User:Norden1990/Báthory family (of the Aba clan)

Criteria for the article

By which criteria is this article different from the Báthory family article? No source delineates the 2 as something special. Aba lineage is only thought to be the origin of the family, it is not a different "clan" or family from the "regular" Báthorys. This would mean this is a duplicate article, best incorporated in the existing one or just deleted if superfluous. Kkupus (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion in the huwiki Village Pump seems to reflect that, as they explicitly call it a "hoax". While this may be bias due to the author previously publishing original research (some of which seems to be in this article, dealing with Tibor Báthory-Szőny), I have perused some of the sources, and they mostly establish a genealogical connection between Báthory and Aba (though the very first source mentions a relative lack of data for this in its Discussion), and not the existence of a family separate from Báthory. I also cannot help but notice that most of the article is written like an essay with links to personal documents about the family obtained by the author at request from various Hungarian authorities, which is fixable, but doesn't help the WP:OR problem. Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Factual errors

I think this section is full of factual errors.

"The castle was first documented in 1230 and played a role in regional politics. In 1330, Peter allied with Matthew III Csák and other influential nobles against King Charles I of Hungary. The subsequent defeat at the Battle of Rozgony led to the forfeiture of Szalánc Castle to Palatine William Drugeth, illustrating the shifting allegiances and fortunes of the era."

If the castle is mentioned in 1230, it is no way that Peter constructed it. The Battle of Rozgony occurred in 1312. Matthew Csák already died in 1321, so he could not take part in any resistance in 1330. The Drugeths acquired the castle in that year, indeed. Norden1990 (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I already updated the dates this morning, as I noticed the discrepancies myself. The claim that Peter constructed the Szalánc Castle was something I read here, but if you believe the dates are incorrect, I will remove it. Furthermore, I will get back to your second message shortly. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter Aba

Dear @Kenessey Aurél:, I would like to point out that the claims in the article contradict the sources and merge several family members named Péter.

• Peter from the Széplak branch: son of David, his brothers were Finta and Amadeus. He was an important baron in the 1280–1290s and he was not an ancestor of the Báthory de Gagy family. He had no descendants, his estates were inherited by Amadeus.
• Peter from the Szalánc branch: he was the son of Csama. He possessed Szalánc Castle in 1270 (see [1]). In some way, his (distant) relative Finta acquired the fort. Ladislaus IV besieged the castle in 1281, which then became a royal property. Ladislaus or Andrew III returned the fort to Peter's sons. His sons Peter II (or Petőc) and Michael exchanged Szalánc with William Drugeth in 1330, for estates in Sáros County (see Karácsonyi, János (1900). A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig. [The Hungarian genera until the middle of the 14th century] (in Hungarian). Hungarian Academy of Sciences. pp. 82-83.) The Sirokai, Hedri and Fricsi families descended from Peter (II). Nicholas Sirokai (also known as Jobbágyi) was one of the sons of Peter (II).
• Peter from the Atyina branch: according to János Karácsonyi and Pál Engel's genealogical works, the Gagyi family (among others) descended from him. Peter --> Edőcs ---> Gereven ---> Nicholas (who is not identical with Nicholas Sirokai). Gagy was still possessed by Lawrence II Aba, forefather of the Atyinai family, in 1279. According to Engel, Gereven (mentioned in 1285) was perhaps his cousin. Gereven is definitely not identical with Nicholas Sirokai due to chronological issues. According to his own tombstone, Ladislaus Gagyi died in 1392 (see, for instance, [2], [3]). According to the scription of his tombstone, he was "killed by the Turks" («interfectus per Turcos»): there was no way this could have happened in 1332, but only during Hungarian–Ottoman War (1389–1396). Therefore, this Ladislaus was the great-grandson of Gereven (see Engel's genealogy).

Summary: Peter, lord of Szalánc was not the brother of Amadeus and Finta. One of his grandsons was indeed Nicholas Sirokai, who, however, is not the ancestor of the Gagyi (then Báthory de Gagy) family. The Gagyi family originated from the Aba clan's Atyina branch, whose first known member is Peter. It is possible that this Peter was the son of Hyppolit (Széplak branch), and thus was the uncle of David Aba (father of Finta, Amadeus and Peter). --Norden1990 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Norden1990,

I appreciate your detailed analysis, but I must respectfully disagree with several of your conclusions. To address the key points:

1. The Original 1678 Family Tree: The family tree from 1678, which predates many of the secondary interpretations, directly contradicts the claims you've made. It remains a foundational source, and its information does not align with your version of events. I believe this original document has significant authority, given its proximity to the period in question.

2. Authority of Scholars:[4][5] [6] Siebmacher and such as Nagy Iván, one of the most respected historians in this field, have supported the traditional lineage that includes Peter of Aba (Szalánci) as the ancestor of the Báthory de Gagy family. Not only Nagy Iván, but also Csoma József—an esteemed historian from Abaúj—passionately investigated the history of the Aba family. Both concluded otherwise to your position. Are we to believe that all these historians were mistaken, and only your theory is correct? Furthermore, the Hungarian National Archives also prioritize the work of Nagy Iván above that of other researchers. You can verify this by consulting with Gyula Horváth, the Head of the Research Department.

3. Miklós Sirokay and the Jobbágyi Family: According to your claim, the descendants of Miklós were members of the Jobbágyi family. If this were indeed the case, how is it possible that there are virtually no written records about the Jobbágyi family, given their supposed high status as descendants of such a prominent nobleman? It is highly unusual for a noble family of such significance to leave behind so few documents or traces for posterity, especially when their ancestor held a notable title like Miklós.

4. The Latin Text: The Latin text you provided does indeed mention "Peter, son of Csama of Szalánc," but it proves very little in the context of the claims you're making. It does not offer enough evidence to disprove the established lineage, nor does it provide any detailed genealogical context that would support your version of Peter’s descendants.

5. Conflicting Dates and the Tombstone: The date inscribed on the 1332 tombstone you questioned cannot simply be disregarded as an error by the stonemason. Are we to assume that the inscription, which serves as a historical record, was a mistake without any supporting evidence? The inconsistencies in the timeline are significant, and they cannot be dismissed without more solid proof.

To summarize, your arguments do present a different perspective, but they lack the weight of the original 1678 documentation and the consensus of well-regarded historians. The contradictions between your sources and the established narrative are considerable. For these reasons, I find it difficult to accept the points you raised as definitive proof. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

One more observation regarding the tombstone of László Gagyi: the data you provided describes many tombstones, but I couldn't find the tombstone of László Gagyi[7](talk) 15:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

1, Indeed, this is the strongest material in your reconstruction. However, in the 17th century, it is no longer certain that the family tree was traced back correctly (due to the high degree of destruction of the medieval royal charters as a result of the Ottoman period). it is interesting that this family tree representation has not yet been processed by any researcher. Where is it exhibited?

2, I noticed that you choose the historical reconstructions that prove your supposed descent. It is interesting that you do not use the most frequently used and most reliable genealogy works (Karácsonyi and Engel). Iván Nagy's work is monumental, but he also made many mistakes, and due to new research, it now needs clarification in many places. I can also present a family tree, which discredits your theory: [8]. Unfortunately, many geneological studies from the late 19th century are outdated by now, so it is worth turning to modern publications (if available, this is unfortunately not always the case).

3, The Jobbágyis became extinct already in the 14th century (sometime after 1375), and they had no influence in the royal court (it is not so rare that the decline comes after the death of a prominent family member). Some sources of their existence (I provide the register numbers of the charters): 1344: Dl. 41 432; 1358: A. VII. 523; 1360: Dl. 41 412; 1360: Dl. 107 293; 1375: Dl. 41 970; 1375: Dl. 41 987, 41 988.

4, Here is the original charter: [9]. Of course, it is possible that several branches of the family jointly owned the castle and its surrounding lands, this would not be unique. But the basis of your entire reconstruction is that a Peter is mentioned as the owner of Szalánc. However, the father of that Peter was Csama, not David. Peter (son of David, brother of Amadeus) had no descendants.

5, The tombstone clearly writes that Ladislaus Gagyi was killed by the Turks and provides the exact date of his death: 28 July 1392. All modern publications accepted this date, as a I presented links above. But if we only look at political history, the year 1332 has no chance: the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary will not meet until decades later. Anyway, Ladislaus, Nicholas Sirokai's brother was still mentioned as a living person in 1375, regarding possessions in Sáros County.

--Norden1990 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

1. Regarding the Authenticity of the Family Tree and Lack of Research Claims:

The notion that the represented family tree has not been researched is incorrect. The family tree is exhibited in Központi Antikvárium in Budapest, and I encourage anyone interested to visit and take a picture. Given its current location and accessibility, researchers have had the opportunity to analyze it. [10]

2. On the Use of Sources and Historical Reconstructions:

It is true that the reliability of genealogy studies varies, and that Iván Nagy's [11] monumental work—like any historical research—contains limitations requiring further clarification based on newer studies. However, dismissing its entirety because of a few corrections undermines its value. Nagy’s research relied heavily on primary sources, including documents certified by the Royal Curia, giving it considerable legitimacy. Additionally, the genealogy of the Aba Báthory family, specifically, has been meticulously re-examined by my cousin, whose work has received acceptance in scholarly circles.[12] While modern scholarship may provide different perspectives, it does not negate the credibility of earlier studies, especially when these studies remain widely endorsed by institutions such as the National Archives.

3. On the Extinction of the Jobbágyi Family and Their Influence:

Your argument that the Jobbágyi family went extinct after 1375 is based on selective records, but it lacks broader context. While certain charters—such as those you listed—document some aspects of the family's existence, they do not disprove the Gagyi family's lineage. Numerous other sources, including records from local municipalities like Gagy, Gagybátor, and Gagyvendégi etc.., support the idea that the Gagyi families are indeed descendants of Miklós Sirokay.

The claim that the Jobbágyi family had no significant influence in the royal court does not align with the documented instances of privileges, such as the pallos (sword) right and county governance. It is an unproductive debate to dismiss such substantial evidence without providing a more compelling counter-narrative. Historical analysis requires a balanced view of all available sources, and focusing only on selective entries leads to an incomplete understanding.

4. Ownership of Szalánc and Discrepancies in Peter’s Parentage:

The discussion regarding Peter, owner of Szalánc, and his father being Csama rather than David, is indeed a complex one. In historical genealogy, the recurrence of names and title-sharing within related branches can easily cause confusion. It is entirely possible that multiple branches co-owned Szalánc, which aligns with the common medieval practice of shared inheritance. However, the basis of my reconstruction is supported by a contextual reading of all available documents, which suggests continuity in lineage and ownership. Divergences between Peter, son of David, and Peter, son of Csama, need to be re-examined within this shared inheritance model, where familial titles and estates were not necessarily passed in linear fashion.

5. Ladislaus Gagyi’s Tombstone and Historical Context:

The claim that Ladislaus Gagyi died in 1392 instead of 1332 is completely false. The photograph of the magnified inscription clearly shows the year 1332. Although some modern researchers have suggested a different date, claiming it was a mistake, it is important not to disregard the evidence provided by the physical artifact. Furthermore, the inscription indicating that he fell fighting the Turks does not necessarily imply that this occurred during a known campaign in Hungary. Considering the geopolitical context of the 14th century, the presence of smaller Turkish raiding parties cannot be ruled out. We must remain open to the possibility that the inscription represents local conflicts rather than major historical events. Additionally, the evidence in Siebmacher’s catalog, depicting the seal of Nicholas Sirokai (or Gagyi-Báthori), [13] strengthens the argument for the family’s continuity and influence, contradicting the narrative you have put forward.

In summary, while historical reconstruction is inherently interpretative, the evidence provided—through tombstones, seals, genealogical records, and other archival materials—supports the claims made regarding lineage and influence. Rather than dismissing earlier scholarship wholesale, a balanced approach that considers both historical and modern analyses offers the best path to a comprehensive understanding of these family histories.

Anyway, it was a nice chat :) I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss history in person sometime.

Best,

Aurél Kenessey Aurél (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Norden,

I would like to present several additional arguments that support the assertion that the Szalánci family, (Miklós the Voivode of Transylvania, Aba Finta, Aba Peter and Amadé Aba) all belonged to the same extended family.

Firstly, the mention of "Péter, son of Csama of Szalánc" in a Latin document should not be taken as definitive proof of a separate lineage. It is well-known that names in historical records were often written in various forms. In the history of the Sirokai family, for instance, there is also a reference to a Péter who was called "Tornyos," among numerous other examples listed with the title "dictus." This variability in naming was commonplace, and therefore the use of "son of Csama" does not establish a different branch or separate lineage conclusively.

Secondly, heraldry provides significant evidence. During the era when surnames were not yet widely adopted, families were primarily identified by their coats of arms. This is evident in the case of Aba Amadé, Gagyi László, and other related families such as the Báthory, Chyrke, and Vendéghy. The similarity in heraldic symbols clearly indicates a shared ancestry and a familial connection among these lines.[14]

Moreover, in the original family tree from 1678, compiled by Vice-Lord Lieutenant Gábor Bertóthy, Miklós Comes is specifically highlighted. It is unlikely that he would have emphasized Miklós if he were not connected to the Szalánci branch. The family tree explicitly describes the lineage and lists the firstborn heirs within the Szalánci family. The history of Szalánc Castle is well documented, and it remained under the ownership of Finta, Amadé, and Péter during the relevant period. Introducing a "Csama" into this history is problematic, especially given that there are no other known sources discussing him.

Furthermore, there are no records of his coat of arms or origins, which raises questions about his authenticity as a distinct figure. This same issue applies to the supposed Jobbágyi family. If they were indeed descendants of such a prominent noble lineage, why are there no records of their heraldry? Their coat of arms is essentially nonexistent in any substantial documentation.

József Csoma's statement regarding the authenticity of the family tree: "To further trace the divisions of the coat of arms, I briefly present the division of the Aba clan's branch that settled in Abaúj County into distinct families, based on Nagy Iván's work (Families of Hungary), the archives of the Jászó convent, and my own family documents."[15]

In summary, if this matter were judged in a court of law, the ruling would undoubtedly favor the more reasonable and logical account. The weight of evidence—heraldic symbols, the documented family tree, and the historical ownership of Szalánc Castle—supports the notion that these individuals all belonged to the same family. The alternative claims do not hold up under scrutiny, as they lack the necessary corroboration and fail to provide a consistent or verifiable lineage.

Aurel Kenessey Aurél (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Norden,

These are my final arguments: I don't know how I can convince someone who doesn't want to accept the facts, but I will try once more. There are five prominent noble Hungarian families who have claimed for centuries that they descend from the Szalánc branch, and all of them have insisted in centuries, that the elder son of Peter, Lord of Szalánc, with name Miklós, who served as the Voyvode of Transylvania is the ancestor of the Gágyi and Báthory families. Every serious scholar, like Iván Nagy, was aware of this. Do you really think that all this five families were wrong? Only your theory is correct? This is quite unlikely. Look at the list and records of them:[16][17][18][19][20][21] Kenessey Aurél (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please take off the ticket that the article's factual accuracy is disputed! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Kenessey Aurél:,

1, Regarding the 17th-century family tree, I can only repeat myself.

2, The aforementioned royal charter definitely says that Peter, son of Csama possessed Szalánc in 1270 ("Petri filij Chama"). It's not an epithet (dictus) and it would be completely nonsense to argue that David had another name, Csama. Please, provide a source that mentions Peter Aba, the son of David as the owner of Szalánc. All of the reconstruction depends on that error which considers Peter Aba from the Széplak branch (son of David) was that family member who possessed Szalánc in 1270.

3, Iván Nagy's work, despite all its positive aspects, needs correction in many cases, since he wrote his work when the surviving certificates had not yet been systematized (registries, etc.). It is still questionable why you ignore Karácsonyi and Engel, unless it is because they contradict your reconstruction. The Hungarian section of Siebmacher’s catalog was also the work of Iván Nagy, so it cannot serve as a source of control to strengthen Nagy's theory. Regarding your cousin's work, I can't check its validity (and interestingly in the wikipedia article you didn't use the work in the sections in question either) and it's questionable how accepted it is in "scholarly circles" (I couldn't find a trace of it in MTMT). The opinion of Kásler, who is not a professional historian, is irrelevant here.

4, Ladislaus Gagyi's tombstone is a subsidiary thread here, but if authoritative historians accept the date 1392 (either because of the material of the tombstone or the representation), then it is authoritative.

5, I do not understand your heraldic argument. I didn't doubt that the Báthory de Gagy came from the Aba kindred, I am only disputing that Nicholas Sirokai is their ancestor and I also dispute that he was the son of Peter Aba, brother of Amadeus. These coat-of-arms strengthen only that all of these families originated from Aba clan. Please check this modern publication: [22]

6, Let's see the owners of Gagy:

• 1279: Lawrence II Aba (from the Atyina branch) exchanged the estate (or at least a portion) with the Tekes family, see [23]
• 1323, 1327: it was possessed by the sons of Gereven (fl. 1285), perhaps they repurchased or repossessed: Lawrence, Stephen, Nicholas and Michael. See [24], [25]. At the same time (1323), they possessed Gagybátor too: [26]
• Consequently, Gereven is definitely not identical with Nicholas Sirokai, since his sons already appear as owners, I assume he was long dead by the 1320s.
• Nicholas, son of Gereven died before 1344 (see DL 41432): thus he cannot be identical with Nicholas Sirokai either, because the latter died sometime around 1358.

7, Let's see why it is impossible that Nicholas Sirokai was the ancestor of the Gagyi family

• Nicholas Sirokai had several siblings: George, John, Ladislaus, Michael and Peter. So this is a completely different roster than Gagy's owners.
• Sirokai is first mentioned in 1330, when his father and siblings exchanged Szalánc for the estates in Sáros County with William Drugeth. [27] p. 331.
• Nicholas Sirokai was granted ius gladii (pallosjog) over Jobbágy estate in 1344: see [28], Weisz B.: A királyketteje és az ispán harmada. p. 209.
• He was frequently called Sirokai or Jobbágyi, just like his son Peter. [29] p. 197.
• Nicholas Sirokai was still living in 1355 (DF 212 693) and died sometime before 1358: [30].
• Gereven, as an alternative name of Nicholas Sirokai is a mere fabrication. Gereven is mentioned as a living person only once in 1285. Thereafter, his sons appear ("sons of Gereven") in the 1320s, implying his death by then. In 1285, Gereven was an adult capable of acting. If he is identical with Nicholas Sirokai, the latter would have been around 100 years old, when he died around 1358 and he was still an active member of the royal court in the 1350s (see Engel's archontology 1996). Unlikely.

Thus, most plausibly, the Gagyi then its cadet branch, the Báthory de Gagy family descended from the Atyina(–Gagy) branch of the Aba clan. A brief family tree:

• Peter
  • Denis (fl. 1254), Franciscan friar
  • Edőcs (fl. 1254–1284)
    • Gereven (fl. 1285)
      • Gagyi family
        • Báthory de Gagy, Vendég de Gagy families
  • Lawrence I (fl. 1257–1277), Master of the stewards
    • Lawrence II (fl. 1279–1290), Master of the treasury
      • Atyinai family
  • Bernard
    • Adácsi family

--Norden1990 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Norden,

Here's a compelling argument:

1.    Regarding the 17th-century family tree:

No matter how often you repeat your statement, it directly contradicts the original family tree as well as the documented histories of five noble families.[31] It’s important to emphasize that in the Middle Ages and early modern period, the accuracy of family lineage was of paramount importance. The inheritance of privileges and rights made knowing one's ancestry a crucial personal interest, which is why genealogical records were meticulously prepared and used as evidence in disputes over land or inheritance. This tradition has been upheld for centuries, and the Báthory, Hedry, Frichy, Sirokai, and Bertóthy families all trace their ancestry back to Peter of Szalánc, as confirmed by Bertóthy Gábor's original family tree and the histories of the other families mentioned. Moreover, the National Archives[32] only recognize this line—there is no mention of "Chama" or any alternative hypothesis.

1. On the royal charter and the claim regarding "Peter, son of Chama" :

The notion of "Chama" is purely hypothetical and lacks any real basis. During this period, the castle of Szalánc was held exclusively by David’s sons—there is no evidence for "Chama." Finta died without a male heir, and Peter inherited Szalánc castle and the estate [33]. This is consistent with the original family tree. No other lord of Szalánc existed at this time; therefore, "Chama" is either a major error or perhaps a misinterpreted "dictus" (nickname or epithet).

1. Critique of Iván Nagy's work and the use of other historical sources:

It is curious that you do not accept the work of Iván Nagy, one of our greatest historians, and disregard Siebmacher's catalog, which is regarded as an encyclopedic source on European nobility and heraldry worldwide. Regarding my cousin’s book, suffice it to say that it confirms his descent from Báthory Katalin of Gagy, the daughter of Zsigmond, using civil registry, parish and archival records. Tibor’s intention was never to gain fame but rather to pass on his family's history to his descendants and leave a record of it in book form. His book does not solely focus on the Báthory family, but also addresses other members of the lineage.

1. On the tombstone of László Gagyi:

Your argument about the tombstone is again based on conjecture. The inscription clearly reads 1332. I have read theories suggesting this date was a mistake (supposedly 1422 or another year) because larger battles with the Turks hadn’t yet occurred. However, as I previously mentioned, László’s death is not necessarily tied to a documented major battle. The inscription states that he was killed by the Turks, which could well have been part of a smaller conflict. What matters is the engraved date: 1332.[34]

1. Heraldic argument and the Aba clan origin:

I am not sure how Körmendi explains the descent from the Atyina branch, but this is just his interpretation without any substantial backing. Furthermore, I do not understand why he claims that László Gagyi died in 1392 when the tombstone clearly shows 1332. Moreover, the Gagyi family at that time was still a prominent family. László Gagyi’s father was Peter II, the lord of Szalánc Castle, and his grandfather was Peter I, the judge royal, with his brother Nicholas serving as Voivode of Transylvania. Given the prominence of this family, the distinct heraldry makes complete sense.

1. On the owners of Gagy:

Once again, this is an assumption on your part. If Gereven was born around 1300, his sons would fit the timeline perfectly. His brother Ladislaus, who died in 1332, also fits this timeframe well. It is also logical that Nicholas became Voivode of Transylvania at around the age of forty, and his estimated death in 1358 aligns with the records. Furthermore, by 1332, the Gagy and Gagybátor estates were already in their possession, confirming the date on László Gagyi's tombstone.

1. On the impossibility of Nicholas Sirokai being the ancestor of the Gagyi family:

The calculations I provided align perfectly. Additionally, let us not forget that, as I have emphasized before, the title of "Comes," meaning count, often appears as "Grewin," "Greven," or "Gereven" in archaic documents, not just in Hungary. The German encyclopedia states: "Greven" is an archaic German term meaning "counts" or "earls." It is an old variation of "Graf," which was used in certain regions or older texts as a synonym for "Graf."

Thus, most plausibly, the Gagyi family and its younger branch, the Báthory de Gagy family, descended from the Szalánc branch of the Aba clan as it shows by the document of the Hungarian National Archive.[35] This is not merely a hypothesis but a well-supported theory, reinforced by original genealogical records and historical tradition. The significant figures in the family, such as Peter I and Peter II, along with Nicholas, who served as Voivode, highlight the lineage's prominence and importance which are documented with family trees, tombstone and archive documents.

The original family tree displayed in Budapest Központi Antikvárium [36] by Bertóthy Gábor from 1678 serves as a substantial piece of evidence, along with the histories of related families, which all trace back to Peter of Szalánc. These documents and traditions consistently support the connection to Nicholas Gagyi Gereven, also known as Nicholas Sirokai after the Siroka estate aquired by his Father, Peter of Szalánc, rather than the speculative figure of "Chama" or others. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This text records an exchange of properties in 1330 between Count William Drugeth and the family members of Count Peter of Szalánc, with the approval of King Charles of Hungary. It details specific properties being exchanged, notably including Szalánc Castle and other estates in the County of Sáros.[37] This is the same history of the original family tree compiled by Gábor Bertóthy in 1678.[38] The explicit details of the family tree align precisely with the account given in the 1330 document. This document also proves that Miklós was the son of Peter and the progenitor of the Báthory branch, as mentioned in the original family tree!!!!

Here is the original text and the English translation:

XXXIII.

Cambium Castri Szalánc in Comitatu Abaujvárien cum possessionibus Berthot, Hedry, Frich et Siroka In Comitatus Saros. Datum anno 1330.

Omnibus Christi fidelibus tam praesentibus quam futuris presens scriptum inspecturis. Capitulum Ecclesiae Agriensis salutem in salutis largitore. Ad Universorum notitiam tenore praesentium volumus pervenire: Quod Magnificus Vir Magister Wyllermus Comes de Scepus, & Újvár ex una parte, et Comes Petrus filius Petri Nobilis de Szalanc, Nicolaus, Georgius, Ladislaus Michael filii ejusdem Comitis Petri pro se, et Johanne, ac Petro Fratribus ipsorum uterinis, item Comes Ladislaus filius Laurentii, Demetrius filius ejusdem Comitis "Ladislai, et Lukachius filius Andrea de eadem Szalanc ab altera, coram nobis personaliter constituti, sunt confessi, quod in dicto castro Szalanc,et quibusdam possessionibus ipsorum omnino specialiter inferius declarandis, pari voto,et unanimi volúntate, tale inter se Concambium perhennale fecissent ex benevolo consensu, et volúntate Domini Karoli lllustris Regis Hungariae, Domini nostri, prout in Literis ejusdem Domini Regis nobis exhibitis continebatur, feriatim: Quod idem Magister Willermus quasdam possessiones suas Pertolalt, Hedrychfalva, Frych et Syroka vocatas, in Comitatu de Saros existentes.

English translation of the latin text in the document:[39]

Exchange of Szalánc Castle in the County of Abaujvár with the possessions of Berthot, Hedry, Frich, and Siroka in the County of Sáros. Given in the year 1330.

To all the faithful of Christ, both present and future, who shall examine this present document, the Chapter of the Church of Eger sends greetings in the Lord, the giver of salvation. We wish to bring to the knowledge of all, through the content of the present writing, that the Magnificent Master William, Count of Szepes and Újvár, on the one hand, and Count Peter, son of the noble Peter of Szalánc, along with Nicholas, George, Ladislaus, and Michael, sons of the same Count Peter, for themselves, and John and Peter, their uterine brothers, also Count Ladislaus, son of Lawrence, Demetrius, son of the same Count Ladislaus, and Lukach, son of Andrew of the same Szalánc, on the other hand, personally appeared before us. They confessed that they had, by mutual agreement and unanimous consent, made such a perpetual exchange among themselves regarding the said Szalánc Castle and certain of their possessions, as specially detailed below, with the benevolent consent and approval of King Charles, the illustrious King of Hungary, our lord, as contained in the letters of the same lord king presented to us, as follows: that the same Master William gave certain of his possessions called Pertolalt, Hedrychfalva, Frych, and Syroka, located in the County of Sáros. Etc…. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Norden,

Sorry, I am writing to you on your personal page because I’ve been told that I am overloading the discussion page of the article. I’m not eager to restart the debate, but I feel I must, as something is seriously off.

What I want to bring to your attention is that I received the official translation of the document from György Rácz, a colleague at the Széchényi Library, the same document where you mentioned that the abstract refers to an agreement between the sons of Voivode Nicholas and the sons of Gereven.[40]

I have carefully read the official translation, and it is not about that at all. Here is the translation.[41] Furthermore, the translation of the document you referenced is missing lines 9 to 12! The original document’s regesta on the reverse side, from the 17th century, no longer mentions a dispute between the Gereven and Vitézi families, but rather a land dispute between the sons of Voivode Nicholas and the Vitézi family.

Additionally, the evidence you referenced in Hazai Okmánytár VIII, where you claimed that Gereven was already an adult in 1285, is also problematic. The name Gereven is not mentioned anywhere in the document’s text. Moreover, there is a document where among the sons of Gereven, both Ladislaus and Peter are mentioned—see lines 1.2.8, for example.[42] Engel also notes that Gereven was likely related to the Szalánci and Nádasdy branches, but he doesn’t provide justification for this. Furthermore, Engel remains uncertain regarding the Gagyi branch, using terms like “perhaps,” “likely,” and “possibly” throughout his argument.

Gereven must have been a prominent figure, considering the coat of arms with the Árpád-stripes and the castles he owned. The Lower and Upper Gagyi Castles, as well as the fortified castle in Gagybátor, reflect power and influence. Such estates were not only important for defense but also symbolized the rank and authority of the family. The coat of arms often represents the historical achievements and merits of a family. If Gereven owned such estates and the coat of arms is connected to him, it is clear that he played a significant role in his time.

In conclusion, Engel’s argument didn’t convince me. There are simply too many counterarguments. The original family tree, for instance. The Berthóthy family handed over many medieval documents to the National Museum. It seems impossible that they were mistaken about such an important ancestor. Kempelen, Csánki Dezső,[43] Siebmacher, and Nagy Iván all drew up the Gagyi family tree based on solid evidence. Then there’s also Sándor József, an ethnologist whose research on Miklós Horthy’s family tree likewise identified Nicholas Gereven as an Erdélyi Voivode. In his research, he listed the names on the Gagyi family tree that even Nagy Iván and others couldn’t uncover.[44] Regarding Ladislaus Gagyi’s tombstone, it seems absurd to suggest that the engraver accidentally omitted the letter "L" from the date. Even more absurd is the claim that he was only an 8-year-old child. The inscription states that he died fighting against the Turks. Doesn’t that seem strange to you? Kenessey Aurél (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can beat each other. The charters and secondary sources I presented rule out that the Gagyi family originates from the Szalánc branch of the Aba clan. The 1330 transaction confirms this, as we can see a completely different list of names of brothers than the owners of Gagy in 1323 and 1327. Gereven was not born around 1300, because he was mentioned as an adult in 1285. There is no mention of Gagy in the 1330 charter, so this document is irrelevant in the question of whether Nicholas Sirokai could be ancestor of the Gagyi family. You can't ignore the information in the 1270 document that the owner of Szalánc was Peter, Csama's son. No source supports that Péter, David's son, ever owned Szalánc, you could not present a single charter source for this. Iván Nagy erroneously merged the two persons, but fortunately later genealogical works have corrected this error. This exchange of ideas stalled, I presented quite a few charters so that you might reevaluate the family's line of descent. If not, that's fine. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I must fundamentally disagree with you. Your version contains numerous inaccuracies, with László Gagyi's tombstone being a prime example. The scholars you cited explain this by suggesting that the engraver likely forgot to carve the letter "L" or perhaps the letter "C"—claims that are, frankly, quite weak. The 1330 document, whose text and essence match word for word with the 1678 family tree, is also dismissed by you as a mistake, despite Gábor Bertóthy presumably knowing his family lineage going back centuries, just as other families from the same branch did. Even the names of the descendants are recorded on the family tree from 1303 to 1678, yet you claim he was mistaken. The genealogical table is deemed incorrect, despite being verified by Orbán Pál, the chief notary. You are constructing suppositions that do not align with the concrete facts. To me, this borders on trolling. If you don’t mind, let's leave it at that, as you suggested, and not continue arguing. I believe in the work of Iván Nagy, József Csoma, Siebmacher and the authenticity of the original documents, while you prefer the works of Körmendi, Engel, and others, who are speculating about events and people and only have hypotheses. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Second round

Dear Norden,

I believe I have finally uncovered the source of the misunderstandings. Please allow me to explain.

The 1330 document, in which the Drugeth and Szalánci families exchange the Szalánc estate for the Pertolat, Frich, Hedri, and Siroka estates, is not disputed. It is also mentioned in Iván Nagy’s writings. However, Nagy also states that Voivode Gereven acquired the Gagy estates, which is corroborated by the Anjoukori Oklevéltár (Charter of the Angevin Period) VII. 1323 that you shared. Gereven acquired the Gagy estates before the exchange of Szalánc. In the 1323 document, it is described how, under the orders of King Charles, royal men, along with Gereven’s sons Lawrence, Michael, and Nicholas, separated the Gagy estates from neighboring properties. The names match 100% with the Báthory family tree.

You sent the Drugeth document to prove that Gagy was not part of the exchange. But that was never in dispute. The original family tree simply noted that Gereven founded the Gagy family after acquiring the Gagy and Bátor estates. In 1344, Gereven was granted the right of the pallos (sword) for the Jobbágy estate, and it is likely that some of his sons lived there, but the family ultimately settled in Gagy and Bátor. In Gagy, they built both a residential and fortified castle, while in Bátor they constructed a residential one. This could explain why there are no later traces of the Jobbágyi family.

The 1285 date associated with Gereven is probably an estimate of his birth year. The names Sirokai and Jobbágyi might have been used in the documents when he lived there. Even his father, Péter, is referred to as "Sirokai" in some documents. Believe me, Iván Nagy put together an accurate summary of the family. The ownership of Szalánc castle has always been attributed to the three brothers: Finta, Péter, and Amadeus, according to historical accounts.

I hope this finally resolves the source of the confusion. If we could meet in person, we could discuss the arguments for and against more thoroughly.

Have a nice day! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Az alábbi szövegben az is olvasható, hogy Miklós c. (comes) akit Gerevennek neveztek [45] szintén jelen volt.

Az egri kápt. I. Károly király (H) 1323. május 27-i meghagyására (233. sz.) jelenti, hogy embere, Voyk fia István pap, Kalathay-i Pál királyi emberrel június 12-én kiment Januk (1398: Janók) birtokra és a hozzátartozó birtokokra, és az összehívott szomszédok - Peder-i Domonkos, Ine fia István fiai: Pál és Petheu, szintén Peder-iek, továbbá Merhard fia Imre fia Miklós, ugyanazon Merhard fia János fiainak: Simonnak és Lászlónak az officiálisa, Domonkos, Hulych, ugyanazok Mokrouch-i bírója, valamint Kana fia András, Boyg fia Fábián, és az ő fia Péter, végül Gereuen fiai: Lőrinc, Miklós és Mihály, Kordos (dict.) Miklós c. és officiálisa, István és Otih fia Hernich fia János - jelenlétében Januk birtokot a szomszédoktól ellentmondás nélkül elválasztották. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

With your permission, I brought the discussion here so that others may be able to comment on it.

• Gereven is mentioned as an adult in 1285, see. He was one of those family members who approved the payment of a female relative's daughters' quarter. The original charter here: DL-DF 38956.
• The sons of Gereven (fl. 1285) per sources: Lawrence, Stephen, Nicholas, Michael
• The sons of Peter or Petőc (fl. 1298–1335) per sources: George, Nicholas Sirokai, John, Ladislaus, Michael, Peter
• The sons of Nicholas Sirokai (fl. 1330–1355) per sources: Peter, Ladislaus, Nicholas
• For reasons of chronology and estate history, it is simply impossible that Gereven is the same as Nicholas Sirokai. The 1330 charter confirms this, all newly acquired land was in Sáros county, while Gagy and Gagybátor were in Abaúj county. In the 1320s, both estates were possessed by Gereven's sons: Lawrence, Stephen, Nicholas and Michael. The Szalánc branch has nothing to do with it.
• Excluding the 17th-century family tree, Nicholas Sirokai is not mentioned in connection with Gagy. He lived in Siroka, then Jobbágyi, as I presented above. Although such family trees are important sources, it is not possible to completely believe the information due to the distance in time of many centuries (destruction of sources, deliberate distortion, etc.): I dealt a lot with the Hahót kindred, their descendants, the family tree of the Bánffys de Alsólendva is also preserved from the 17th century. Regarding the earliest members, it also contains several errors, which can be verified based on the surviving sources of the time. So these custom-made family trees can only be a source to the extent that the chronicles are.
• If Iván Nagy established the correct family tree, why did later historians not accept this reconstruction? Apparently because the sources processed later contradicted his hypothesis. Iván Nagy was a great historian in his time, but many of his findings are now outdated. This can be said to everyone, since the science of history is constantly developing.
• Even József Csoma modified his viewpoint later. See his high impact work: Magyar nemzetségi czímerek, 1904. pp. 14-15. He considered that the Gagyi family descended from the Aba clan's "Sixtus branch". Of course, this is also untenable in the light of today's data (Sixtus was ancestor of the Nekcsei and Lipóci branch, instead), but still, he didn't think that the Gagyi family could be connected to the Szalánc branch. Horribile dictu, Csoma already thought differently about Ladislaus Gagyi's tombstone in 1904 than 17 years earlier. "A sírkövön olvasható évszám 1332, de az össze nem egyeztethető a Gagyi László halála idejével, mert róla mint élőről még 1374-ben is van oklevélben emlékezet. E szerint a sírkő mestere a minuskulás évszámból kihagyta az L-et, melylyel az 1382-őt tesz ki." In your words, József Csoma joined those historians "Körmendi, Engel, and others, who are speculating about events and people and only have hypotheses".
• "Gereuen fiai: Lőrinc, Miklós és Mihály, Kordos (dict.) Miklós c. és officiálisa, István és Otih fia Hernich fia János". This document listed the neighbors, Nicholas dictus Kordos is clearly a different person (if only because, according to your version, Gereven is the same as him, and he is mentioned in this form of the name). This Nicholas is also a neighboring lord around Januk, just like the sons of Gereven. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Norden,

Here are my responses and explanations (my part is by bold letters):

·        Gereven is mentioned as an adult in 1285, see. He was one of those family members who approved the payment of a female relative's daughters' quarter. The original charter here: DL-DF 38956.

My response: I have cheked it. This text is a formal royal document from King Ladislaus IV of Hungary, issued in 1285. It details a legal transaction in which Dénes, son of Budun from the Aba clan, and his blood relatives, satisfy the inheritance rights of their sister, the widow of Count Merse. This is done by granting her a specific piece of land called Vitézmező, located in Sáros County, as part of her daughter’s quarter inheritance.

The text outlines how Dénes, along with his relatives (including notable figures like Omode the Palatine and Count Musuniensis), legally transferred the land to their sister and her son Benedict, for Benedict's heirs and successors. The transaction was formally confessed in the presence of the king and witnessed by royal and ecclesiastical representatives, who were charged with verifying and recording the boundaries of the land.

Essentially, this is a royal confirmation of an inheritance settlement within the Aba clan, where land ownership is being transferred to fulfill family inheritance obligations.

There is no mention about Miklós (Gereven)!!!! So it proofs nothing.

·        The sons of Gereven (fl. 1285) per sources: Lawrence, Stephen, Nicholas, Michael

my response: Yes it is correct see family tree [46]

·        The sons of Peter or Petőc (fl. 1298–1335) per sources: George, Nicholas Sirokai, John, Ladislaus, Michael, Peter

my response: Nicholas was called, Sirokai, Gereven (nickname) and Jobbágyi from the estates of their properties. Gereven (since Greven is equal with Comes in archaic German) Here is the family table of Sirokai family as you can read Miklós of Siroka family is the father of the Báthory branch. [47]

The sons of Nicholas Sirokai (fl. 1330–1355) per sources: Peter, Ladislaus, Nicholas

my response: I don’t see any source, where is that?

·        For reasons of chronology and estate history, it is simply impossible that Gereven is the same as Nicholas Sirokai. The 1330 charter confirms this, all newly acquired land was in Sáros county, while Gagy and Gagybátor were in Abaúj county. In the 1320s, both estates were possessed by Gereven's sons: Lawrence, Stephen, Nicholas and Michael. The Szalánc branch has nothing to do with it.

my response: The exchange of the Szalánc estate took place in 1330, but Miklós, being the eldest brother, had previously acquired the properties of Gagy and Gagybátor, as stated in the text of the original family tree. [48]

The following text mentions that Count Miklós (Nicholas) was also present when they took over the property.

The English translation of the text of the "Anjou-kori oklevéltár" shared by your:

„On the orders of King Charles I of Hungary, dated May 27, 1323, the chapter of Eger reports (document 233) that its representative, István (priest), son of Voyk, together with Pál Kalathay, a royal man, went on June 12 to the estate of Januk (1398: Janók) and the surrounding estates. The summoned neighbors included: Domonkos of Peder, Pál and Petheu, sons of István of Ine, also from Peder; Miklós, son of Imre, son of Merhard, who served as the official of Simon and László, sons of János, son of the same Merhard; Domonkos of Hulych, the judge of the same Mokrouch; András, son of Kana; Fábián, son of Boyg, and his son Péter; and finally, the sons of Gereven: Lőrinc, Miklós, Mihály and Kordos (as nickname) ; as well as Miklós, the count [49] and his official, János, son of Hernich, son of Otih. In their presence, the estate of Januk was separated from neighboring properties without any objections."

This document details the involvement of several individuals, including Count Miklós in a land survey or boundary settlement ordered by King Charles I in 1323. The event was attended by numerous officials and local neighbors to ensure the correct demarcation of the Januk estate from its neighboring properties. Gagy property was aquired by Miklós (Gereven or Sirokai) in 1323. He was there with his sons when they took over.

·        Excluding the 17th-century family tree, Nicholas Sirokai is not mentioned in connection with Gagy. He lived in Siroka, then Jobbágyi, as I presented above. Although such family trees are important sources, it is not possible to completely believe the information due to the distance in time of many centuries (destruction of sources, deliberate distortion, etc.): I dealt a lot with the Hahót kindred, their descendants, the family tree of the Bánffys de Alsólendva is also preserved from the 17th century. Regarding the earliest members, it also contains several errors, which can be verified based on the surviving sources of the time. So these custom-made family trees can only be a source to the extent that the chronicles are.

My response: How can you say that? It’s important to emphasize that in the Middle Ages and early modern period, the accuracy of family lineage was of paramount importance. The inheritance of privileges and rights made knowing one's ancestry a crucial personal interest, which is why genealogical records were meticulously prepared and used as evidence in disputes over land or inheritance. This tradition has been upheld for centuries, and the Báthory, Hedry, Frichy, Sirokai, and Bertóthy families from common descent all trace their ancestry back to Peter of Szalánc, as confirmed by Bertóthy Gábor's original family tree and the histories of the other families mentioned. Vice-Lord Lieutenant Bertóthy recorded the names of all the firstborn male ancestors on the family tree. Here is a picture for better readability. [50]

·        If Iván Nagy established the correct family tree, why did later historians not accept this reconstruction? Apparently because the sources processed later contradicted his hypothesis. Iván Nagy was a great historian in his time, but many of his findings are now outdated. This can be said to everyone, since the science of history is constantly developing.

my response: In the Middle Ages, family names were not yet in use. Instead, surnames were derived from the estates owned by individuals. This has misled many researchers. For example, Peter of Szalánc was often referred to as Peter of Siroka. Similarly, when Miklós and his family owned Siroka through an exchange, he was frequently called "Sirokai." The same situation applies to his other name "Jobbágyi” all derived from their estates.

Even József Csoma modified his viewpoint later. See his high impact work: Magyar nemzetségi czímerek, 1904. pp. 14-15. He considered that the Gagyi family descended from the Aba clan's "Sixtus branch". Of course, this is also untenable in the light of today's data (Sixtus was ancestor of the Nekcsei and Lipóci branch, instead), but still, he didn't think that the Gagyi family could be connected to the Szalánc branch. Horribile dictu, Csoma already thought differently about Ladislaus Gagyi's tombstone in 1904 than 17 years earlier. "A sírkövön olvasható évszám 1332, de az össze nem egyeztethető a Gagyi László halála idejével, mert róla mint élőről még 1374-ben is van oklevélben emlékezet. E szerint a sírkő mestere a minuskulás évszámból kihagyta az L-et, melylyel az 1382-őt tesz ki." In your words, József Csoma joined those historians "Körmendi, Engel, and others, who are speculating about events and people and only have hypotheses".

my response: This is another assumption. Why would the date on the tombstone have been written incorrectly? The death date next to the name is the most important part of a tombstone. My explanation: Miklós (Gereven or Sirokai) acquired the estate of Gagy in 1323, as we know. Three castles were built (all documented) [51]: one in Gagybátor and two in Gagy, one of which was a fortified castle. Csoma's description even mentions that  the fortified castle had also a castle captain. The family already owned Gagy at the time of László’s death (1332). I can imagine that Peter of Szalánc was also living in Gagy in one of the residential castles. Miklós (Gereven or Sirokai)'s brother, László, was killed by the Turks in a local conflict in 1332. The tombstone name his father Peter of Gagy who was the same person as Peter of Szalánc (always for the same reason as mentioned), but since the family was living in Gagy it was evident they engrave Master Peter of Gagy as his father. Although the Turks had not yet fully invaded, it is plausible that smaller scouting parties were present, as future military operations were already being planned. Here is the story of the tombstone: [52]

·        "Gereuen fiai: Lőrinc, Miklós és Mihály, Kordos (dict.) Miklós c. és officiálisa, István és Otih fia Hernich fia János". This document listed the neighbors, Nicholas dictus Kordos is clearly a different person (if only because, according to your version, Gereven is the same as him, and he is mentioned in this form of the name). This Nicholas is also a neighboring lord around Januk, just like the sons of Gereven.

my response: You are misinterpreting it again. The text lists the participant families and neighbours, and the last family mentioned is that of Gereven's sons, including Count Miklós (Gereven or Sirokai) himself, and their officials. Gerevens name was Miklós, Gereven is just a nickname as I have explained. In the text "Kordos" is the dictus or nickname (maybe of Istvan the fourth son), not Miklós, but it is evident if you read it again. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I present another source (either primary or secondary) which discredit your family line reconstruction based on a 17th-century family tree and a mistake of 19th-century genealogist, you neglect those by citing the same out-of-date Turul genealogical works again and again (even Csoma's who himself revised his position later) and misinterpreting and/or minstranslating the sources I have presented. Your conclusion is that Nicholas Sirokai=Gereven, whose father was Peter, son of David (from the Széplak branch), because a sole scholar wrote that. However, many sources and publications refute this, which I presented to no avail. Your only goal to establish a line which connects the most illustrious members of the Aba kindred to a single bloodline (only Demetrius Nekcsei is missing :), but you can certainly find a Turul article for that...) which raise the family's extraordinary origin further. I did what I could to save this article, but it must be deleted according to WP:OR (I publish this text to the deletion request page too, as my final remark). --Norden1990 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am posting this here for everyone to see. This is a document from the collection of medieval charters held by the National Archives and the National Museum, where Voivode Nicholas is referred to by his nickname, Gereven. This document eliminates any other speculation. 41633 | Oklevelek | Hungaricana and the enlarged excerpt of the text. [53] Kenessey Aurél (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)