This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
In De Administrando Imperio, there are no 'Hungarians' or 'Magyars'. Only 'Turks' and 'Turkey'. Western European scholars thought that he referred to Magyars but it is not clear in this article that only the term 'Turk' appears in the text. Also these 'Turks', according to the text, are displaced from their original homeland by Pechenegs and migrated apparently towards modern-day Serbia too (not only Vojvodina, for example he mentions Trajan's bridge which is in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Romania / Kladovo, Serbia). Now I don't say that the interpretation is incorrect but saying that Constantine VII said that Arpad was 'great prince of Hungary' isn't in reality correct.
--Apostolos Papadimitriou, 8:03:09 PM Monday, November 21, 2016 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
And he also lists the rivers Tisza, Cris, Mures, Timis as the rivers of the land inhabited by the Hungarians/Turks. When writing about the "Turks", he refers to the Hungarians, consequntly when writing about "Turkey", he refers to their land, that is "Hungary". Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Basically the names of the rivers in the text are Τούτης, Τιμήσης, Μορήσης, Κρίσος, Τίτζα. I just think that ideally we should differentiate between what actually exists in the text and its interpretation. That means, state that the text speaks about 'Turks', the author places them also in parts of modern-day Serbia and Romania but scholars have identified these 'Turks' with Magyars. Arpad isn't a 'great prince of Hungary' in the text, but of 'Turkey' (Also άρχων meant ruler, commander, chief, king, governor etc so translating as 'prince' is questionable). It's not so important overall but important enough for me to state it in the talk page. I won't bother. Apostolos Papadimitriou (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Anon, if the cited reliable sources write about the Byzantine Empire, the Byzantines and the Byzantine Emperors, why do you want to use the terms "Roman Empire", "Romans" and "Roman Emperor"? Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
