of correcting every second sentence. -- Juro 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good luck. I did something similar to the history of Croatia which was also unnecessarily slanted against the medieval period, but less than this page. It's probably got to do with the less favourable historical circumstances in the case of Slovakia. --Shallot 17:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Juro told: cleared from the nationalist mess. I think there are some still there. How do you think the Hungarians disappeared from Slovakia 1918? If you don't delete this sentence I will do it soon. I understand Slovakia needs a history. But please, you won over Hungarians all the battles of the 20th century. You still have some of the mainly Hungarian territories like Komárno, Zitny ostrov, Stúrovo, Lucenec, Královsky Chlmec. Why do you write a history, which changes the real one? What's the purpose? Why do you need that? Why do you think that the border drown in the Trianon Palace of Versailles during 1919, existed in the Middle Ages???

I am NOT the author of the article. Nobody disappeared from anywhere. And do not want me to start editting the Hungarian History which is terrible after the last edits - but I let it be. And stop your vandalism in the English and German encyclopedia.

Sorry, I was new to wikipedia, I didn't intend to make any vandalism, sometimes it's just funny to see the reactions. Otherwise as you probably know, there are large differences between the Slovakian, Hungarian and even the German look at the same history. In wikipedia I think, we should respect the facts preferably without emotions. (I think our history books both the Hungarians an the Slovakians are full of emotions.) I will try. Janos

I'm also NOT the author of the History of Hungary. I only had small contributions, as centuries were missing and I even deleted one gossip based sentence of mine now. The Slovak History page is much better and I hope somebody will totally rewrite the Hungarian one. You are also free to edit all the Wikipedia pages including the History of Hungary. Janos

The Slovak history is rather bad then good as well, and I am trying to write a new one since one year or so, but it is terribly time-consuming...

Until the Turkish times about 80% of the population of Hungary(including Slovakia) was Hungarian. After the Turkish wars in the 16th and the 17th centuries almost 50% of the Hungarian population was annihilated and since that time the proportion of Hungarians was only around 50% of Hungary. However until the end of the 18th Century the importance of belonging to a nationality was not so high, than after and the official language was latin. The survival of the Slovaks under 1000 years of Hungarian rule is a clear proof itself, that there was no "magyarization" before the late 19th century. Janos

This has nothing to do with magyarisation (and your last sentence is absolutely correct), but with the figures you use - they contradict even the official Hungarian (!) figures. Presently, I am too busy to deal with this complicated issue, I will look at it later. But - for the time being - I remember one thing from the official numbers: there were only 50% Magyars at the end of the 19th century (or even only in 1910). Juro

Too big.

Shouldn't the parts about Czechoslovakia be moved to another article, called maybe "History of Czechoslovakia"? The parts before and after this failed "Wilsonian" experiment can be directed to the entries on Czechia and Slovakia, I'm thinking.

Um.......no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.35.142 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

article still biased

at Joy: I did not forget this article ... Juro 17:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise :) That note of mine was merely pointed to a specific paragraph (obvious in the diff) to help if someone wishes to go about fixing it while looking at RC. --Joy [shallot] 19:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The new version of the article achieved neutral phrasing, however missed focus on Slovakia as a separate and independent nation, as opposed to an appendage to previous political formations. Nevertheless I edited only a few clumsy English constructs. Palo.

What new version are you talking about? The article is still a big mess. Juro 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

course of history

  • De facto, the kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist??
  • Slovakia, rich in raw materials and fairly economically developed
  • first royal privileges to Slovakian cities??
) --fz22 10:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


De facto, the kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist??

yes, with foundation of czechoslovakia

When? After Mohacs? Czechoslovakia??

Slovakia, rich in raw materials and fairly economically developed

yes see selmecbánya, körmöcbánya, szepes ... Speaking about Slovakia before 1918 ... pantaloonery

first royal privileges to Slovakian cities??

yes, cities (today in slovakia) and occupied to Middle Ages by forefathers of slovaks, germans, hungarians, jews ...

--Mt7 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course today they are cities of Slovakia ... but then? Slovakian cities?? I've never heard talking about "Hungarian" cities (eg Aquincum) of the Roman Empire--fz22 13:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The capital of Slovakia, Bratislava, in 1550 ... Funny. What a dilletant wrote this artice, or this is the official Slovakian history ?--fz22 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute ... --Mt7 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) good idea ...--fz22 15:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your objections are all wrong, hypernationalist and you do not know elementary facts (like always), Fz22, but since this article contains many other errors, I agree with adding the tag. On the other hand, that will not help the article. Juro 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know what elemenentary facts ;)? Hypernacionalist? Me? This article is damned funny ...--fz22 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for butting in, but don't you think it's a bit strange that of all the people that have looked at this article, it would have to be a Hungarian to stop by and say that History of Slovakia is funny. Just my $0.02 Jbetak 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You are poorly educated, Fz22 (as all these nationalist and "fashist" (sic) [1] Hungarians). Haven't you heard about Andrássy and Esterházy, the famous Slovak noble families? And about the predominantly Slovak Hunt-Poznan (wrongly: Hont-Pázmány) noble family? The funniest is the article on Tokaji (fordítás = Slovak forditás) :)) There are many things you have yet to learn :))) Vay 20:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And you are an even worse case, as your previous contribution shows again and again. 19th century phrases, medieval primitivism, non-sense, nationalist crap, all the time. Fortunately, I know that not all Hungarians are such i****, don't be concerned...The problem is, that all the persons like you end in this wikipedia (for obvious reasons).Juro 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Sorry boys, but take a look at the following sentences:
  • A third invasion of Asian nomads in Europe, the seven Magyar tribes ...
a POV issue, basically correct
Why don't we call them african nomads? We all came from Africa, right? The Magyars lived for circa 800 years in East-Europa, befor the conquest.
Ha, ha, ha...They were nomads who originally lived in Asia for thousands of years, in other words "Asian nomads". But again, I wouldn't write "Asian nomads", I would not use any attribute, because we have the Magyars article, in which everybody can assess these things for himself.
  • 894 Death of King Svätopluk I, peace for the Slavs with the Bavarians, first invasion by the Magyars into the Transdanubian region.
partially wrong
  • In 902 and at the beginning of 906 Mojmír II twice pushed back attacks' from the Magyar armies which resulted in their fleeing. However, during their next raid in the South, Mojmír II as well as Svätopluk II were killed, and the Magyars pillaged the southern Slovak regions ...
partially wrong
  • Lech River in 955, when Otto, King of the Germans completely destroyed the Magyar military troops and forced the Magyar nomadic tribes to give up their aggressive and pillaging lifestyle.
correct
false. they continuied their raid agaist the Balkans for over a decade
Really? So according to you (in contradiction to archaelogical findings and basic history texts), the Magyars did not settle in the Carpathian Basin and did not start "normal" life not even in 955?? This is new to me. Starting a settled life does not mean that you stop any wars and fightings althogether, nobody did in Europe at that time. And the sentence is obviously not meant to be interpreted in the way that immediately after the battle they set down and said "OK, folks, from now on we will give up our aggressive and pillaging lifestyle. Burn your weapons, kill your horses, build houses."
  • Vajko had to seek refuge in Slav territories
correct
Vajk, did not find refuge anywhere. At Szekesfehervar (chief town of Hungary) he gathered an army and marshed toward Vesprem, besiged by Capun turmens. The battle was fought near Veszpren or Varpalota ... Capun/Koppany never reached Szekesfehervar.
You are of course wrong. There is a whole well-known story about this, which you obviously do not know. And the place of the final battle does not determine what happened before.
Then tell me the story, in cronological order, of course--fz22 08:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Jesus, these are really the basics. The short version: Stephen was surprised by Koppany's rebellion and quite naturally sought refuge in the Nitrian principality (and the Hunts and Poznans), the ruler of which he had been until then. On the banks of the Hron River he was XY-ed (I do not know the English word) by a sword by them and in the same year he had a military camp built in what is today Bíňa. He then gathered a sufficiently big army under knight Vencelín and they went to Veszprém.
Wrong ... He was XY-ed ;) near river Garam/(german Gran) according to a Saint Stephen legend, but this Gran is nothing else then Esztergom which german name is also Gran ...--fz22 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It is you who is wrong, and you can be sure that the Slovak Academy of Sciences knows the history of its own country. Hron is the river, Biňa is in Slovakia.
Unfortunatelly until 1920 it was the "own country" for Hungarian Academy of Science too. This is not an arguments --fz22 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
And fortunately we are 100 years later now, and fortunately there are new documents and Slovakia is a much smaller territory to be analysed...And yes - the fact that what I am saying to you are not just some theories is an argument, and no - this is not a complete argument, a complete argument would require me to cite here 10 books, but I see no point in doing so, because I am only informing you that you are wrong (I could not care less where Stephen was at that time), believe it or not...Juro 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • in 1001 Boleslaw I of Poland captured Slovakia, which was Polish until 1030
correct (in terms of content)
false, the correct data is 1014-1017
False, you mean 1018, and that is outdated information. Again, there is a whole story about this, which you just do not know, obviously.
Boleslav was Stpehen's borther in law for a while ... BTW which part of "Slovakia" ... the northest virgin forest region? Or down as far as Strigonium?? Do you really think Stephen would endured it with patience--fz22 08:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
First, there was no "virgin forest", those are Hungarian 19th century lies. Second, again these are basic facts, your last question is ridiculous ("would endure" ???) and Stephen can be happy that Boleslav stopped at the Danube. Third, he conquered exactly what is today Slovakia (down to the Danube), probably without the northeastern parts and probably including northern central Hungary (which was also "Slovakia"- land inhabited by Slovaks at that time)
Lies? If you say so ... Believe it or not the border forts where reconqered by Stephen around 1017-1018. Henrick II concluded an alliance with Hungary against Boleslaw the Brave. --fz22 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: that is outdated information and the again the whole story is more complicated. I am not going to give you introductory lessons in the history of Slovakia. Second, there were thousands of settlements in the "virgin forests", you can ask any archeologists. But again, I really do not have the time to teach biased persons the basics here. There are whole books on this topic, you will never see in your life, because you do not want to, because you prefer propaganda, and because you do not udnerstand the language.
deadlock :)--fz22 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, sorry to interupt :), but it would be very nice from Juro to quote atleast some of his books. I agree with/or I believe/ all what you wrote, but this is realy new information for (not just) me. aldb
  • Slovak mini-principalities again, until the last of them have been gradually incorporated in the Kingdom of Hungary by around 1300.
absolutely correct
What mini prinicpality? Who was the prince? Or you just confuse the 13th century with the interregnum perriod that followed the Arpads? --fz22 08:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The mini-principalities were basically the areas under the individual castles (of which there have always been many in Slovakia), the princes are unknown. This is elementary school knowledge in Slovakia.
Ohh, really? So there was more then 500 so called "mini principality" all over the country--fz22 08:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It is you who is confusing things, 11th century castles are not the same as the 13th castles (because that's what you mean by the 500 castles, otherwise I do not understand the quetion). Besides: (1) if you do not like the term mini-principalities, I have no objection, but it described the situation correctly, (2) this is not my "invention", so you should asked others if you have problems with this.
  • Slovakia, ... , the biggest producer of silver and the second-largest producer of gold in Europe
actually, in the world; the term Slovakia is preserved since the 15th century, but is much older
  • in 1526 brought about the partition of Hungary into three parts. De facto, the kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist.
wrong
  • Hungarians, even today, call them "revolutions" in which they sided with the Turks, all of which took place on Slovak territory.--fz22 08:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
the sided with the Turks part is actually correct (again, in terms of content it tries to convey), I would have to check, if there was at least one in which they did not "side with the Turks"
They were anti-Habsburg uprisings, not revolutions ... Prince Bethlen's intervention (on the side of Frederich) in the Thirty Years' War.--fz22 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I have only reacted to the bolded text. Bethlen also cooperated with the Turks, of course.
  • Due to the Turkish invasion, Slovakia became, for almost two centuries, the principal battleground of the Turkish wars
correct, I know that Hungarians do not know that (and everybody in Slovakia knows that the Hungarians do not know that)
Two centuries? Cool! Let see the facts. Between 1526-1566 the Ottomans did not reach present day Slovakia, instead they destroyed central Hungary in 6 campaigns led by the Sultan personally, plus many other smaller campaigns ... the northest conquered castle was Salgo in 1554. Furthermore the next war time period 1593-1606 the Ottomans have lost Diveny, Szecheny, Fulek , but captured Eger, Fehervar (again). The period between 1663-1664 was the first time when the Turks conqered Ersekujvar, Nyitra (reconquered in no time), Leva (reconquered) ... --fz22 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I did not comment the number. What you describe above however, is nothing but a huge simplification. The development was much more complicated, there were areas claimed by the Turks, areas conquered by the Turks, areas looted by the Turks etc. Juro 02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, but the 200 year is a little exagerated. There were 2 years when Pasha Koprulu raided a small part (the sothern part) of present day Slovakia. The royal Hungary teritories were defended by border forts and this line was never broken through durative.--fz22 08:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, almost half of Slovakia was systematically looted by the Turks for decades, they have it in each school atlas in Slovakia. Maybe there is a difference between small looting and big looting, I do not remember such details. Juro 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • After the ousting of the Turks from Central Europe in 1686, Buda, which later became Budapest, became the capital of Hungary.
complete non-sense Juro 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ... i'm sick of the whole shebang ... aren't they funny--fz22 22:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


As I said above, the article contains OTHER errors and you have listed some of them now. Most of what you have listed, however, is fully correct, basically everything concerning the term Slovak. The fact that you are unable to accept anything differing from Hungarian nationalist history interpretations is not an error. Juro 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
What is an error is pushing a nationalist POV here. It is a pathetic attempt to create a national mithology. Ie. "Slovakia, ... , the biggest producer of silver and the second-largest producer of gold in Europe" - congratulations. Well, it was Hungary, the northern part of it, nothing more. Following this logic, we could tell "Italy was the main world power in the 2nd century BC" or I can write many more analogies, but you won't care. Sad thing is you simply write these in bad faith, without trying to build consensus. Vay 22:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I should not react to anything you are saying, but unfortunately, I found out that people read the discussions here. First, I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE. Second, I have only quickly answered the questions, a "consensus" is not the topic of this discussion. Third, the article needs a complete rewrite, for which I have no time, and even if I had it, I would not do it exactly because the wikipedia got invaded by users like you. As for the sentence, I repeat: The term Slovakia is preserved since the 15th century (which part of this sentence do not you understand?), but is actually much older, because it actually means "land of the Sloviens/Slovaks", nothing less and nothing more. This does not imply that Slovakia is a state, a "power" or things like that, nobody is claiming that and the text clearly says that. Maybe it is a surprise for you, but there are regions and countries in the world that are no states, but have names, nevertheless (and of course). And even ignoring this, using the term Slovakia in history texts always means "territory of present-day Slovakia", everybody in the world understands that, only some Hungarians have problems with that (of course). This said, I have to add, that I myself would not use the term Slovakia before the 15/16th century and would add "present-day" in most cases, but the point here was that I have reacted to Fz's allegely detected "errors". Juro 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think you DO know that everybody would be happy with "present-day Slovakia", and might even admit that you perhaps have a point when talking about regions. But what is your aim with speaking like "some Hungarians have problems with that (of course)", "invaded"? This, and your remarks made in the previous days begin to reach a level when it can be considered hate-speech. And, btw, in response to your above comment I have to assure you that I know that the sentiments coded in these words of yours are not shared by most people in Slovakia. Vay 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no emotions in the above text, if you see emotions there, then we have a problem (and a person calling non-Magyars "shepherds" is below any level and nothing but an "emotion" ). Juro 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Vay, I believe we only had reasonable exchanges so far and I cannot (and wouldn't want to) comment on other editorial disputes on Wikipedia. Even though Juro can be fairly direct and could perhaps benefit from a more nuanced expression, he also struck me as someone who is fairly knowlegeable and generally not biased. To his credit, he really did not write this article. I checked its history the moment you raised the issue of consensus. While I'm fairly secure in my heritage, I have to say that I was a bit surprised when to hear that the "the Slav (or Slovak or to be more exact, Tot) population was made up by mountain shepherds immigrating from Moravia". [2] I have not heard anything like it all my life, and it would not surprise me if other people started to get defensive over such attitudes. I think we need to work together and not against each other, discussions like these are not going to be very productive if all we do is promote either ridicule or disrespect. Anyway, again just my $0.02 Jbetak 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was the one who posted this message about Tot shepherds ...[removed lies and matters unrelated to this article]
Jbetak, I fully subscribe to this. What was a bit distessing that I travel a lot to Slovakia, like (and want to learn more about) its culture, history, and yet I'm qualified as a fascist by a leading Slovak editor, only because having mentioned the mainsteam Hung. POV in some cases. Perhaps we are the first generation that can understand each other better, since in the EU there's no reason to be defensive anymore. I find these different narratives of history simply interesting, and don't think learning the version of each other would danger one's identity or heritage. Vay 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Do not play the "good" guy now. You know very well, how you have called people in the Trianon discussion (I will not forget that), what your attitude against HunTomy was, which edits you have reverted there etc. Juro 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I used "shepherd" only once, soon after you called me "fascist" and "idiot from the jungle". Still, it wasn't a good idea, so accept my apologies. Vay 01:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope you understand the difference between saying that someone is an idiot (a general insult) and saying that someone is a "shepherd" (which means that you basically consider all non-Magyars being an "inferior race" and stick to the 19th century terminology). The second one is absolutely inacceptable and you have done it not in a verbal discussion, but had time to think about what you will write there. I have NEVER seen such an incredible kind of insult in the wikipedia (actually, not even during the last decade of my life), and I have seen a lot here. Juro 01:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


OK, you don't get it. It would be interesting to know why do you hate Hungarians (you speak the language, maybe you had bad personal experiences, "the last decade of my life" implies this), I dunno. Calling someone a "fascist" is a serious insult, and you are wrong, one does act in this situation as in a verbal discussion. Further, what does "idiot from the jungle" imply? Try telling this to an African-American, and you'll see. Your last comment on the Slovakia talkpage makes me sad: "Again, I am only writing this, so that nobody starts to believe this nationalist mess resulting from Hungary's complex of its own history and hatred against all neighbouring countries." So, this is your opinion. Case closed. Vay 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I have called HunTomy a fascist, because he has done fascist edits, and consequently you, because I thought you were him (because you have edited anonymously) and because you used the "shepherds". I do not hate Hungarians, I hate any nationalist Slovak, Hungarian and other editors here, who destroy the work of others and drive away other editors. You and your collegues have "successfully" managed to drive out several Romanian editors during the last years and that was a big loss to the wikipedia. It is not my fault that the percentage of nationalist editors from Hungary is so high here. And I must admit I have changed my view on Hungarian historiography and history teaching a lot during the last months. I see that nothing has changed since the 19th century, still the old irrational chauvinist non-sense, as if nothing had changed since then. I can only hope that the percentage of this way of thinking is not so high with a representative sample of Hungary's population. Juro 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


A wise Japanese man once said something that could easily solve this puzzle. When one hates a minority, his hate can be justified. But, when a majority hates him, his hate will never be rewarded from justice. Justice rewards the deserving. Slovak people largely hate only two groups of people in Europe: Czechs and Magyars. Hungarians hate everyone: Romanians, Croats, Slovaks, Serbs, Slovenes, Austrians, Russians, Germans, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Macedonians, Czechs ... [a series of insults follows]

??. The day you appeared in the wikipedia, I knew you should be blocked forever from this project. Unfortunately, nobody listens to me here and the admins do not care, it is always just an "opinion", right?!. Juro 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wake up Juro. [a series of insults follows]

Juro, you wrote: "it is always just an "opinion", right?!." Hello, Juro. You really are [a series of insults follows]

Referring to Magyars as a nomadic Asian tribe is historically inaccurate!

I do not want to get involved in the shouting match going on here between some editors but the reference to Magyars as "an invading Asian nomadic tribe" is simply inaccurate. I am neither Hungarian nor Slovaks but know enough about this issue to say that statement must be removed. For one the defintive place of origins of the Magyars is not known. Most scholars tend to beleive they lived in and around the Urals before migrating to areas in modern Ukraine and eventually into the Carpathian Basin. Either way it is historically inaccurate to label the Magyars an invading Asian tribe as there is no definitive evidence to conclude their origins lie entirely or mostly in Asia. Also it is inaccurate that the Magyars arrived in Europe at the end of the 9th century. They may have arrived in Central Europe at this time but before they came to the Carpathian Basin they had lived in areas of present-day European Russia and Ukraine for some time. And where they originated before that as I said is still not known for certain. --84.153.12.219 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to explain such obvious edits (summary comments are enough) and are free to make further edits. The problem with this article, as mentioned above severel times by me, is that it is (was) a copyright infringement and has to be rewritten completely, so that any such small changes might be useless in the long run. Juro 00:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Note on the distinction between modern states and historical territories

The article should consistently draw a distinction between modern states and historical territories.

The use of the English name, Hungary, should be more specific in this context, to avoid confusions. I suggest the following names for consideration: 1.The historical Kingdom of Hungary (Uhersko) (1001-1920), refering to the multiethnic political formation before the WW1, 2.The Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1944) refering to the period between the WW1 and WW2, 3. The modern day Hungary, from 1944 onward.

On the otherhand, in some cases, the English name Slovakia could be misleading. Unless someone wants to suggest a political continuity in the Slovak history, there should be a difference made between historic Slovak lands(territory) and the state of Slovakia(political formation). The application of the term Slovakia during the medieval period, suggests the existence of a Slovak state inside the multiethnic kingdom. Therefore I recommend to use the term, the Slovak lands or the lands of the present-day Slovakia during the period of Uhersko(the historical Kingdom of Hungary). --Kukorelli 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

the lands of the present-day Slovakia is more NPOv than Slovak lands ... BTW my whim (multiethnic kingdom of Hungary - which is correct but sometimes, pardon, all the times over-emphasized ) why the Czechoslovak republic is never called the "multiethnic political formation"?? ;) just a question :)? --fz22 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In certain context I beleive the use of "Slovak lands" is more appropriate. The exclusive use of "the lands of the present day Slovakia" might be misleading since it lacks reference to the dominant Slovak ethnicity of the region.

the first census held in the Habsburg Empire dated from the late 18th century. Up to this time we have no datas about the ethnic composition of the Hungarian Highland . According to some estimations in the early 16th century (at the peak of the kingdom) there were around 300,000 "Slovaks" + 3,000,000 Magyars (+ of course others) in the KoH. Just in the weeks followed the Battle of Mohacs perished around 100,000 Magyars.
Yes, "sure". According to correct (i.e not Hungarian 19th century) estimations, it was more like the other way round. Do not think you can spread your lies, everytime someone writes something on this talk page by seamingly "responding" to that.... And secondly, according to most current genetic "estimations" there were almost no Magyars even in present-day Hungary. So just keep these numbers for a session of Hungarian fascists and other history falsifiers (who always end in the wikipedia, especially on the talk pages - no wonder). In fact, Slovaks were the dominant population even in Hungary in Middle Ages. And they were still very present there in the 1830s. Juro 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
i thought you already overstep this stupidity ;) Anyway ... You said Slovaks were the dominant population even in Hungary?? :)) --fz22 11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have said that (to be more precise nobody knows if they were dominant but certainly let us say at least as present as the Magyars in northern and eastern Hungary except for southwestern Hungary). And I, on the contrary, do not think that you will overstep your "stupidity", because I see Hungarian TV (with broadcasts for school about borders of Great Hungary, for which people would be imprisonned in countries like Germany, etc.) and see Hungarian texts, all of which make clear that Hungarian historiography has remained stuck somewhere in 1900 (i.e. Magyars then nothing then nothing then nothing and only then all the rest comes) and is unable to move from there, whatever the changes in archeology, historiography, linguistic research or whatever in the meantime. What you are saying above is obvious nonsense to such an extent that it really makes no sense to react to it. And you can be sure that what I am presenting here are the most "academic" opinions that exist, nationalist versions would be much more "shocking" for you. But I know that such desperate plays with numbers (like "500 000" Hungarians arrived in 900 and when you look at the "calculation", it is like in a kindergarden) are normal in Hungary, so in this sense you are no exception. Juro 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to see how worried you are about present day Hungary resides in PVS ... Whatch out not to wake up ;)--fz22 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say Juro, but what you wrote I just can not comprehend: "with broadcasts for school about borders of Great Hungary, for which people would be imprisonned in countries like Germany", what does this sentence imply? Do you mean if a Germany TV station would broadcast a program about historical German borders, THAN the responsible editor would be imprisoned? Do you mean that?--kuko 21:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor devil, Germany this is why at the end of the century ... nevermind, this is far beside the point ... however can you clue me up which Hungarian TV stations are we talking about? --fz22 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In 1920 there were around 1.9 million Slovaks and 1.05 Magyars in Slovakia ... this is what you call "dominant" Slovak region?--fz22 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Incredible, stop lying. There were 886,044 Hungarians in Slovakia according to the 1920 census. And that is the upper limit, because everybody thought that Czechoslovakia will cease to exist soon (after all it took place only some 3/4 year after Hungarian troops left Slovakia) and opportunistely continued giving Hungarian nationality in the census like in the past. The correct number is that of 1930, namely 571 952. And for the 886 000 so-called Magyars - see the for example the external link under Magyarisation Chapter Magyarisation. Juro 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
and what about the "Za Karpacka" :) region? was not member of the Czechoslovak state? According to the last Hungarian pre-war census and estimations the number of Magyars in the former Hungarian territories ceded to Czechoslovakia was 1.175 million (0.98 in Slovakia and 0.195 in Sub-Carphatin Rus) --fz22 11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Which part of this article says that it includes the history of Carpathian Ukraine? None. And the correct numbers are above. Irrespective of this, the 1910 census was a highly manipulated census (you have been told this several times in the wikipedia by several users) and even if it was not, it is the result of statistical and real Magyarisation and above all the results are completely different from the periods 800 years before it and 100 years after it.Juro 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I consider these 16th c. estimations more like speculations, hence not appropriate in this dispute. The result usualy depends on who estimates/speculates...It does not help this topic.

My point was to differentiate Slovakia (modern statehood) to territory habited by Slovak ethnicity. I hold on to the notion of a predominantly slavic(Slovak) region within the historical KoH. The formerly used Hungarian expressions "Totfold" or "Totorszag" (Slovak land) are in support to this, in my belief. Therefore I still think "Slovak lands" or "Slovak land" are a relevant terms. I also note that the predominantly "Slovak lands" were not neccessary overlapping the "lands of the present day Slovakia". That is the principal difference between the two names.--Kukorelli 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Slovakia (Slováky, Slowakey) is preserved from the 15th century and very frequently from the 16th century onwards. That makes the whole discussion irrelevant. If you want to add "present-day" before each Slovakia occurrence, go ahead (I would have done that myself, but this article needs a complete rewrite anyway, which will be impossible until users like Fz and other Hungarian nationalists stop to see this project as a means to spread Hungarian propaganda, to solve their history complex and to vandalize all Slovakia and Romania related articles, while they somehow "forget" to write correct data about the current state of the economy of Hungary in the Hungary article, "forget" to mention in articles on "Hungarian" towns that all of them were German, Slovak or Serb towns up to 1830, etc. etc. ) Juro 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, and Czechoslovakia was no "multiethnic" state after 1945. And do not transfer your personal problems with the Kingdom of Hungary article to other articles. Juro 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? --fz22 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If define Czechoslovakia based on the % of minorities after 1945 as a "multiethnic state" then every country in the world is multiethnic. Of course, if the point is that there were Czechs and Slovaks and therefore the country is "multi"ethnic, then Czechoslovakia was multiethnic even after 1945, but this is not how multiethnic is normally understood. The KoH on the other hand had only 30% of Magyars in the 1780s (50 % in 1910) and the rest was divided between a number of ethnicities making the KoH a specimen of a multiethnic country. Juro 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Juro. I did not know that this talk page is actually a battelground. I just made a point and I was interested to discuss it.--kuko 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Let´s put it like that: Czechoslovakia was a multiethnic society during its all history. But this is realy not relevant to this topic.--kuko 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Population of Czechoslovakia (1991): 15.6 millions, out of which Czechs 54.1%, Slovaks 31%, Moravians 8.7%, Hungarians 3.8%, Gypsies 0.7% (de-facto more – they are among the other nations, esp. the Hungarians), Silesians 0.3%, Ruthenes, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles.

So Czechs were representing approx. the same percentage than Magyars in the KoH (1910). In fact I beleive most of the societies are multiethnic (even todays Hungary).--kuko 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was suggesting the use of "The historical Kingdom of Hungary" NOT "The Multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary". Read carefuly.

Cechoslovakia could be rightfuly described as a multiethnic political formation. Although it was never officialy called like that:) But here in Wikipedia we can call it like that:)--Kukorelli 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your problem. We use "KoH" for pre-Trianon Hungary and "(present-day) Hungary" for post-Trianon Hungary. If this article does not do that, then just change that, you do not have to discuss such obvious things. Juro 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Juro! Can you explain me why you could not accept the term the Kingdom of Hungary for the interwar period? It was its official name. Its ideas were deeply rooted in the historical KoH conservative legacy. In spirit and retorics it nourished magyar imperialism. It was precisely the reason of its shameful tragedy. Modern day Hungary should be dated 1944-1945 onward. I prefer not to see a continuity between the interwar period and the modern era. --kuko 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Tertia Part Regni

Until 1106, the Slav territories kept a special status in the principality — Tertia pars Regni ("the Third part of the Kingdom") — with Nitra as its capital.

1. What about Slavonia? Though it was later addition to the Kingdom, but it was a Slav populated area and did not belong to the TPR.

2. Tertia Pars Regni. It is practically Nitra and Bihar. Was Bihar a Slav populated land?

According to hungarian historians during the reign of King Salamon the power was shared between the king (he got 2/3 part of the kingdom) and his cousin Geza (1/3 part) This part was Nyitra+Bihar. Latter Ladislaus was also took into power by his brother Geza. He got the Bihar region. Bihar had a mixed population: Bulgar-slavs, Magyars and Szekelys.--fz22 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In this case the statement the Slav territories kept a special status is false. There were slav outside the ducatus and there were other people within. Perhaps we should change to the former, slav principality of Nitra became the core of a dynastic apanage duchy which refered as Tertia Pars Regni.84.2.156.252 07:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
To be more precise, King Andras I. was the first who shared the power with his brother Bela (the later King Bela), around 1048. King Kalaman liquidated the dukatus system in the early 12th century --fz22 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Maybe it would be informative to mention some details about the "special status". What did it mean exactly? Did it mean any kind of administrative autonomy or a certain level of sovereinity? The usage of Nitra as a "capital" suggest a high level of independancy. Maybe it was true, but than it needs some more explanation and proof. kuko 08:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I had a little time to read about it. Briefly the Principality was ruled by the Arpad dynasty from the second half of the 10th century. Between 1001 and 1030 it was ruled by the Kingdom of Poland. It was one highly autonomous part of the evolving Kingdom of Hungary (just like Transilvania) and played an important role in the internal power struggles of the Arpads. By the beginning of the 12th century (during Coloman) the Principality fully integrated into the KoH.

In this respect the above sentence would go like: " Until its full integration (1106), the Nitrian Principality (with its capital Nitra) was a highly autonomous region of the evolving Kingdom."

But anyway, as user Juro has mentioned that before, this all article needs a comprehensive rewrite. I hope he will have time to do it in the near future. Until than it still makes sense to improve it and use the conclusions for the new, more professional one.kuko 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Detailed description can be found on the Principality of Nitra article. A short review is enough. And there is dispute between the Slovak and Hungarian historians in the question of the Polish conquest. This map shows the conquered territory between 1001-1018 as Hungarian historians reconstructed: http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/terkep/magyar11/magyar11.jpg84.2.156.252 07:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right about that. I just did not relised, there was a separate articel on the NP. It is mentioned further up in the article with a link. Though I think it is more accurate to mention it again in the KoH section. kuko 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


The Kingdom of Hungary section

I have made numerous clean ups and minor changes in this section. Please, anyone interested, have a look at them. If you have any objectives, let us discuss it.kuko 11:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I hope we will clean up other sections at one point too. Tankred 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your supportive words. There is an interesting line in this section, which goes like: "The Magyars adapted numerous Slavic words connected to the organization of the state and the hierarchy, the judicial system, the Church and religion, agriculture, the trades, social relations, etc." I think we should give here some examples to improve the credibility. I am aware of many assimilated words (day names, fruit names, tools, objects etc). If any of you know samples for state organisation (maybe court: dvar-udvar?), hierarchy, judical sytem, church etc., please let us know. kuko 08:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Hungarian linguistics around 10% of the Hungarian loan words are thought to be of Old-Slavic origin. (6-6% of Turcik and German origin). but how this is related to history of Slovakia? ;) --fz22 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
??? Read the text again. And the words, where this can be proven, are West Slavic, i.e. Slovak. Juro 10:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What text?
although, the words like vajda, megye, ispan(zsupan), kiraly were borrowed from the old Slavs doesn't indicate that the whole administrative system was also adopted from them Slavs. BTW the Moravian bishopric system was inherited from the Byzantine Empire, right? --fz22 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
(1) The text is the article. (2) Where have we started to discuss the administrative system?? But since you have opned this: The words are a strong indication (the same indication is used in the history of Mesopotamia etc., and this is not an exception). And there are other "indications" as well - another very good indication is that the county seats are largely identical with major Great Moravian castles.

"Vajko, the ruling prince of Nitra (997AD)" conflict with "Slovakia became progressively integrated into the developing multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary by the end of the 11th century." isn't it? --fz22 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it definitely does not. You still seem to have very poor knowledge of the history of "Felvidék", if this is not clear to you.Juro 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


"The Kingdom of Hungary integrated elements of the former Great Moravian state organization."

For example? I am Hungarian, but I do not know any. 195.38.101.234 15:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavic origin words integrated into the Magyar language

I have found few hungarian articles on the topic. Here are some examples: king-kiràly(h)-kràl(slavic), county-megye(h)-meďe(south slavic) , pawn-zálog(h)-zaloha(cz/sk), gaol/cell-tōmlōc(h)-? Can any of you check/tell the slav/slovak meanings?

Maybe the whole sentence should be simpler and more neutral like that: "The counter influence of Magyar and Slavic languages began. The Hungarian language preserved numerous slavic origin words, in relation to state organization e.g. király(king) from the Slavic král, county(?)..."kuko 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This would require some "research", for which I have no time. If you change the text the way you are proposing, the result will be correct, but as far as I know, we will lose more or less correct information. Juro 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I assume this point of this part is to emphasis the gradual and interactive development of the early KoH. If the articel puts a detailed stress on this issue, than we need to mention examples in the other way around. I reckon that would be just to ponderous. So lets consider the following:

"The counter influence of Magyar and Slavic languages became more intense. The Hungarian language preserved numerous slavic origin words, for example in concern with statehood, kràl(slavic)-kiràly(magyar) meaning "king" or with agriculture, sena?-szèna(magyar) meaning "hay".

If the name for "hay" is something like sena...than I think this line is acceptable.kuko 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Second word war

I have made here slight reorganisation and I added some more detail. Any objection?kuko 19:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1848-49

The statement that Slovaks sided (en bloc) with the Austrians is not accurate, in fact a large number of Slovaks were fighting along with the Hungarians in the Honvéd army, one notable battle in which Slovak Honvéds participated in large numbers was the victory at Branyiszkó.81.182.209.35 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think (Arpad) that if any history text says the XYians sided with ABC, this sentence implies "every single XYian" sided with ABC ??? Of course not. Juro 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a difference between common Slovak speaking people and conscious Slovak patriots or nationalists. It is undestandable that the Slovak history accentuates the importance of the later. Regarding my knowledge (weak on the topic), I have read that, initialy Slovaks were supporting the anti-feudalist principles of the revolution (abolition of serfdom and censorship, broaden civil rights etc). The turning point was the disagreement between Stur and Kossuth about ethnic rights. The Magyar and the Slovak nationalism could not find a common ethos. kuko 08:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Common people - again, on average - did not care about Stur or Kossuth or the revolution itseld (the only thing they were really interested in was the abolition of serfdom). But actually this is not different from most older revolutions. Juro 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Bingo! The abolition of serfdom was owed to Kossuth and the April Laws, so the majority of people (even if unwittingly) were in support of Kossuth and not the counterrevolutionary Hurban or Iancu (on the Romanian) side who were fighting for the reestablishment of Habsburg absolutism (Greater Austria).Árpád 07:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is wrong. Serfdom was abolished in the Austrian part - I would have to check that - already before the 1848 revolution or not later than in the 1848 revolution. So much for your "derivation". And most importantly, the things were much more complicated, there were various opinions and wings (like in any revolution), but the point is they were fighting against the Magyars, for a Slovak crownland within the monarchy (which the emperor has promised to them in the revolution, but then failed to keep the promise) and the (undesired) side effect of this was necessarily that they had to side with Vienna. Everything else are secondary unintended impacts.Juro 10:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that their faction (which cannot be identified with the Slovaks that sided in great numbers with Kossuth) fought for a "crown land" means that they were fighting against the progressive Hungarian revolution. The abolition of serfdom in the Austrian part could not have affected the territory of Slovakia which was an integral part of Hungary. Therefore, my statement still holds, the liberation of serfs is owed to the Hungarian reform era and the revolution of 1848-49. Just on a side-note, it is interesting that the Czechoslovakia Wikipedia article starts in 1918 and Slovakia with its little more than ten years of history starts in the Paleolithic era. Árpád 02:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added some text that reflects the history from Slovak perspective, eliminated some offensive adjectives and provided som context for the period following 1918. I would also like to ask contributors from Hungary and Czech Republic to kindly stick to contributions to their own history. After all, it would be inapropriate for Slovaks to modify history of their nations to fit the Slovakian view. Paul.

Questions

Hi, I had a quick look at this article and was rather surprised.

  • István (Vajk) won against Koppány basically with Slovak support, without Magyars or German knights?
  • The Avar and Bulgarian Empires had no influence on the history of the present Slovak territories?
  • The Hungarian prince used a Slovakised name "Vajko"?
  • This Vajko guy was baptised by the order of Pope Sylvester II?
  • Buda became the capital of Hungary in 1686?

--KIDB 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Moravian period

It is disputed among historians where exactly the Moravian state was established. Some experts affirm, this state was in the territory of ex-Yugoslavia. --Koppany 12:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not, Vince B, there were 3 authors claiming that (compared to all other -i.e. thousands of - historians), and the core of their claims has been easily refuted years ago. But above all this is not the article about Great Moravia and this is not enough for a disputed tag for the whole article. Juro 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of this era, only written. Anybody can fake written evidences. Where are the castles or tombs? None. This is corresponding to the theory that 7-8-9 century was artifically inserted into our history.

Revert to English

Interesting, yet astylistic and unsourced material from an IP contributor must be reverted, for re-inclusion with proper references (in the English language of course). Actually, I thought Slovak culture originated when Könyves Kálmán decreed that all Magyars with one leg shorter than the other should go live in the mountains where contstant stooping and leaning wouldn't be noticed. Put that up too when you can find the ref. (just pulling your leg) István 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sense of humor seems to be back in gear....myself, I always thought the Slovaks were just particularly grouchy Czechs who got banished to the mountains over their obnoxious habit of singing Hungarian folk songs all day long...K. Lásztocska 04:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:D Btw, thanks for reverting those strange edits both here and at History of Hungary. Tankred 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there such thing as Ancient History of Slovakia?

The problem with the complete article is that its totally biased. The one who wrote this article is brainwashed from politicians trying to conserve the present day borders without compromise. Let's face it: Slovakia is still struggling to proove its origin but its not so easy to proove, as most historical "facts" stated here are based on written chronicles, books. The easiest way to bias history is to write a book, isn't it? Where are the archeological sites (castles, buried bodies)? You will only find Celtic, Avaric, and Hungarian. It is fairly expensive to bury a Slovak castle for 9th century...

I have some thought-provoking questions, also: Slovaks have the language since ... ? nobody knows exactly, Slovaks have been settled in North Carpathians since ... ? nobody knows facts. They might have came from Empire of Moravia or from East? What about the culture of Slovakia? Do they have folk tales from long history? Mythology? Do they know what does it mean, the double cross inside the Shield? It is in Hungarian (Scythian) ancient writing, called "rovásírás" which existed before Christ, and is thought to be the successor of Sumerian writing (though disputed). The double cross with slight angle on one cross is 'gy' meaning 'egy'='one' but also 'god' (see 'egyhaz'=Christianity, this also relates to monotheism), BTW, it is in Hungarian shield also. Slovakia stole it from Hungarians, this is one proof as Slovaks never had ancient history. In Hungarian shield, it is on three gren hills (Tatra, Matra, Fatra mountains, in this strict order, two of them in present day Slovakia), with small crown, representing Sacred country. In Slovak shield, Slovaks have put it on blue, do they know, what it means? It means that the cross is built on water, be careful, it will be washed away. Sorry I might sound biased also, but the heritage is clear and is undisputable!

But the main problem with this article is not that the country is trying to proove a tradition which is from Slavic roots, but Slovak people agressively tend to hold on to this stolen heritage, stolen history. I am not saying Slovakia doesnt have a culture -- yes, but Slovaks need accept other cultures. Hungarians have made a lot of horror and sadness to Slovaks, I believe it, because Slovaks would not wanted to have so much independence. I am not saying Hungarians should Magyarize all Slovaks, it is still stupid. Both have lived together in peace for (almost) 1000 years, and even if it was under Hungarian reign, the Slovaks did not die out, but rather prospered - there is a proof of democracy. If this is not true, then why didnt Slovaks make their own revolution before?

I am also surprised that my comment on Slavic tribes are deleted. Please check this in latin Slavus = slave, Servilis = servant (Serbian). This is not oppression of a nation, because for Hungarians the Huns, or Hsiung-nu in Chinese, it means "common slave". So what? This doesn't mean anybody is slave now (except slaves of the "fixa idea"). This I wanted to point out that in the time of Great Moravia, the Slavs are mentioned by King of Byzantine, Porphurgennetos Constantine VII. But this is not proven, that these Slavs are the Slavs today: they may also be a layer of society, producing a country, speaking ... who knows what language? The only written Slavic documents are from Cyrill and Method, from later times.

To put final thoughts, if someone is writing a politically biased article, then the truth will be much disputed. Why dont the Slovakian nationalists accept some facts, they will be much welcomed on other issues, also by Polish and Czech?

It is clear you have interesting material to offer, but please register as its not easy for other editors to discuss these without knowing with whom one is discussing here (and perhaps on History of Hungary [3] and [4] - but who knows?) Your materials were only reluctantly (by me) reverted as they were not in encyclopaedic form, not because of their content. I can tell you would be a good editor but should first register before making such significant changes. István 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Istvan, I registered now :) Let me know how to put it to "encyclopaedic form". Abdulka 07:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, if you are the original poster (and there's no way to tell - the only certainty is you aren't Juro reincarnate) you have interesting information which can strengthen the article, but as such it reads more like a treatise than encyclopaedia text. Narrowing the scope to the subject at hand (heraldry of the Slovak coat of arms, etymology of "serb" and "slav" belong elsewhere), and referencing your facts are the two most important things. Being bold fortunately seems to be not a problem, and I would guess (not really knowing) that your POV is not as well represented (quality, not quantity counts) on the Wikipedia as it should be, but if the very existence of Slovakia is odious to you, then you should probably not do major editing (Even Santa claus and the Tooth fairy have their own wikipedia articles ;-). BTW, I'm intrigued now as to why the hills are blue. István 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the slavs

Can someone re-edit the part about the Slavs being in Panonnia for thousands of years BCE! This is pseudo-science led by Slavic nationalism and presented as mainstream knowledge. ALERT ALERT! Biased point of view.

It is presented as a theory and marked with the words "minority of historians and linguists has developed an alternative theory...", so I think, it is a correct information. No bias. It is clearly marked.147.175.98.213 (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OK., but where is an evidence? We are talking about theories, while presenting as fact. The theory is from various chronicles, but chronicles are quite easy to fake. If you check tombs from Slovakia, they are telling you that the people were buried with their horses and jewels mostly (typical Hungarian tombs) and only very few Slavic tombs (they *assume* it is Slavic as there is no significant characteristic of the tombs). This is fact. All other is brainwash from "majority of historians". Abdulka (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Herald and flag of Slovakia

Can someone tell me where does the herald and flag of Slovakia come from? From what heritage? Abdulka 09:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that the use of red, white and blue is because those were the "pan-Slavic" colors, but I don't know about the coat of arms. K. Lásztocska 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
File:Marge Simpson and coat of arms bearing patriarchal cross.JPG
One origin theory of Slovak heraldry

Here is one theory - that it dates from a scene from the Simpson's Episode "Those Wacky Árpáds" (1991 AD) where Marge walks in front of a coat of arms hanging crookedly on Béla III's dungeon wall. Although mainstream historians have yet to agree on a single theory of origin, it must be noted that the Simpsons predate Slovakia. István 20:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness...*desperately trying to think of anything to say to even respond to that, much less top it*...
Seriously though, the obvious resemblance between the Hungarian and Slovakian coats of arms definitely bears some looking into. Now that I think of it, was the current Slovak coat of arms invented when Slovakia declared independence in 1993? K. Lásztocska 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for Slovak comment. Let me give you a hint: The cross is Hungarian cross from our own Christianity before St Stephen (sic!) yes, Hungarians were Christian before 1000AD. This is proven from Hungarian special acts (úrkoporsó állítás, virágvasárnap, 42-day advent, not 40). In "rovásírás" you can see also proof this is "eGY" = "one" relating to monotheism.Abdulka 12:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What about to look into right article? [5]

And btw, "Hungarians were Christian before 1000AD". So because they were christians in 1000AD there was war between Stephen and other clan leaders which were pagans? And Slovaks, or if you want proto-Slovaks (but than we must speak about proto-Magyars instead about Magyars) had christian church in 828. I expect that about saint Cyril and Methodious you heared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Koppany was not pagan. If you have sources of this, cite it. (and pls not from Hungarian Science of Academy, original latin sources, please.) We can speak about proto-Magyars. If Cyril and Method was so active then why Slovak write in Latin letters? Slovaks write in latin as Hungarians adopted Latin and abandoned runic letters. Abdulka (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Slovakia/Archive_1"