Talk:Voivode of Transylvania/Archive 1

Archive 1

Last voivode/First Prince

I had an old discussion about the last voivode, but I need to raise this matter again because I am still unsure. So, John Sigismund beared the title "Prince of Transylvania". He was elected by the Diet of Szászsebes in 1556 ("John Sigismund....our king and prince...."). However I think this "prince" title is a bit obscure. He could not be a royal official (as voivode), because he was a king. So this princely title was not equal with the voivode title. The !Royal! court was in Gyulafehérvár, Transylvania. It was an entirely new court organised previously by Martinuzzi because the apparatus of Transylvania's voivode was inadequate to provide the task of administering a state after the Turkish occupation of Buda. So we had a Hungarian king who seated in Transylvania and also beared the "prince of Transylvania" title. There are historians who claim that 1556 is the proper date of the new princely title.

He later became the Prince of Transylvania and ruler of a part of the Kingdom of Hungary-princeps Transsylvaniae et partium regni Hungariae dominus in 1570 when he renounced his claim as King of Hungary.

However there is another confusing thing. Stephen Báthory initially preferred to use the 'voivode' form (after 1570!!) but he also used the "prince" title. In 1594 there was a treaty between Sigismund Báthory and the Habsburgs and they (the Habsburgs) recognized his new title "prince" instead of the old one "voivode". Stephen Báthory was the last voivode according to sources.[1]. Báthory perhaps wanted to emphasize his loyalty to the Habsburg kings but later he changed his mind and started to use the "prince" form. But I do not understand why the Habsburgs had to recognize the princely title again in 1594. They accepted it in 1570 (Treaty of Speyer). So who was the first "prince" (and when) and who was the last "voivode" exactly?

Another thing, according to Treaty of Speyer Transylvania remained "an inalienable" part of Kingdom of Hungary. (in the sense of public law/ közjogi értelemben?!?!) [2] So, nominally the princes of Transylvania were "dependants" of the Habsburg Hungarian kings? Fakirbakir (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your remarks. (1) I think the "rex et princeps" expression should be translated as "king and sovereign/monarch" (király és uralkodó), because this "princeps" refers to his position, not to his title. (2) Yes, theoretically the princes of Transylvania were the monarchs of a state which was part of the kingdom of Hungary - the hajduk obliged Gábor Bethlen even in the early 1600s to take an oath to not alienate Transylvania from the Hungarian Crown. However, this was only a theory - in practise, the princes were dependent of the sultans. (3) Stephen Báthory adopted the princely title because he was elected king of Poland, and wanted to emphasize that even as ruler of Transylvania he is independent of the Habsburgs. Moreover, he appointed viceroys with a title voivode to govern Transylvania and its dependencies, since the viceroys in Transylvania had the title voivode form centuries. It would have been confusing, if he himself also had continued to use the voivode title. (4) The Habsburg recognized the title of prince of John Sigismund ad personam in 1570, so when he died six months later, the title became "illegal" (being, in theory, Transylvania still part of the Hungarian kingdom). That's why a later prince of Transylvania (who adopted the title his uncle had adopted in his position as king, but not of Hungary, but of Poland) thought that his princely title should be recognized by the Habsburgs, as well. (All the above is based on Erdély története, with the exception of point (1), it is OR) Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. John Sigismund's title is still obscure for me.

Look at this:

"The next diet, convened by Péter Petrovics on March 12 at Szászsebes, adopted the definitive resolution: 'On this day we have by our common will elected the son of our late King John as our Prince and King, and we will loyally serve his majesty and master now and in times to come." Source Fakirbakir (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think, it is still the same issue: "princeps and rex noster", that is "our sovereign and king" (uralkodónk és királyunk, urunk és királyunk). The Latin "princeps" expression (or rather the medieval expression) has a lot of meaning, therefore it is difficult to translate. Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

Per request, took a run through. Feedback warmly encouraged. Comments:

• The many notes to individual works suggest that the use of {{rp}} in the text would nicely condense the footnotes section. I did not make this change.

• Left a {{clarify}} in the text and a couple of comments in the edit summaries that are worth a look.

• Removed successive references to the same item. No need to repeat. Many points have multiple references, which clutters the text. Suggest combining them where convenient.

I prefer the term "documented" to the unfamiliar "attested", but left that alone. You might want to mix the two.

In the "Honour" section, the term "accommodate" is used. Is that in the sense of "give housing to"? I left it alone.

You indicate that the voivodes did not live in the province. Where did they live?

In the Monarchs section, it states variously that Borsa held office for "at least 6 years" and for 10 years. Please reconcile.

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I am working on improving the article based on your above suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The territory under the administration of the voivode

Why is it irrelevant that it is known as the "Voivodeship of Transylvania"? I notice a incoherence of the approach: in the case of Banate of Macsó, the administratiove division has its own article, while the title Banate of Macsó is only a redirect. Tarabostes (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voivode of Transylvania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix, and then begin the criteria checklist when some or all of those points have been addressed. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This looks like a very solid article with impressively thorough research. I'll do some checking later for the broadness criterion, but I can't imagine there's much I'll be able to add here.

I did some minor copyediting as I went, so please double-check me to be sure I haven't accidentally changed the meaning or introduced errors. I won't be offended if you revert some of it.

A few minor points:

• Is it necessary to italicize voivode? It appears in English-language dictionaries as a word without the italicization: [3], [4]. (It's even a word in Scrabble: [5].) "vice-voivode" and "voivodeship" are particularly confusing in making it appear to be a blend of English and non-English in a single word. My own preference would be to not italicize it, but if the article is going to make this a rule, it should also be capitalized in the title and first sentence. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• The wikilink for "jurors" appears to go to the wrong term (members of a jury); "jurist" seems closer to the meaning here ("the word "jurist" can technically be applied to anyone having a thorough knowledge of law").
• " they held their courts " -- is the "they" here the voivodes, or the voivodes and jurors together?
• " In the following period, even the existence of "voivodal dynasties" (Ioan-Aurel Pop) can be proposed" -- the "can be proposed" feels a little odd here. Would you object to rewriting the sentence as "Ioan-Aurel Pop characterizes the following period as including "voidvodal dynasties":"?
• "brothers of Count Peter Szentgyörgyi (1498–1510);" --different start date than his entry in the table -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• " royal authority in Transylvania was only restored by Thomas Szécsényi in the 1320s" -- should the footnote for this go to page 144 instead of 133?[6] Just spotchecking a few sources.

Dear Khazar2, thank you for your review. I agree with all your above suggestion (so I hope I succeeded in implementing them). The last one is the only exception: I think page 133 is the proper reference. Please double cheque it. Thanks again. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't see p. 133 in the Google Books preview; I just saw similar content on 144 and wanted to double-check. So don't worry about that one. Thanks for your quick responses, particularly in the de-italicizing, which I know was a chore. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass