Talk:Banat of Temeswar

Untitled

German name: Temeswarer Banat was what I found, as the spelling has usually been with s rather than sch, even though it is pronounced as the latter (Hungarian orthographic influence, I guess). I don't know if we want to bother giving all the various German forms of Temeswar on this page, since people can click on the main Temeswar article. For those who are interested: note that a literal translation of "Banat of Temeswar" would be "Banat von Temeswar", but more likely would be "Banat Temeswar", similar to "die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien" (in German you would never say "die Bundesrepublik von Jugoslawien"). In any case, it should be more clear than all this, since German was probably the first if not the second language of the Habsburg empire.

Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (1963) uses "Temesvar" to refer to the city throughout the book. It uses "Banat Temesvar" on the map "Hungary's Reconstruction after the Turkish Wars". It uses Temesvar (Timişoara) on "Europe after the First World War (1918-1937)". I will check my copy of Atlas zur Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung (1958) next week to see the terminology used there. Olessi 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I wouldn't worry too much about Temesvar/Temeswar, lots of words loaned into German originally keep their "v" (Vojvodina) but then change to a more native spelling over time (Wojwodina), while others stay "v" permanently (e.g., all Latin words!). But about "Temesvarer Banat", it definitely sounds likely - I just did a quick Google search, and what I found could be referring to the area of the Banat near Temeswar. So in conclusion I would say that if they call it "das Banat Temesvar" in old books then we should probably call it "das Banat Temeswar", just as we call the 12th-16th century Kingdom of Ireland "the Kingdom of Ireland", even if it used to be spelled "the Kingdom of Irland" - that is, new spellings are used across the board. Anyway, thanks much for shedding some light - I simply don't have access to those kind of books right now. Adam Mathias 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Well I have one old German map with name "Temeschwar". One thing is important here: the name of the article should be in German, and what of the 3 German versions of this name we will use is not a such important thing I think. PANONIAN (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

In fact, let just keep the current name that I do not have to change map again. :) PANONIAN (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

the 1774 population data does not have any sources, so should be counted as false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.211.146 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

editing

I edited the page, and I'll try to bring some references in the future. I removed also the population data which seems to be imprecise, and I'll try to look after some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joranne Sutt (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Koertefa and Dobitocilor, I hope that you are aware that this speaks about an Habsburg province that existed from 1718 to 1778. This is not article about entire history of the Banat region (there is separate article for that). So, it makes sense that we mention what existed immediately before and after this province, but elaboration of entire history of Banat is simply out of scope of this article. PANONIAN 09:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We discussed the same issue here: User_talk:Koertefa#Banat_of_Temeswar Dobitocilor (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User pages are not good place for discussion, so please try to discuss the issue here. Also, regarding the source that mention events in year 1233, that should be either mentioned in history section of Banat article either separate article should be written about medieval province (with confirmation from more sources and with more info of course). PANONIAN 09:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that such articles like this should give a brief overview of the history of the region, even if there is a separate article that discusses these issues in more detail. For example, in the article Republic of Serbia, in the "History" section not only the immediate predecessor of the country, Serbia and Montenegro, is mentioned, but also, for example, prehistorical events, even though there is a separate article about the History of Serbia. Therefore, I do not see any problem with briefly mentioning the history of the area in this article, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is big difference between articles about Republic of Serbia and Banat of Temeswar. Republic of Serbia is an existing political entity and it is common practice that histories of currently existing political and geographical entities are also including entire history of the geographical area which this entity includes. Contrary to that, former entities existed only in one strictly defined period and therefore their histories could be written only within the limits of that time period. Besides that, if we already have Banat article which elaborating entire history of the region, what is the point of repeating that history here? PANONIAN 09:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval), it is also a former entity, still the article discusses the arrival of Croats and other historical events. It does not just simply point to the Principality of Pannonian Croatia article. And I do not see a problem with giving a very brief (few sentences) description of the past of the region, even if there is a more detailed article about that, since it greatly helps the reader to put the entity into a historical context. Why do you think that it is a problem? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second: the "the Banat frontier province of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary created in 1233" is nothing else but the Banate of Severin (see the year when first ban of Severin ruled). PANONIAN 11:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And here are further evidences for that: [1], [2]. PANONIAN 11:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the preceding history of the area, I now rewrote the sentence and elaborated this history in accordance with following criteria: former political entities that were centered in Banat or had sizable part of their territory located in Banat. PANONIAN 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that it was the Banate of Severin. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the Banate of Severin, I proposed a page move: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banate_of_Severin Dobitocilor (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hunnic Empire, early Hungarian states, etc

OK, Koertefa, why you added to the list Hunnic Empire, Principality of Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary? These countries were not centered in Banat or had significant parts of their territory located in Banat. I see no valid reason to include those. I agreed to have list of fomer entities that preceded to Banat of Temeswar, but we must have clear criteria what term "preceding" means. Political predecessor of an entity could be only former entity with similar political status, similar name or similar territory. Former colonial powers that ruled over this region and that had their political center located elsewhere could not be described as political predecessors of this province. PANONIAN 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also added the Kingdom of the Gepids. It is interesting that you have only removed the Hunnic Empire, the Principality of Hungary and the Kingdom of Hungary. Are you "cherry-picking" what you dislike and discard them? I do not agree with your approach that only those states/provinces should be mentined that "were centered in Banat or had sizable part of their territory located in Banat". What's the argument behind that? What do you mean by "sizable part"? How could it be that the province of Roman Dacia satisfies this "sizable part" criterion, but the Principality of Hungary does not. For the sake of neutrality, we should provide the list of all entities (with time periods) which contained the area of the Banat of Temeswar. If we know the name of the sub-part (province, eyalet, etc.) then it is even better, but even if we do not know it we should mention the entity (kingdom, empire, etc.) to which the territory belonged. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My text suggestion is the following:

"Preceding the creation of the Habsburg province, this region was part of the Dacian Kingdom (1st-2nd century), the Roman Dacia (2nd-3rd century), the Hunnic Empire (4th-5th century), the Kingdom of the Gepids (5th-6th century), the Avar Khaganate (6th-9th century), the First Bulgarian Empire (9th century) and the Voivodeship of Glad (9th century). In the late 9th century it became part of the Principality of Hungary out of which the Kingdom of Hungary was formed in 1000 AD. The Voivodeship of Ahtum (11th century) was also located in this area and, from 1233, it was the Banate of Severin frontier province of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. In the 16th century it became an Ottoman province named Eyalet of Temeşvar (1552-1716), and later, under the name Banate of Lugos and Karansebes, a province of the Principality of Transylvania (16th-17th century), which itself was under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire.

KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I see no reason to mention here states or regions that were not centered in Banat. In such case, we would be obligated to mention all states that ruled over this region in the past and that would be an completely unneeded repetition of content from Banat article. Since this article speaks about an political entity, relevant things for "prehistory" of such entity are existence of preceding political entities of similar kind, i.e. entities that had their political center in Banat or that had similar name. This is the list of such entities, with the reasons for their relevance given in parenthesis:

• Voivodeship of Glad (existed in almost same territory)
• Voivodeship of Ahtum (existed in almost same territory)
• the Banate of Severin (possible origin of name "Banat" that is used for the region, existed partially in same territory)
• Eyalet of Temeşvar (same territory, same capital city)
• Banate of Lugos and Karansebes (centered in Banat, i.e. in same territory, similar name)

These entities are somewhat related, but I agree that their relation could be disputed.

• Roman Dacia, centered in Banat according to this source: [3]
• Kingdom of the Gepids, centered in Banat according to this source: [4]

In the case of following entities (whose inclusion you proposed) I do not see any specific local connection to Banat:

• Dacian Kingdom
• Hunnic Empire
• Avar Khaganate
• First Bulgarian Empire
• Principality of Hungary
• Kingdom of Hungary

In fact, I think that Roman Dacia and Kingdom of the Gepids should be probably deleted from the list as well, since exact extent and political center of their territory is a disputed issue. I repeat, we have Banat article where entire history of Banat is already mentioned and there is no reason for repetition of that context here. People will read Banat of Temeswar article because they are interested in history of an political entity that existed from 1718 to 1778 and not because they are interested in entire history of Banat region (they simply will read the main Banat article if entire history of Banat is what they want to know). By my opinion, it would be better not to mention anything that happened before 1718 here, but I am also not against article version where strictly related preceding events and political entities are mentioned. These events and entities would include mention of Habsburg-Ottoman wars before Habsburg conquest of Banat and former political entities that were centered in Banat. I do not see that any other historical event or political entity could be of any importance for origin of Habsburg province that was created in 1718. PANONIAN 13:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I accept your argument that we should not cite in this article all previous entities to which this region belonged. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Two more things: 1. I did not removed Kingdom of Hungary from the list. Kingdom of Hungary is still mentioned as a state whose frontier province was Banate of Severin. 2. Regarding one of your older statements about medieval Kingdom of Croatia, the arrival of Croats is important event that preceding the creation of the Kingdom of Croatia, i.e. existence of the Kingdom of Croatia was a clear direct consequence of the arrival of Croats. Contrary to this, existence of Banat of Temeswar was not a direct consequence of the existence of former countries such were Dacian Kingdom, Bulgarian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary, etc. Existence of Banat of Temeswar is a consequence of Habsburg conquest (i.e, of Habsburg-Ottoman wars) and of the fact that Habsburgs respected tradition of existence of former administrative units that were centered in Banat (the fact that Habsburg and Ottoman province had same capital shows that origin of Habsburg province is closely related to the existence of Ottoman one in preceding time period). PANONIAN 13:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And what do you think, what was the predecessor of the Ottoman "administrative unit" centered in Banat? Why did the Ottoman Empire set this region as a separate eyalet? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there was no such reason. Speaking about Ottoman eyalets, usual practice was that Ottomans form new eyalet in each new territory they conquer - according to Ottoman view, legality of Ottoman administration in conquered areas came from Allah, so Ottomans did not had need to search for legality of their rule in history. Contrary to that, Habsburgs attempted to justify their rule by the concept of "historical legality" and therefore they probably named their province "Banat" because similar name was used for former administrative units that existed in the area. PANONIAN 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Preventing the return of Hungarians

Some IP editors (or more likely one editor behind proxies) try to delete the sourced statement that the Habsburgs prevented the *return* of Hungarians [5]. Dear IP editor: of course, you are welcome to disagree with this statement, but simply removing a sourced information is not acceptable. If you do not agree with it, then please, (1) either provide counter sources, or (2) if you think that the source above is not reliable, please, raise the issue at WP:RSN. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know who other editor is. Why would I use proxy? To hide my IP? My IP is already visible, so editor behind that proxy is somebody else who wants to hide his own IP (proxies are used for that, right?). Anyway, the problem with your source is that it was misused in the article text. Yes, source uses expression "return of Hungarians" and it obviously mean by that "return as a people" implying that "Hungarians as nation" lived in Banat in the Middle Ages and now "they returned there as a nation". However, this source does not say that 18th century Hungarian settlers were direct (bloodline) descendants of medieval Hungarians of Banat and there is no any other source that says such a thing. There is no single evidence about direct bloodline connection between two Hungarian populations separated by long period of time. Because of that, statement about "return of Hungarians" is controversial and used in rather political purpose. The two Hungarian authors are obviously nationalists, which can be seen from some other parts of their book, and they used term "return" in order to emphasize fictional "Hungarian historical right to land", which is main nationalist motive in "no Trianon ideology" of modern Hungary. Or to put it this way: term "return" is controversial, used with nationalistic purpose and if it would be used in the article, it should be properly explained. I am proposing current compromise article version where term is properly explained, and if you and our proxy colleague would agree with that, we should stop this stupid revert war. 178.253.205.102 (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now here is a list of various sources that using term "Hungarian colonists" in connection to Banat: [6]. These sources are directly challenging source that speaks about "return of Hungarians" because colonists are always new settlers, not those "who return". 178.253.205.102 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, one question for two Hungarian editors of Wikipedia: why you are so against word "settle"? Do you want to say that this word is somehow incorrect? Or perhaps you are nationalists who want to promote fictional "Hungarian right to land"? Do you sincerely believe in idiotic ideas such is Greater Hungary? 178.253.205.102 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also question for Fakirbakir only: why you deleted statement that "the Hungarians were almost totally absent from Banat" - this is exact quotation from source that you introduced. Why you choose to use one sentence from that source and you delete another one? It seems that you use what you like and delete what you dislike? 178.253.205.102 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Hungarians lived in the region in the middle ages---->The area was depopulated due to the Ottomans (and the majority of the residents was "newcomer" mostly from the Balkan. The Hungarian ethnic territory reduced drastically see this [7])---->After the Turkish Wars the Habsburg administration started there an organised resettlement but the Hungarians were banned until 1740s. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not the point. These medieval Hungarians left the area in the 16th century and moved to other places, while there is no evidence that 18th century Hungarian settlers were direct descendants of those. If you use words like "return" or "resettle" you imply that they were direct descendants of those from the middle ages. Why you want to imply that if there is no evidence for that? Can you finally say what is wrong with word "settle"? It is fully accurate and neutral word that only describe events from the 18th century and that doesn't contain misleading meaning. 178.253.205.102 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about see: [8] . I mean the "Hungarian ethnicity returned" and nobody wants to mention direct descendants. I have tried to rephrase the text. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fakirbakir, I agree with your version; it is the most precise one so far. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 178.253.205.102. "re-settled" can also mean "settled again". Expression is disputed. There is also sockpuppetry involved. Account Csendesmark is obvious sockpuppet sleeper account inactive for month and now appear to revert. 113.229.65.134 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Koertefa is sockmaster. Both accounts(Csendesmark and Koertefa) appear in same time in this other article too: [9]. After another abusive Hungarian account (Magyarcsaba) is blocked administrators should pay attention to remaining ones. 113.229.65.134 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have such suspicion, you should lodge a sockpuppet investigation. You can read WP:SPI for more details. Otherwise, let's focus on the content and not on the participants themselves. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

German names of the Banat of Temeswar

Temeswarer Banat: 3.390 Google Books results

Temeswarer Provinz: 8 Google Books results

I think the name Temeswarer Provinz was too rarely used to it include it here. Hahun (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)