Talk:Crișana

Koros vs Cris

Cris is an alternative name of Koros, as this river is physicaly shared by Hungary and Romania. on articles about ROmania where mention of Cris river is provided, the Romanian name is used, on articles about Hungary when mention of the river is provided, the Hungarian name is used. Criztu 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

History and geography

"Crişana roughly corresponds to the historical region Partium of the Kingdom of Hungary."

I am not sure that this sentence is correct. According to the map provided in Partium article, Partium region did not included Crişana (Crişana in this time belonged to the Ottoman Eyalet of Temesvar). PANONIAN (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ME history section: vandalism?

It all loks outlandishly improbable.

"Hungarian maps based on the Gesta Hungarorum call it Kazárország which according to Simon of Keza was ruled (under Zvataplug son of Morout), by Morout's grandson Menumorout (Stallion of Morout). Morout was a Prince of Poland who had supposedly subdued Bractari and ruled as Emperor of the Bulgars and Moravians. (ref: "Simonis De Keza Gesta Hungarorum" edited and translated by Laszlo Veszpremy and Frank Schaer with a study by Jeno Szucs. CEU Press, 1999. P.75)"

1. Simon wrote "Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum" in the 13th c., as opposed to the 12th c. "Gesta Hungarorum" by Anonymus, linked above. Mistake?
2. Morout is wikilinked to Ratimir, Duke of Lower Pannonia. Why? What is the connection?
3. "Menumorout (Stallion of Morout)". Menu = stallion? In what language? Source?
4. "Morout was a (Slavs in Lower Pannonia#Principality|Prince of Poland) who had supposedly subdued (Bactria|Bractari)": Bactria is in northern Afghanistan, a whole continent away and not connected to the Slavs. How is the linked Ratimir/Morout connected to this Central Asian region?
5. ref: "Simonis De Keza Gesta Hungarorum": 1. Bad English. Is it "Simonis de Keza's Gesta Hungarorum"? Lower-case d, apostrphe s, title in Italics. Made-up title, altogether? 2. Again, Simon wrote "Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum" in the 13th c., as opposed to the 12th c. "Gesta Hungarorum" by Anonymus.

It all looks like either terribly sloppy editing, forced creation of connections ("original research"?), or plain vandalism. If it's neither of those, but just the result of fancyful mediaeval chronicles: say so, explain, elaborate, as then it's NOT quotable as "history", but only as ME court literature or legends. Arminden (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)