Talk:Charles I of Hungary

Untitled

I think the regnal numbers are leading to some confusion.

Charles II "le Boiteux" (1254-1309) 
|     & Maria of Hungary (1257-1323) (daughter of Stephen V)
|
Charles I Martell (1271-1295) & Klementia von Habsburg (-1295) 
|
Charles Robert of Hungary (1308-42) as Károly I Róbert (1288-1342)

So if Charles Robert is counted as Charles I of Hungary, as we seem to be wanting to do on List of Hungarian rulers, he is the great-grandson, not grandson, of Stephen V.

I was adding to the confusion by counting Charles I Martel as a King of Hungary, which I think he claimed to be from 1290-1295, but we seem not to be counting him as a Hungarian ruler. -- Someone else 04:27 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

I searched the Google on the genealogy of the Angevins and came up with this:

(my translation from [1])

Charles Martel (1271-1295), son of King Charles II of Naples and Maria of Hungary (persumably daughter of Stephen V of Hungary). He was the titular king of Hungary (1290-1295) and married Clemence, daughter of King of Romans (persumably Rudolf I)

Charles I Robert (1291-1343), son of Charles Martel and Clemence, King of Hungary (1308-1342) and married Elisabeth of Poland (persumably daughter of Casimir III of Poland)

Louis I (1326-1382), son of Charles I Robert and Elisabeth of Poland, King of Hungary (1342-1382) and Poland (1370-1382). He married Margaret, daugheter of Emperor Henry VII.

So Charles Robert was the greatgrandson of Stephen V and we don't count Charles Martel as ruler of Hungary since he is only titular. In fact Andrew III was the real king at that time. This Charles Martel was spelled with one extra L (Charles Martell) in English text to avoid confusion with the Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne. Here is another example that we cannot totally rely on 1911 EB for correct info. We need to research ourselves. Be reminded that the originial French version was copyrighted.-- User:kt2

What the hell?

User:Hobartimus, stop reverting me! Would you mind looking at the edit you keep reverting? A new user significantly expanded this article. Unfortunately, he did not delete the old "Life" section, which is now redundant because it only repeats the information contained in the "Struggle for Hungary" and other sections. I have moved the few original sentences (Charles' family) from "Life" to other appropriate sections and removed this redundant section altogether. The new user also linked some words whenever s/he used them. There is no need to have five red links to Ladislaus Kán in one paragraph. I have corrected it. Just read the article for God's sake! To demonstrate absurdity of the edit war you have launched here, my version links Maria of Hungary to the correct person Maria of Hungary (1257-1323) while your version links to the generic name Mary. Please stop it. Tankred (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now now your edit makes a lot of controversial changes such as the complete removal of one of the pictures and others lumped in together with other changes. For example to correctly fix redundancy first it has to be decided which version is written better and of higher quality. Also none of these is "my" version it's merely the previous version, and be assured I did read your edit both times that was the reason why I reverted it. Your edit as a whole was detrimental to the quality of the article and few positive aspects of it can be easily put back like the link fix you mentioned above. Hobartimus (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed the removal of a picture and some Hungarian placenames. A major change in one edit without discussion first. Squash Racket (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a contemporary picture of the Battle of Posada there. I removed the anachronistic picture of the same event as redundant, but feel free to re-add it if you like. What exactly do you consider "detrimental to the quality of the article"? Please be specific. That sentence has no meaning without examples. Tankred (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with Amade Aba

According to this article

On 10 October 1307, the magnates presented at the assembly in Rákos proclaimed Charles king, but the most powerful aristocrats (Matthew Csák, Amadé Aba and Ladislaus Kán) ignored him.

On the other hand, according to Amade Aba

He [Amade Aba] was present at the Assembly of Rákos (10 October 1307) where the participants confirmed Charles' claim for the throne.

Top.Squark (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? 2

Some guy called Links489 have modified the article, and posted this nonsense: "Charles died on 16 July 2007, he was killed by a famous samuri warrior know as Joel Kerr the Amazing. He was struck down by his mighty blade of wrath." I suggest we should warn him, that wikipedia is not some playground for dishonourable jokes. I have deleted the section.

Also I am Hungarian and Károly Róbert was our factual and rightful king. He was not only titular, he fought many battles and evetually defeated all of the oligarchs. His son Lajos the Great was our rightful king too. Don't try to teach us our own history! Also why do you translate every Hungarian name? His name was Károly Róbert, not Charles Robert damn it! We say Gorge Bush and not Bokor György, think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite sources. Charles Robert is the the most ommon name for this person in English sources. Besides. "you" call Elizabeth II II. Erzsébet, so why shouldn't "we" call him Charles Robert? Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

tampering

in the part Deterioration of the southern border a date has been altered to september 2010:

"The Árpád kings had succeeded in encircling their whole southern frontier with six military colonies or banates, comprising, roughly speaking, Little Wallachia (southern part of present-day Romania) and the northern parts of present-day Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia, September 2010 . Charles redistributed these territories and proselytized the residents of the region to consolidate his reign"

a1979s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.82.206 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The nomadic Wallachians remained the vassals of Hungary

Why did not you mention that nomadic Wallachia remained a vassal state of Hungary?

VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE. Vlachs were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and chronicles appeared only in the 15th century.USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the google book results (search the british american candian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):

Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614 " Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"

Robert William Seton-Watson: A history of the Roumanians: from Roman times to the completion of unity, page: 12 "The Roumanians undoubtedly preserved their nomadic habits to a very late date, as is proved by the existence of Vlach colonies in Moravia (the so-called "Little Wallachia" — long since completely Slavised)"

Mandell Creighton, Justin Winsor, Samuel Rawson Gardiner: The English Historical Review page:- 615. "He shows that the Vlachs of the Balkan peninsula throughout the middle ages are nomads of the strictest type, ... that Vlachs began to move north of the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania "

Joan E. Durrant, Anne B. Smith Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights ( PAGE 210)

"Between the 3rd century A.D. and the 14th century A.D., Dacia was invaded successively by nomadic peoples, including the ... Romanians "

Norman Berdichevsky: Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181. "The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."

Other elements in the population of Greece are the Wallachians or Vlachs, the Turks, and the Jews, but they have never ... The Wallachians are a curious nomadic race

David Bruce Macdonald - 2002 Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered ... page- 131

"These hinterland Romans evolved into highland herdsmen, who for centuries led a primitive nomadic life"

Lampe, John R, Jackson, Marvin R. Balkan Economic History, 1550 - 1950: From Imperial Borderlands to ... page - 612. "Vlachs had first acquired their commercial connections in the course of moving their livestock seasonally back and forth between high and low ground. ... Alan J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson, The Nomads of the Balkans (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971)"

Jane Perry Clark Carey, Andrew Galbraith Carey : The Web of Modern Greek Politics - page 73 "shepherds and nomadic herdsmen, wandering through the Balkans and the north of Greece. On their early migrations they gave the Vlach name to various districts, including the province of Wallachia in present-day Romania"

Chambers's Encyclopedia - Volume 14. page:- 339. "The Vlachs are usually mentioned as following nomadic or semi-nomadic lives as shepherds etc. in wild mountain ... nth century was known as 'Great Wallachia' and seems to have contained a relatively dense and settled Vlach population."

Denys Hay: Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries page: 220 "In the first half of the fourteenth century there also appeared there the two Romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. ... or whether the Hungarians are right in their thesis that these Vlachs were recently immigrated nomadic shepherds"

Frank Moore Colby, Talcott Williams, Herbert Treadwell Wade: The New International Encyclopaedia Voluma 20. Page: 219 "Owing to their nomadic and predatory dispositions these Vlachs, as they are called by the Greek writers, were a ... the autonomous Rumanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which grew rapidly towards south and east until the former"

Isaiah Bowman: The New World: Problems in Political Geography page - 282 "or Wallachians The Rumanians, or Wallachs (hence Wallachia), are of mixed race but of distinct speech, the Ruman, ... Home places of the nomadic Vlachs The Vlachs , Rumanian nomadism is seen in its purest form among the detached"

Norman Angell : Peace Theories And The Balkan War page: - 107. "It had been founded by a conquering caste of non-Slavonic nomads from the trans-Danubian steppes, but these were completely ... This Bulgarian state included a large 'Vlach' element descended from those Latin-speaking provincials whom the Slavs had pushed ... had established itself in the mountains of Transylvania, and was just beginning to push down into the Wallachian and Moldavian plains"

Tibor Frank, Frank Hadler : Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe, page: 251 "Reference to Romanians in their preunification (1859) history was linked to the regional designation of Wallachia (today Oltenia and Muntenia) to the south ... This designation relates to the nomadic existence of the Balkan Vlach population."

Paul Coles : The Ottoman Impact on Europe - page: 114 " nomadic pastoralism provided a new lease of life for the Rumanian-speaking Vlachs, migratory herdsmen whose native principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had fallen under Ottoman dominion during the fifteenth century"

Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. .: "The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Custom Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus."