Talk:Great Moravia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There have to be something done with this article

How it can be possible, that is article that is most important for the history of Slovakia and further the Czech Republic, uses mostly hungarian sources? I have nothing against using the works of hungarian historians in this topic, but I think it is clear that a historical topic should contain the most important works of the national authors, so were are die standard works of slovak and czech origin?

• Steinhübel, Ján: Nitrianske kniežatstvo [The Principality of Nitra.] Bratislava : Veda, 2004. ISBN 80-224-0812-3. (slovak standard work)
• Třeštík, Dušan: Vznik Velké Moravy : Moravané, Čechové a střední Evropa v letech 791-871 [The Establishing of Great Moravia : Moravians, Czechs and Middle Europe in the years 791-871.] Praha : Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2001. ISBN 80-7106-482-3. (czech standard word)
• Havlík, Lubomír E.: Velká Morava a středoevropští Slované. [Great Moravia and the Slavs of Middle Europe.] Praha: SPN 1964 (czech standard work)

This are the most important works in the actual slovak and czech historiography so please consider this sources. Greetings --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you checked the reference section? I agree this article is such a mess therefore needs serious improvement. However you can find plenty of Czech and Slovak authors in the article (e.g. Lubomír E. Havlík, Tatiana Štefanovičová, Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, Dusan Trestik, Josef Zemlicka , Jan Lukačka, Ján Tibenský, Vincent Sedlák, Dušan Čaplovič, Viliam Čičaj, Dušan Kováč, Ľubomír Lipták etc....) Fakirbakir (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not about just to use some czech and slovak sources. The three workes I mentioned are right now the top standard literature for Great Moravia as well as in Slovakia as in the Czech Republic. A good article about Great Moravia (me personal prefere the term "Old Moravia" as used by Lubomír Havlík) needs for sure this national authors. Yes it is definitly a big mess. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to those books, if you do, for goodness' sake, don't hesitate and add content as you see fit. This article needs some serious improvement. Don't even care about English, if the facts are right and the sources good, it will get copyedited at some point. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If I would have the time I would have almost done it. But right now it is not possible. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Former country template

What is the value added by inserting a template with information which is not substantiated by reliable sources in the article. Are we sure that Great Moravia had a capital? If we are sure, what is the reliable source stating it? Is it a consensual view that the whole territory of Slovakia and Hungary was part of Great Moravia? For instance, I refer to Barford who clearly states that the theory of a Great Moravia was so huge as it used to be proposed. Do we know what were the languages spoken in Great Moravia? I suggest this template which cannot be filled in by verifiable data should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I still suggest that this artificial template which cannot provide exact data based on reliable source should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument, for example East Francia or Kingdom of Germany does not have a capital too. Your argument is invalid and tamplate should stay there. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you fill it with data based on reliable sources which does not only represent a POV and do not contradict to the reliable sources cited in the article? Are you sure that a template with uncertain and unknown data is unuseful? Let's begin: (1) why Great Moravia? (it was never used in contemporaneous sources (2) why 833? (it is only the rather old-fashioned theory on the unification of the ancient Czech and Slovak states (Moravia and Nitra) into a common Czechoslovakia ("Great Moravia")) (3) why Old West Slavonic? were there such a common language? (4) do we know that there were no rulers before Moimir? etc, etc, Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if you cant use google, i will do it for you. 1) and 3) - http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1559/ 2) Štefanovičová 1989, TŘEŠTÍK Dušan or http://slovake.eu/en/intro/slovakia/history it appeared after unification of Nitra and Moravia, 4) Mojmir was first documented ruler (if you will find any older you can describe him here with no problem:) These are all contemporaneous reliable sources, so please stop it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear, Jirka, please read the article and its sources (many sources cited in the article state that Nitra was an integral part of Moravia even before the 830s). If we insist on this template, we should present it in accordance with the article's text. Borsoka (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Page clearly states: "In 833 Mojmír I expelled Pribina from the Nitra Principality and unified the two principalities into Great Moravia." And how would you like to present this template in accordance with the article?Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka, I have never denied that there is a POV which states that there were two states (Moravia and Nitra) integrated into Great Moravia in 833. However, it is only a POV which is not shared by many scholars. For instance, Barford writes that Moravia only started to develop intod Constantine VII's "Great Moravia" under Rostislav, while Vlasto and other scholars write that Nitra had already been integrated into Moravia by the time Pribina (Moimir's official) was expelled from there. (I refer to the sources cited in the relevant part of the article.) I think the present data in the template do not contradict to the reliable sources cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Barford view could be POV, important is trustworthy pages, as these financed by UNESCO & European Union have to be.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Barford's view was published by Cornell University Press, Bowlus's view by University of Pennsylvania Press, Vlasto's view by Cambridge University Press. UNESCO and EU are political organization, not academic institutions. Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The template adds no value to the article. I still suggest that it should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Again i am trying to explain you that it is just their POV. It is not a worldwide accepted view.Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that these are only POVs accepted by specialists of the history of early medieval Central Europe, similarly to the traditional POV which suggest that "Great Moravia" emerged through the unificationof "Moravia" and "Nitra". Do you know a view accepted worldwide? Borsoka (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka and Borsoka, I just would like you both to know that Dušan Třeštík, who is after Lubomír E. Havlík the most important czech historian studying the Moravian Realm, in his Standard Works Vznik Velké Moravy and Počátky Přemyslovců estimates just as Vlasto and Havlík do that Pribina was a local tribal leader of the Moravians. Třeštík suggests that the formation of Moravia lasted from ca. 790 to 831. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, thank you for the above information. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, we can add this into text as an alternative theorie.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka, I think we can`t just call it an alternative theorie, since it is suggested by the two most important czech historians studying this topic (Havlík and Třeštík). Today, the only side that claims unanimously that the Moravian Realm was foundet in 833 are the historians from Slovakia, particularly Ján Steinhübel in his standard work Nitrianské kniežatstvo from 2004. I would rather say there are two different theories which are (at the moment) equal. The first one is just the traditional one and better known than the second one (although for example Vlasto mentioned already in 1970). --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trimnapaschkan, i agree with you that there are now the two most important different theories. I still think that these important things should be expressed in a head line, do you agree with me? User Borsoka still continue to deny any of my attemps to express anything about emerging of Great Moravia. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the head line should include a sentence like ... the exact date of the founding of the Moravian state is controversial, but it is supposed that the state building process was completed under Mojmír I in the early 830s..., thats all what seems to be sure for the majority of the historians. The different theories can be explained accurately in a lower chapter. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, that Borskoka dont want there any word like completing, emerging or developing. From his "..was united by force with Mojmir's realm into Great Moravia" it does looks like a second theorie, as it does exist earlier and was united into existed Great Moravia. So i agree with this, but Borsoka mayba not.. Do you Borsoka?:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

??????? Please read the lead and also the text under the title "Development of Moravia". All relevant theories are mentioned, including the theory of the unification of two principalities into Great Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure i know this, but such a important info should be included in a head paragraph. I would like to insert these two theories there, but you still keep deleting it. As the Trimnapaschkan said, it is the traditional view.Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

??????? Please read the lead again. Please also read WP:summary style. The theory is clearly mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You know very good that theories are not included in a lead. I give it up with you, you are not rational editor. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This was in a lead for years and years until Borsoka deleted it, same as many other relevant texts. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, that the two principalities' enforced union under Mojmir I may have resulted in the development of Great Moravia is mentioned in the lead. However, we should avoid the wording "some scholars say this, others say that", as you emphasized in connection with a sentence I proposed. Would you please specifically mention the "relevant texts" I deleted. Any deletion of properly referenced texts must have been a mistake. Please also remember that it was not me who was always sticking to the same wording in the same sentences during our discussion even after the other party had expressed his/her concerns. Borsoka (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, theres nothing about development of Great Moravia by Mojmir I as you claim. And neither the second theorie. All texts before was properly referenced (almost from the begining of the article). Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, thank you for your above message. (1) Please read WP:Lead: there is no need to add references to material which is based on the main text, and the lead should provide a summary of the main text. (2) Please read the lead again. There is a clear reference, that if Pribina was an independent ruler, his principality was united with Mojmir's realm into Great Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again i will try to edit it avoiding the wording "some scholars say this, others say that". Please express yourself firstly here, i dont want to spent all my life arguing with you, we should find a consensus. Thank you.Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refrain from proposing texts on the Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is allways better to find a consensus before editing. As for John:) theres nowhere something like we should seek it earlier, but i give up. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Moravia not independent during the whole Rostislav's reign?

As you stated Rostislav attempts to achieve independence, dont you think that Moravia was independent in Rastislav reign at least in 855-864? Thanks for your answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, is there at least one reliable source stating that Moravia was independent from 855 to 864? Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well there are many sources stating that Frankish army could not defeat Moravia in 855 and Rostislav was forced to acknowledge his vassalage to the eastern kingdom only at 864, when they surrounded him. In my opinion independency could even last from 850, when Rostislav interrupted all relations with the Eastern Frankish kingdom, began to support Louis's opposition and to accept Louis' opponents in Great Moravia. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, I highly appreciate your views on historical issues. However, I think they are not relevant for WP purposes. Would you please refer to reliable sources stating that Moravia was independent from 855 to 864. You might not have a chance to read of medieval history: in the middle ages, vassals frequently rebelled against their lords and their rebellion could last for years (for instance, I could refer to the history of the dukes of Bretagne and Anjou). Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not said i am sure, just asking:) I can ask too, do you have a reliable sources stating that Moravia was not independent from 855 to 864? How can i differentiate vassal from independent ruler if one cant defeat a second one and is ruling independently?:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do I need to present such a source? Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Because you should avoid weasel words, remember? - Theres no evidence for your claim, so i should delete it (as you did). Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

?????? Where are weasel words used? What do you want to delete? And why? Borsoka (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Damn (discusion with you takes so much time), nevermind. Someone say this - "their attempts to achieve independence", i dont see this nowhere in a referenced text, really Rostislav's Moravia was not an independent state in his whole reign? I will be very glad if you provide any reliable sources and we can finish this topic. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I suggest you should read some WP policies, because you seemingly do not know what is the exact meaning of certain expressions in our community. (1) Please read WP:WEASEL: the sentence you would like to delete ("their attempts to achieve independence") because of using weasel words does not contain any weasel words. (2) Please also read WP:Lead - there is no need to add references to text in the lead, provided they are based on the main text of the article and this text is verifiable. The sentence you would like to delete ("their attempts to achieve independence") is based on the text under the subtitle "Fights for independence (846–870)". Do you suggest that the Moravian rulers did not want to achieve independence? I am afraid this idea would contradict to the well referenced text. Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please can you stop recommending me to read a wiki policy? All this i know, i am never said that in lead must be a reference to your claim, but also in a text under the "Fights for independence (846–870)" (which you renamed) are not any mention about independence. Would you be please so nice and tell me where can i find it? Moravia could propably fight for sustaining its independent rule, after withdraw of the Franks. Thank you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, please read more carefully not only WP policies, but also texts in the article (or its sources). Both Mojmir and Rastislav accepted the suzerainty of Louis the German (the latter was even installed by the Frankish monarch). Would you cite any example when an indendent monarch was installed by an other monarch. For me, it would be surprising. Borsoka (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, sure, this i know, but are you saying that if someone accepted the suzerainty of other monarch, he is his vassal until his death, whatever he do? Do you mean it that way? In that case why would Louis wanted to accept Rostislav's subjection again in 864? Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have not read WP:OR - it says that editors' own interpretation of historical facts is totally irrelevant. If you want to add any text to the article, please use reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop recommending me to read a wiki policy and start to debate with me, because it was your own interpretation of historical facts, and as you said, if you do not provide any reliable sources your sentence could became totally irrelevant. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

??????? What was what and when ?????? Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, can you please answer consensus with Trimnapaschkan above? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

???? Would you please clarify your above suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at our last discussion with him.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, I did not have any debate with Trimnapaschkan. Would you specify what should I do instead of making misty declarations. Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, I've proposed a head line sentence about the founding of the Moravian state in the above talk chapter Former country template, I would be glad to read your opinion about it. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I extremelly sorry, I missed it. Thanks. What about the wording proposed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats fain, only you missing a date (833), could it be possible to insert it there? Thank you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made also a little correction (you agree?), but in my opinion it is alright at the moment. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It would contradict to the text of the main article: the main article says that Pribina arrived in East Francia not in, but after around 833. Do you think that the arrival of Pribina in East Francia caused the establishment of Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that arrival of Pribina in East Francia after around 833, but his deposing and conjunction of two principalities in 833 could cause the establishment of Moravia. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is enough to mention in the head line that the Moravian state building process was completed under Mojmír I in the early 830s. If we do consider that both theories (at the moment) are equal, than the only sure thing is that Moravia started to exist as a state in the early 830s, so in my opinion the year 833 don't need to be mentioned in the head line but has to be very well explained in the lower chapter. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, this is a fair approach and properly summarizes the main text. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say Rastislav was not loyal as a vassal. He tried to achieve independence but eventually failed. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if he was not a loyal vassal in these years, how we can talk about dependecny at Francia? For example Duchy of Bohemia was firstly an independent state in 9th century, it became a vassal to HRE when St. Wenceslaus promised to pay a tribute in exchange for a peace (10th century), but it lost its independency at the beginig of 11.century when it joined HRE. It will be great if you can find some reliable sources stating that Moravia was not independent state after withdraw of the Franks. Thank you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, please try to read the article and its lead more carefully. Neither the main text, nor the article state that Moravia was not independent in that period. Borsoka (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read the article carefully. But the sentence "their attempts to achieve independence caused a series of armed conflicts with East Francia from the 840s." indicates that these were only attempts and independence was never achieved in that period. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, neither the main text, nor the lead state that Moravia was independent in that period. For the time being, the lead properly and neutrally summarize the well referenced text of the main article: Rastislav fought for independence. If you would like to add that he achieved his goal you should find a reliable source stating this and add to the main text. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, for me the lead is not neutrally summarized. It is not fair for the victims of this war. Please look and consider my proposal: "Mojmir and his successor, Rastislav (r. 846–870) initially acknowledged the Carolingian monarchs' suzerainty, but they fought for independence, which caused a series of armed conflicts with East Francia from the 840s." I will be very glad if you can accept it and we can finally find a consensus. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What about the version I proposed in the article ("..., but their fights for independence caused a series of armed conflicts...")? Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Texts deleted from the article

The following texts were deleted from the article as per Wikipedia:Pro and con lists Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC):

Martin Eggers represents German speaking scholars, who proposed a plausible "two regna" thesis, which he situated far to the southeast of modern Moravia. Like Boba, Eggers insists that Zwentibald's principality crystallized south of the Sava in modern Bosnia. On the other hand he disagrees that Sirmium was his principal residence. Eggers believes that the centre of Rastislav's realm was located in the Great Danubian Basin in urbs Morisena (modern Csanad, Maroswar), based on the source Vita maior S.Gerhardi. Utilizing archeological evidence as well as an impressive array of written sources, Eggers posits that, following the defeat of the Avars, Carolingian rulers shored up preexisting bulwarks in the Great Danubian Basin to protect the central Danubian basin against eastern intruders. These ramparts, 550 km in length, formed an arc east of the Danube and Tisza starting northeast of Budapest running eastward, bending sharply southward near Nyiregyhaza, and finally reaching the Danube just opposite the confluence with the southern Morava river. Based on the archeological evidence he believes that Moravians from the south were settled in the enclosing area behind the ramparts by Franks.

Thus, it is under debate whether the "Balaton Principality" (administered probably by counts appointed by the King of East Francia during this period) or parts of the Carpathian Basin east of the rivers Danube and Tisza (Tisa) ("the territories of the Avars") were ever controlled by King Svatopluk. German historian Reuter suggests that Moravia did, in fact, control lower Pannonia (modern Hungarian Transdanubia), perhaps on two occasions: in 858-863 when Carloman gave it to Rastislav for his support against Louis the German, and again in 885-892 when Svatopoluk clashed with Arnulf.

As for the history of Bohemia, annexed by Great Moravia from 883 to 894, the crucial year is 895, when the Bohemians broke away from the empire and became vassals of Arnulf of Carinthia. Independent Bohemia, ruled by the Přemyslid dynasty, began to gradually emerge.

Alternative theories An alternative theory, proposed by Imre Boba in the 1970s independently of the similar theories of earlier authors (e.g., Daniele Farlatti, Gelasius Dobner working in the 18th century), suggests that the core territory of the empire was situated south of the Danube river in Pannonia/Slavonia. The theory is based on Boba's reading of primary written sources (e.g., De administrando imperio, the Bavarian Geographer and Annales Fuldenses), which in his opinion were ignored by other Czech and Slovak historians for various reasons, including nationalism. Moreover, he also utilized the results of archaeological researches and his knowledge of Slavic studies. A short summary of his statements and their criticism follows:

• Boba claimed that some primary sources (e.g., De administrando imperio, the Bavarian Geographer) clearly locate the territory of Great Moravia south of the Danube, and other primary sources do not contradict them. His opponents pointed out that some sources (i.e., the Annales Fuldenses) cited by Boba were written by foreigners "at a considerable distance from the events narrated", and their understanding of geography is not very precise. It is also true that some of the primary sources (such as Life of Methodius and Life of St. Clement of Ohrid, referred also by Boba) seem to contradict Boba's theory. For example, the escape of the Slavonic priests to Bulgaria, as described in the primary sources, indicates that Great Moravia was not located south of the Danube. In regard to different points of view, both theories are correct. East Franks understood Carantania, Pannonia (Transdanubia) and Old Slavonia (Slavonia and north Bosnia) as territories south of the Danube river, but Bulgarians understood territories south of the Danube to be where present-day Bulgaria is. By critical estimation, Great Moravia, even its core territories south of the Danube (Carantania, Panonia, Slavonia) is probable, thus an escape to Bulgaria does not contradict the Great Moravia existence south, nor north of Danube river.
• Boba also emphasized that Saint Methodius was made Archbishop of Syrmium, a town south of the Danube. The opposite view states that the see in Syrmium was only symbolic, because Syrmium had formerly been the see of an archdiocese in the past, but Boba and his followers indicated that the consecration of Methodius for a symbolic see would have violated canon law in the 9th century. Boba's opponents also pointed out that the church claimed by Boba to be the resting place of Methodius in Syrmium turned out to be founded two hundred years after Methodius' death and no medieval settlement existed in Syrmium before 1000.
• In addition, Boba argued that the continuity of the Slavonic liturgy and the uninterrupted use of the Glagolitic alphabet in the Catholic Church can be proven south of the Danube, while such tradition did not exist uninterruptedly north of the Danube. In reality, the Slavonic liturgy survived in some places north of the Danube until 1097. Boba claimed that this tradition came to the Monastery of Sázava from Vyshhorod in the Kievan Rus'.
• Great Moravia was often mentioned as Sclavonia in the primary sources, and this denomination may have survived the fall of the empire in the name of Slavonia (a territory south of the Danube) until the 20th century. But Boba's opponents point out that the same Latin name Sclavonia also referred to Slovakia and those northern parts of Hungary that were inhabited by Slavs. On the other hand, the Latin denomination Sclavonia for the territories of present-day Slovakia was documented only in 1512.
• Another of Boba's claims was that archaeological findings attributed to the Moravians north of the Danube should be reclassified because they show clear nomadic characteristics (i.e., men and their horses buried together). But these characteristics are known only from some of the earliest graveyards, from the regions influenced by the nomad Avars. There is also a "sharp contrast in the archaeological record" between the politically and economically developed regions of Moravia and Slovakia (the location of Boba's opponents) on the one hand, and the sparsely populated Slavonia (Boba's location) on the other.

In the 1990s, the Hungarian historian, the late Gyula Kristó also mentioned that some sources allow one to suppose that Great Moravia was located around the Great Morava River, south of the Danube. Later, he stated that some primary sources refer to the existence of two Moravian polities ("Great Moravia" and "Moravia") lying on the territories where Senga Toru located them.

American historian Charles R. Bowlus reconstructed the military infrastructure of southeastern marches of the Carolingian Empire based on recent research concerning the nature of Frankish warfare and the logistical system that supported it, as well as careful study of the evidence derived from itineraries, land grants, and prosopography in 1995. The research concluded that a relatively large body of reliable evidence in Frankish charters and deeds demonstrated that members of leading marcher kindreds can be documented in Carantania, and thus Carantania became center of gravity of the system of marcher lordships on the east of Bavaria.

People

Please see Moravians (tribe). --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

independence

According to Rogers Moravia was under suzerainty of Frankish kings until 855. However, he also argues that "the end of German rule was caused by a dynastic crisis that helped Svatopluk to take power. Independence was gained in 874". So, Why does the lead state that Moravia was independent between 855 and 874? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Because of a misunderstanding of the source. In 855, the East Frankish troops could not defeat the rebelling Moravians, but in 864 Rostislav was again forced to accept Louis the German's suzerainty. Borsoka (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Former country template should be deleted

There is not a single piece of information on the template which is certain: (1) the name of the polity is artificial - Constantine's "Great Moravia, the unpaptized" located somewhere along the Tisza became a Christian polity along the northern Morava river; (2) the map presents a "Great Moravia" depicted by the imagine of fans of Romantic nationalism; (3) the dates of Moravia's establishment and fall are uncertain; (4) the periods when Moimir I and II reigned cannot exactly be determined; and (5) Moimir I was only the first known ruler of Moravia. What is the added value of this template which cannot provide any certain data?

There will be allways someone stating that man never landed on the Moon. I provided you all references needed, what more do you want?. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but reliable sources will probably never deny the landing on the moon. However, in case of Moravia all the above mentioned facts are debated by specialist of the early medieval history of Central Europe in books published by academic institutions. Borsoka (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the specialist opinions can be also included in a text. But please do not delete facts already mentioned in a text.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you specifically mention which facts mentioned in the text were deleted by me? Borsoka (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this modified text ok? (Emerging of GM) All opinions are now included.. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading all the relevant sources, the only more or less widely accepted fact is that Moravia (or one of the two Moravias) emerged along the northern Morava river. However, the exact circumstances are debated, as it is described in details in the main text of the article. Therefore, I think we should summarize the main text. Borsoka (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

For me it is important info and should be included in a head paragraph. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what is the important info for you. Borsoka (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This info, which are you still trying to delete. - Emerging of the empire and greatest territorial extent. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

??????? Borsoka (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok more specifically for you> According to some historians, it was founded in 833 when Mojmír I unified two neighboring states, "Principality of Nitra" and the "Principality of Moravia", by force.[6][7][8] This opinion is disputed by other historians, who sees the emergence of empire even earlier. And: The polity reached its largest territorial extent under Svatopluk I (871–894), when not only present-day Moravia and Slovakia but also present-day northern and central Hungary, Lower Austria, Bohemia, Silesia, Lusatia, southern Poland and northern Serbia belonged to the empire, but the exact borders of his domains are still disputed by modern authors. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. The relevant info is included in the lead section. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Now this is better if you mention Mojmir and Pribina. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Name

I think it is important to mention what was the official term for the Moravian state in the primary sources: Moravian Realm (lat.: regnum Marahensium, Marahavorum, Marauorum, Margorum, old church slavic: Моравьска область, translitered Moravьska oblastь) or Moravia (lat. Marawa, Maraha, Marauia, old church slavic: Morava, Murava, Marava). See Havlík: Kronika o Velké Moravě, p. 354-355 and Havlík: Svatopluk Veliký, p. 22. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For the years 869 to 870 there are also the terms Moravian Realms (regna Marahensium), Moravian Lands (Moravьskyję strany), the upper Moravias (vyšnęję Moravy, vyšnьnii Moravě), Realm of Rastislav (regnum Rastizi) and Realm of Svatopluk (regnum Zwentibaldi). --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, I fully agree with you. Please add those denominations to the text and the proper reference. (Sorry, I only add text to articles based on sources I can read, and I do not have access to the source you mentioned above.) Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright I will add it in a few days. But should it be in the head line or in the chapter Name? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think in the chapter "Name". They are not modern denominations used by modern academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I inserted it into the text, do you agree? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Territory in the head line

Moravia reached its largest territorial extent under Svatopluk I (r. 870–894), who was occasionally styled as king in contemporaneous sources. Although his empire's borders cannot exactly be determined, he controlled, in addition to the core territories of Moravia, parts of present-day Austria, Hungary, and Poland for a longer or shorter period during his reign.

I think this text shall be a little bit extended. For example Svatopluk I controlled whole Bohemia, which was not part of the Moravian core territories (the historic region of Moravia and Western Slovakia). Also according to some sources he (probably) controlled parts of prestent-day Germany (the Sorbs) and Romania, what should be also mentioned in the text. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that Bohemia should be added (because he surely controlled this territory). However, I would avoid using weasel words, such as "he p o s s i b l y / p r o b a b l y controlled parts of Germany and Romania" (I refer to Bartl et al 2002 page 22). Actually, nothing proves that the Sorbs whenever accepted his suzerainty. Borsoka (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, I absolutely unterstand your point of view and I appreciate your critical nature just looking for facts! I think the territory of the Moravian Realm is generally a question that needs to be discussed and at least a little bit solved here (it would be for example really nice to have some new maps of Moravia, showing the sure and possible borders of the state, which would be accepted by Czech and Slovak as well as by the Hungarian and German Users). To the Romanian territory (Transylvania) the historian Lubomír E. Havlík refers to Constantin VII "De Administrando Imperio" chapter 40, were Constantin localized a Moravian statehood around the transylanian rivers Tisza, Timiș and Körös. Havlík also refers to Simon of Kézas Gesta Hunnorum e Hungarorum, II, 23, were Simon writes that Svatopluk also reigned over the Bulgarians, and the "Gesta Hungarorum", chapter 11, 19. (Havlík: Kronika o Velké Moravě, p. 200 a. 230.) With regard to the Sorbs I unfortunatly can't mention the concrete source at the moment, but I know that there is a German source from the 10. century which claims that Svatopluk reigned over the Sorbs. I will add it later. So whats your opinion about this Borsoka? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do not oppose that we mention all these views. I only would like to avoid the presentation of scholarly theories as facts. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! So lets make clear what territories can be referred to as sure and what as probably under Moravian control. We could approach in way of mention the territories we do think that were part of Moravia and mention the primary (and secondery) sources confirming our claims. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

At last I would like to assure you that I wont support any fairy tales. If something was not sure in the past and is not sure today I will on no account try present it in this article as a fact. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. This should be extended, if not in a lead, so at least in the Territory paragraph. Map with sure and possible borders is a great idea, you do have my support. I did some maps jpgs recently, but i dont have much exact informations about borders as you guys. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the German version of the Great Moravia article, then you can see three new maps which were made by a college of me, but unfortunately they are just based on a Slovak atlas map and are not the result of a discussed consensus of Slovak, Czech, German and Hungarian maps and opinions. If we do succeed with our discussion here and find a consensus, it would be great if you could prepare some maps based on our conclusions. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, they are excellent maps. I think it is not an issue that they do not present a consensual view: we could add a caption which states that they present "Moravia under X, according to XY", or could add that "there is no consensual view of the borders of Moravia". Just one remark, I think this is not a debate among Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and Hungarians, but a debate among historians (for instance, I do not have knowledge of a consensual "Hungarian" view either). Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right that there is for sure no "official" Hungarian or Slovak view, but for example I've never seen a Slovak or Czech map of the Moravian Realm, on which Svatopluk wouldn't rule over Pannonia, while I've seen a lot of them in German and Hungarian atlases. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So if we look at this map, is this the maximum possible extend of GM? What territories should be marked as possible? Or should be some added? Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

According to my present knowledge, the following are the "problematic territories":

• Great Hungarian Plain (the territories to the south and southeast of the hills in the northwestern parts of Hungary): I refer to the maps presented by Spiesz, Caplovic (2006) on page 365, and Kirschbaum (1995) on page xi
• Pannonia: "there is little clear archaeological or written evidence [...] of a permanent extension of Moravian centralization of power [...] as has been claimed by some historians - into Pannonia" (Barford 2001, page 110)
• Lausitz, Sorben and Silesia: "Svatopluk took advantage of the peace with Arnulf [...] to subjugate the Czech lands and probably also Lusatia and Silesia" (Bartl et al, 2002, page 22) - this wording suggests that only the annexation of the Czech lands is without doubt

I suggest that the names of the towns should also be consequently modified (for instance, why Venedig which is the German form instead of the local one, but Nitra and Olomouc which are not the German forms but the local ones?). Borsoka (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reason for the Slavic names is simple. Nitra is nowadays the most common German term for this Slovak city, and its also the older one (mentioned 833 and 880). In the German speaking area (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) it is the common practice to use for all geographic names those words, that are most often used in the German language. Thats why it is Nitra not Neutra, but Venedig and not Venezia. So I don't know the norms for English maps, maybe you can clear me up. I think one more question will be, how we should call the Moravian Realm on the map for the English article. For the German Wikipedia we used the term Mährerreich (Moravian Realm), but this is not really used by English sources. I would really like to avoid the problematic term of "Great" Moravia. In question to the debatable territories I will answer later. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the above clarification. (1) As far as I know, the same approach is applicable in English WP. Therefore, Venedig should be modified to Venice. (2) I think "Great Moravia" is not probelmatic, because it is often used in reliable sources written by "neutral" authors (for instance, I refer to Curta 2006). (Personally, I do not like this expression, but my personal view is totally irrelevant against reliable sources.) Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So the Great Hungarian Plain in Hungary, Panonia, Lusatia and Silesia should be marked as possible? I think that the sources provided by Trimnapaschkan are reliable enough for the Romanian territory Transylvania, what about a source for Lusatia (Sorbs)? Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, when I wrote of the "Great Hungarian Plain", I was also thinking of the territories in present-day Romania (you know the lowlands ignore state borders). Sorry. The above cited maps (Kirschbaum, and Spiesz, Caplovic) do not present any territories to the south of the Danube and the hills in northwestern Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, for the Sorbs, the only source I found and that is cited by modern authors is Thietmar of Merseburg, who claimes that the Svatopluks realm riched up to the Saale and that the Sorbs paid tribut to the Moravians.[1] In question to the debatable territories. I think the only two areas apart from the Moravian core territorys (Moravia and Slovakia) that were without any doubt under Svatopluks reign are the territories of the Vistulans (mentioned by the Life of Methodius?) and the Bohemians (mentioned by Regino and the Anals of Fulda). The status Pannonia is debated even under the two most important Czech historians Havlík and Třeštík. So according to Havlík Svatopluk captured Pannonia in 884, when Svatopluks army defeated the Franks and the Moravian troops did not withdraw from Pannonia, so the whole area between the Rába and the Drava came under Moravian controle.(Havlík 1994, p. 60.) Havlík argue also with the fact that Arnulfs delegates needed to use the Sava river for their trip to Bulgaria because of Svatopluks trap (Annals of Fulda 892). Furthermore Havlík refers to the Simon of Kéza who writes that Svatopluk, the son of Morot, reigned over the Moravians, Bulgarians and also in Pannonia.(Havlík 1994, p. 60.) All the same, Dušan Třeštík writes that whether the result of the fights for Pannonia [882 to 884] was some occupation or a kind of loose overpower, we don't know nothing for sure (Třeštík, Počátky Přemyslovců, 1997 and 2008, p. 281.) About Transylvania I've mentioned my knowledge above. For Silesia Třeštík writes that there is some reference to it in the unsure Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague and that the geographical logic has a comment to it. (Třeštík, 1997 and 2008, p. 281.)

At least I would like to show you guys two maps of the most important Slovak and Czech historians for Great Moravia:

1. the supposed borders of the Moravian realm proposed by Ján Steinhübel (2004) [2], this map on Wikipedia is based on Steinhübels proposal [3]
2. the borders of the Moravian realm as proposed by Czech historian Lubomír E. Havlík (1994) [4], p. 93.

So what do you think about it? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Bohemia, Moravia, parts of Slovakia and Vistulania are mentioned by most reliable sources as territories controlled for at least some years by Svatopluk I. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Two more notes. I think there is also no doubt about it that parts of Northern Austria till the Danube were part of the Moravian core territory. Furthermore I think that "parts of Slovakia" is not correct, but that if not the whole than at least the greatest part of modern Slovakia was part of the core territory of Svatopluks realm. For now I don't know the exact sources but I am sure there is written and archeological evidence for Austria and arheological evidence for Slovakia (what about Barford?). --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: the greatest part of Slovakia (with the exception of the easternmost zone) and parts of Austria north of the Danube belonged to Moravia, at least according to Kirschbaum (1995).

So it's getting a bit complicated:) for me the Chronicle of Cosmas is a reliable source, we have learned much and much lessons in school from it as i remember, so should be Silesia marked as confirmed? Agree now Borsoka that (by Thietmar of Merseburg), the realm reached Saale? Panonia, Lusatia, Great Hungarian Plain up to Romania are possible territories, right? Thanks's for answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, please read what a reliable source means in our community. Both Thietmar of Merseburg and Cosmas of Prague (even the latter is taught in schools) are primary sources and not peer-reviewed scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Lusatia and Silesia are disputed, thank's. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Moravian core territories = historic Land of Moravia + Western and Middle Slovakia + Parts of Northern Austria till the Danube+ Parts of Northern Hungary.

Extention under Svatopluk I = Bohemia (sure), Vistulia (sure), Pannonia (diputed), Lusatia and Silesia (disputed), Great Hungarian Plain and Romanian Territories (disputed). Thats how I would summarize it. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for the above mistake ("neither Theotmar...., nor Cosmas...." instead of "both Theotmar.... and Cosmas...."). Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have quickly sketched a map. All critics are welcome:) I know that there are a lot of more work with boundaries. But are the regions at least roughly right? Thanks's for your answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Map - Svatopluk

Improved resolution, borders edited and added captions. What do you think Trimnapaschkan and Borsoka? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Map - Svatopluk, 2

Dear Jirka.h23, first of all congratiulations for your work. For me, the presentation of territories to the east of the Tisza is really surprising, even if they are mentioned as "possible territories". Likewise surprising is the presentation of territories to the south of the Danube (Pannonia) and to the south of the hills in northeastern Hungary (the lowlands between the Danube and the Tisza) as territories which surely belonged to Great Moravia for any time. I refer to the above cited reliable sources. By the way, reliable sources should be added to the map as well. Borsoka (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction, later i will look more closely at these territories. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka, thank you for doing this really good job! I agree with Borsoka that the territories south the Danube in Pannonia should be marked as "possible territories" and that the reliable sources should be added somehow to the map. But on the other hand I do think that the territories between the Danube and the Tisza can be seen as "sure territories". One more time I am not able to mention the exact sources for now, but I am sure that this case has to be proven seriously because I am pretty sure about this areas (if not already under Rastislav than under Svatopluk at the latest). As I see you used this map of Steinhübel for your work, I would mention the territories Nr. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 19 as sure, the rest as possible (also Nr. 12). To mark the the territories east to the Tisza as "possible territories" is in my opinion right, because both, Havlík and Steinhübel show them on there maps refering to the sources I've already mentioned above (Konstantin VII, Simon of Kéza, Anonymus). Furthermore, though I really appreciate your work and time you spend on it, I think it would be the best to have a updated version of the German map, based on the territories you marked in your work. Do you agree? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: I would mention the whole core territory as Moravia, the "Principality of Nitra" included. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, neither the map presented by Spiesz, Caplovic (2006) on page 365, nor Kirschbaum (1995) on page xi present the territory between the Danube and the Tisza as part of Moravia: only the hills in the northwestern part of Hungary are marked in those maps. Consequently, the status of these lands is highly dubious. Borsoka (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Borsoka, in that case it is clear. No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 and 19 sure, the rest possible, do you agree with me? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The map on page xi in Kirschbaum (1995) fails to mark the territory No. 3. So I suggest that No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11 and 19 are to be deemed "sure". Borsoka (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not able to look at Kirschbaums map, but could it be that he failed to mark No. 3 because according to him it wasn't conquered before Svatopluk? You know there is a difference between the core territory under Mojmir and Rastislav on the one and under Svatopluk on the other hand. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, he presents the whole territory of his Great Moravia (including all the annexed territories, for instance, the land of the Vistulans). Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that is quite interesting, as all other maps I know show this area as part of the Moravian realm. Not only Czech and Slovak scientific maps as Steinhübel and Havlík presented them, or mainstream Literature maps like Dušan Kováč (2000): History of Slovakia, p. 26, Daniel Gurňák (2006): Štáty v premenách storočí. MAPA Slovakia Plus, p. 10., Ján Dekan (1980): The Great Moravian Empire. Its Art and Times. also add No. 3 to Moravia. I also refer to the most important German historian for Czech and Slovak history, Jörg Konrad Hoensch (1997): Geschichte Böhmens [History of Bohemia]. C.H.Beck Verlag, p. 39, or the Austrian maps of Wilhelm J. Wagner (2006): Bildatlas zur Geschichte Österreichs [Picture Atlas to the History of Austria], p. 65 and Manfred Scheuch (2007): Historischer Atlas Österreich [History Atlas Austria], p. 21. (Wagner clearly refers even to Zemplín as a Moravian castle) I think Barford sees it also as part of Moravia. Does Kirschbaum have any explanation to the territories of the Moravian realm? Are there any other mentionable historians that agree with Kirschbaum? If he is the only one I would say No. 3 can be mentioned as sure territory. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If we summarize it: 8, 9 and 10 should be presented as posible, what about 7? It is north of the Danube river. Number 12 - also possible, right? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've overseen it, No. 7 is sure. No. 8, 9, 10 and 12 are possible. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So the regions are now edited, thank you very much both. I have mentioned you at info below the image. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Great Moravia

It looks really good, but I think the territory of Slovakia should be mentioned like modern Moravia as "Moravia" and not as Nitra. Also the term "Moravia" could be written as "M O R A V I A", as it was the core territory of the realm and as such the most important one. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i will join them. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think "core territories of Great Moravia" or "proven territories of Great Moravia" would be much better than the simple "Great Moravia" form. The light green territories could be named as "possible territorial extensions" or "possible territories under Moravian control". Fakirbakir (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would support explanations like "Moravia under Svatopluk I: proven (dark green) and possible (light green) territories under Moravian control". Neither Bohemia nor Wislania belonged to the Moravian core territory. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Trimnapaschkan, as Bohemia was not in the core of GM but its territorial extension. With "possible territories under Moravian control" and "proven territories of Great Moravia" i have no problem. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I support Trimnapaschkan's proposal (and I could accept "Great Moravia" as well, since "Great Moravia" was Svatopluk's Moravia, according to Constantine VII :) .

Captions are changed, but i kept Great Moravia as both Fakirbakir and Borsoka accepted it, is it ok finally?:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Nice map for a start. Congratulations Jirka! --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, now we should prepare a second map of Moravia under Mojmir I and Rastislav, I think that shouldn't be as much work as Moravia under Svatopluk I. I would support No. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 as sure territores under Mojmir I (since 833 at the latest) and 3 as extention under Rastislav. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but map is up to you now:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also I would now propose the following sentence for the head line: Although his empire's borders cannot exactly be determined, he controlled, in addition to the core territories of Moravia, other neighboring regions (including Bohemia and parts of present-day Hungary and Poland, further extentions till Germany or Romania are disputed) for a longer or shorter period during his reign. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And Slovakia? I would propose: Although his empire's borders cannot exactly be determined, he controlled in addition to the core territories (Moravia and greatest part of Slovakia) other neighboring regions, including Bohemia and parts of present-day Hungary and Poland, for a longer or shorter period during his reign, further extentions till Germany or Romania are disputed by some modern historians. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be more precise, however the term "Moravian core territories" also includes Slovakia :) Maybe it should be clearly mentioned somewhere in the text. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone knows it:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And also parts of Austria. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright then please add it to the head line. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is that the map which does not make distinction between Moravia and Nitra, now only presents a POV (which is, I guess, mainly represented by Czech scholars). All the books written by Slovak historians which are cited in the article clearly distinguish the Moravian core territories from the Principality of Nitra. I think the caption should reflect that the map only presents a POV in this respect as well. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why dont you expressed your misgiving before i changed the image? So you think that by Slovak historians Moravia and Nitra should be distinguish in the map? What do other historians say? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you read all relevant reliable sources before making a map? :) Please read the works written by Slovak historians which are cited in the article: they claim that two principalities (Moravia and Nitra) existed before the latter's occupation by Mojmir. All the same, I think (as I suggested above) that only the text should be modified in order to make it clear that the map presents a POV (according to which, Nitra never existed as an independent polity). Borsoka (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But this image presents map during the Svatopluks reign, not that Nitra earlier existed as an independent polity. One more thing, if i look at this map: Nitra moravia 833.png Nitra reach south to the Hungary, i think this should be specified in my image, also there have been founded archaeological evidence of a Moravian settlement. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So Borsoka, as you do not answer for almost a week i see that you agree with me, right? So i will keep there MORAVIA, because its not POV as it is not before occupation by Mojmir and will extend that sure territories. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

But you disputed areas south of the Danube river and as i see archaeological evidence was found only at Esztergom. So i think i will mention only this small area or keep it like that. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jirka.h23, sorry for delaying with the answer. Sincerely, I think that the "Principality of Nitra" never existed. However, all Slovak historians mention it as an actual polity which was unified with Moravia into Great Moravia and which preserved its special status within Great Moravia. At the end of the day, for me it is not important. I always enjoy any reference to archaeological finds proving that this or that settlement belonged to this or that polity. Was an early medieval map founded which proves that Esztergom was whenever part of Great Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Esztergom was in the 9th century called Ostrihom and was one of the most important castles of Great Moravia. Do you agree with it? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. However, nothing proves it. Borsoka (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Strěgom" or "Strigonium" but definitely not "Ostrihom". Esztergom#Names. And what about 'Ister' (a Latin name of Danube) and 'Gam' (river Garam) ? :) Fakirbakir (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be enough to mention Nitra kind of (Nitra) or something like that. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean in image or text? Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline and Fall

Dear Fakirbakir, I know that the concrete year when the Magyars defeated Moravia is disputed, but just to list the different authors and their views in this case is in my opinion insufficient. We have clear evidence by primary sources (Annales Fuldenses) and contemporery sources (Swabian World Chronicle, Hermann of Reichenau) for the year 902 that the Magyars were defeated by the Moravians. As far as I know, only the unsure Annales Alamannici mention that the Bavarian army was defeated 902 in Moravia and that there were also fights between Bavarian troops and the Hungarians in 903. Also the Raffelstetten Customs Regulations are not dated only to 903, but between 903 and 906. For 906 the Chronicle of Widukind of Corvey also mention that the Hungarians were defeated by the Moravians. I think this sources need to be considered in the chapter. Afterwards we can mention the different scholary views. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Raffelstetten Customs Regulations" proves nothing. Yeah, the market was working in 903, however we do not know if it happened under Moravian or Hungarian control. How do you explain Bona's source (he cited a written source)? "902-ben Morávia „usque ad solum” – a föld színéig – történt leverése" --"Moravia was destroyed to earth in 902". Fakirbakir (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just checked his source is a contemporary source ,the Chronicon by Regino of Prum. "“Circa haec etiam tempora Zuendibolch rex Marahensium Sclavorum, vir inter suos prudentissimus et ingenio calidissimus, diem clausit extremum; cuius regnum filii eius pauco tempore infeliciter tenuerunt, Ungaris omnia usque ad solum depopulantibus”." Fakirbakir (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fakirbakir, Bóna does not mention that Regino writes that Moravia was destroyed in 902, and Regino did not write that Moravia was destroyed in 902. The standard English translation of most of the above texts from Regino is provided in the article: (1) Svatopluk, "a man most prudent among his people and very cunning by nature" (=vir inter suos prudentissimus et ingenio calidissimus) (2) his "sons held his kingdom for a short and unhappy time, because the Hungarians utterly destroyed everything in it" [=cuius regnum filii eius pauco tempore infeliciter tenuerunt, Ungaris omnia usque ad solum depopulantibus]. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"majd 902-ben Morávia „usque ad solum” – a föld színéig – történt leverése".... So, Why did Bona (and others) write that Great Moravia was destroyed in 902?? Do you know Regino's work? I am pretty sure Bona knew that record quite well. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the source for the year of 902? According to Peter Kiraly[5] "Moraviának a honfoglaló magyarok által történt „elpusztítását”, ezt a leegyszerűsítő megfogalmazást, a történeti tényekkel összhangban árnyaltabban kell értékelni. A magyarok moraviai pusztítására valóban találunk adatokat, ilyenek: 890. és 892. (Arnulf keleti frank király szövetségeseiként), 894. (a magyarok mindent egészen a földig elpusztítottak), 902. (a (morva) haza legyőzetett) --- Translation: 902. the land of the Moravians is defeated; Moravia (a nagy Morva Birodalom) azonban 906—907-ig létezett, és mintegy 12—13 évig Svatopluk halála (904) után is fennmaradt. " Fakirbakir (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have it and I have read it - Regino does not mention the year in connection with the fall of Moravia (and Bóna does not state that 902 is a date mentioned by Regino). According to the Annales Alamminici the Bavarians fought against Hungarians in Moravia in 902; thereafter there is no certain contemporaneous reference to Moravia (see: Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#The Hungarian conquest#Consolidation (902–907) - the books of Spinei and Kristó are cited in the relevant text). All the same, no primary source add an exact date for the fall of Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It helps a lot. I am going to check the proper text of the "Annales Alamannici" (and the Annales Fuldenses+Swabian World Chronicle) because I do not understand why I do read clashing options about it (e.g. "Moravians defeated Hungarians" vs. "Hungarians defeated Moravians" in the year of 902). Fakirbakir (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the text is totally misty: it was written by a (most probably) Swabian monk of (most probably) Bavarians fighting in Moravia against Hungarians and the Swabian monk only stated that the "land succumbed". Good work. :) Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the Annales Fuldenses Continuatio Altahensis, the Swabian World Chronicle and the Chronicle of Hermann of Reichenau the Moravians defeated the Hungarians in 902, according to the Chronicle of Widukind of Corvey the Moravians defeated the Hungarians also in 906. The Annales Alamminici mention that the Bavarians were defeated in Moravia by the Hungarians in 902. Regino of Prüm does not mention a concrete date, but as far as I know he finished his chronicle by 908, so the destruction of the Moravian realm by the Hungarians must have taken place in or before this year. We also have the Raffelstetten Customs Regulations and we know, that no Moravian army participated on the Battle of Pressburg. I think it is also important to mention that Kurszán was murdered by the Bavarians in 904, as historians like the Czech Professor Wihoda write, that the Fall of Moravia was a result of the Hungarian revenge against the Bavarians and there Moravian allies. (Martin Wihoda: Morava v době knížecí 906–1197 [Moravia in the era of Prince rulership 906–1197]. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, Prag 2010, ISBN 978-80-7106-563-0, p. 87.) --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, thank you for your remarks. I have only access to Widukind's chronicle, which does not mention any Moravian victory over the Hungarians in 906. Victor Spinei also clearly states that there is no certain reference to the Moravian state after 902 in (nearly) contemporaneous sources. All the same any scholarly theory based on reliable sources can be mentioned in this article. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, it is not Widukind's chronicle but the Annalista Saxo and the chronicle of Ekkehard of Aura. I have to say that unfortunately I have no access to none of this sources, I know them just from the Czech chronicle edition of Lubomír E. Havlík, Kronika o Velké Moravě [Chronicle about Great Moravia]. As the Annalista Saxo and Ekkehars chronicle are from the 12th century and the chronicle of Hermann of Reichnau from 11th century, Spinei is right that these are no nearly contemporaneous sources. I am just wondering about the Annales Fuldenses Continuatio Altahensis, I don't know what they really are. Havlík mentioned for the year 902 the Annales of Fulda: The Hungarians attack the Moravians and defeated in the fight they run away. But the normal Annales of Fulda are just written till the year 901. All the same, Martin Eggers citate the same text under the source Annales Fuldenses Continuatio Altahensis, ad 902. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

factual accuracy

At the sections of architecture and religion I was able to check one of the given sources (Goldberg). The sentences were dissimilar from the cited source. I am still "worried" about the rest of the text. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. There are really interesting sentences (for instance, Devín defending "Great" Moravia against attacks from the West) and POV statements (Nitra as the second center of "Great" Moravia or Zemplín described as a "Great" Moravian castle). Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside of Zemplin sentence (since it was founded in 12th century), other two points are not interesting, nor POV. Just accepted facts. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Zeplin was not founded in the 12th century. It was fortified already in the 1th century B.C. Between 9-11th centuries Slavs strengthened and extended older walls and built there their own fortification.[6]--Ditinili (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)