Talk:Bihar County

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation needed[edit]

Why do you think that Bihar County was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary till 1920? Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current version of the article Bihar county was continuously a part pf Hungary between the 11th century and 1920. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles must be verifiable. 95.103.200.114 (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article. For instance, the article says (based on reliable sources) that "Modern historians agree that the county was established between 1020 and 1050, most probably by Stephen I, the first king of Hungary, or possibly by his successor, Peter.". Do you suggest, that the first king of Hungary established a county in an other country? Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox claims that Bihar County was a "County of the Kingdom of Hungary" between the 11th century and 1920, which is not accurate. For instance, there is no Bihar County belonging to Hungary in year 1683, which is a year "between the 11th century and 1920". 84.16.39.44 (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what is the source of your above statement? Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by your knowledge gaps. I'll provide quotes from different authors:
  • "For a period of about twenty-five years after 1660 Varad became an eyalet" (from Peter F. Sugar, Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804)
  • "In 1660, Varad (Varad) fell to the Ottomans. The main stronghold protecting Transylvania from the west became the seat of a new vilayet" (from Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe: The Military Confines ... edited by Pál Fodor,Géza Dávid)
  • "In 1660, the Ottomans invaded Transylvania (...) and incorporated Partium under direct Ottoman rule" (from Historical Atlas of Central Europe by Paul Robert Magocsi) 81.89.49.212 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may not know, but Partium means "the parts of the Kingdom of Hungary" and the princes of Transylvania bore the title "dominus partium Hungriae" ("Lord of the parts of Hungary") in reference to their rule in the parts of Hungary proper to the east of the river Tisza (I refer to Cartledge, Bryan (2011). The Will to Survive: A History of Hungary. C. Hurst & Co. ISBN 978-1-84904-112-6, page 92). According to specialist Zoltán Fallenbüchl, Ferenc Rhédey was head, or ispán, of Bihar County between 1654 and 1669, which shows that Bihar County did not cease to exist after the Ottomans incorporated its capital, Nagyvárad in 1660 (Fallenbüchl 1994, page 69.). Borsoka (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't provided any source indicating the existence of Bihar County in the period 1669-1692. 213.215.79.224 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my above remark more carefully. Fallenbüchl writes of an ispán of Bihar County (Ferenc Rhédey) who held this office between 1654 and 1669 and the same author writes that between 1681 and 1702 Ágost Benkovics held the same office. You may not know, but Nagyvárad (the seat of the county) is not identical with the whole county. You have not provided any reliable sources stating that Bihar County did not exist between 1669 and 1692. Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any trace of Bihar county on this map presenting the situation from 1683. 193.87.112.84 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what a reliable source means for WP purposes: WP itself is not a reliable source for its own purposes. Furthermore, do you see Győr County, Vass County on the same map? This is not a map about the administrative division of the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this map from 1664 and make and estimation where Bihar County could be situated. I don't see any possible place, because all of its former territory was under Ottoman occupation. 193.87.112.84 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I do not know the exact borders of Bihar County. Does this source state that Bihar County did not exist, and its heads did not exist either? Borsoka (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this Hungarian source affirms that Benkovics Ágost was in 1692 bishop, not count. 78.98.235.118 (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ágost Benkovics was bishop of Várad and ispán, or count, of Bihar County (Fallenbüchl 1994, page 69.). Please read what WP:NOR means. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source Ágost Benkovics was bishop of Varad and hereditary főispán of Bihar between 1688-1702. The same source affirms that in the 17th century there was a gap (1660-1668) when there was no főispán (it could also be a typing error here and the gap could be in fact 1660-1688, because there are no information presented about the period 1668-1688). 178.40.227.201 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you identify the source you cited above? Who wrote it, when was it published and by which publicher? Fallenbüchl writes that between 1670 and 1680 the head of Bihar County was "ismeretlen; nescitur" (="unknown") (Fallenbüchl 1994, p. 69.) The same specialist writes in connection with an other county (Békés County), that "nincs főispán;non sunt supremi comites" (="there are no heads of the county") between 1566 and 1686 (Fallenbüchl 1994, p. 66.) - the whole territory of Békés County was incorporated in the Ottoman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the list you can find the text "Összeállította : Pásti Judit". Her works are here. I guess the list is from Pásti Judit : Bihar vármegye főispánjai Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Levéltár Évkönyve VI. Szerk.: Gazdag István. Debrecen, 1979. 163–167. . 178.40.108.152 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. Consequently a scholarly work written in 1979 by a non-specialist contradicts to a book published in 1994 by a specialist of archontology. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? How do you dare to say that an author mentioned on the site of the Hungarian National Archives (mnl.gov.hu) is an ureliable one? Do you suggest that between 1979 and 1994 new documents were found and they indicated that the manuscripts which suggested that for a period of time there was no főispán were forgeries?
Please read what I wrote above more carefully. I did not say that her work is an unreliable source. I only wrote that (1) she is not a specialist in the field of archontology, (2) her text was published in 1979, and (3) her text contradicts to a book published by a specialist in 1994. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another text which supports that 1660-1688 period of Turkish occupation when there was no ispán: "Várad eleste után (1660) a vármegye területének túlnyomó rése a törökök birtokába jutott, az egyes várak és kastélyok a hadjárat alatt elpusztultak, lakói elmenekültek vagy a házi tűzhely védelmében estek el, a török invázió elől a földesurak részint Erdélyben, részint Debreczenben kerestek 612menedéket, sőt sokan a felsőmagyarországi részekbe költöztek. Az 1660-1688 közötti időszakban tehát a török volt az úr a vármegye területén." - from http://mek.oszk.hu/09500/09536/html/0005/32.html 88.212.27.222 (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the text more carefully: "a vármegye területének túlnyomó része a törökök birtokába juttott" - this sentence explicitly shows that not the whole county was occupied by the Ottomans. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ispán was the leader of a fortress and the royal lands attached to it. Since the Várad occupoation I doubt that the county continued to exist in 1660-1688. However the data are contradictory (I provided a source which explicitly affirms that there was a period with no ispán) and the map linked above shows that the whole territory of Bihar vármegye was incorporated in the Ottoman empire. More sources are needed to clarify the case. 178.143.84.132 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to refrain from original research (I refer to your statements about the ispáns and their role). There are two reliable sources suggesting that the Ottomans did not occupy the whole territory of Bihar County. I agree with you, that if you want to state that Bihar County was not continously a county of the Kingdom of Hungary, you need to verify your statement based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be a native Hungarian speaker, I am asking you to translate to English the following phrase: "A régi iratok feltehetoen 1660-ban Nagyvárad törökök által történt elfog- lalásakor pusztultak el. 1688-tól ismét vezették a megyei jegyzokönyvet." (source: Péter Balázs, Magyarország levéltárai - 1983 ) 147.213.112.195 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it states that Bihar County ceased to exist? Does it state that Bihar County was not a county of the Kingdom of Hungary? Borsoka (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you refuse to answer my request to translate the text above to English. Interesting.
No, it is not interesting. I only raised two questions that you can easily answer (because you can write two "No"-s). Borsoka (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny that you are asking me to bring sources, while you are not providing any source that Bihar County was a county of the Kingdom of Hungary between 1660-1688. 78.99.102.226 (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above debate more carefully. I referred to Fallanbüchl, who writes that the ispán of the county was unknown between between 1670 and 1680, without stating that there was no ispán (in contrast with Békés County); and you cited a source which says that "almost all" (not the whole!) Bihar County was occupied by the Ottomans. Borsoka (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pásti Judit (an author mentioned on the site of the Hungarian National Archives) writes that there was no ispán during the Ottoman occupation (after 1660)
Also, excluding the Ottoman period, I could nominate the period when Bihar county was a part of the Principality of Transylvania (more exactly of Partium, which is defined in the work Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin as "a geographical collective term this included the territories of the Principality of Transylvania outside - mostly west - of historic Transylvania") 78.99.102.226 (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the fact that there is one reference to the non-existence of the county is only a POV. Furthermore, the non-existence of an ispán does not prove that the county did not exist: for instance, there were no kings of Hungary between 1920 and 1946, but the Kingdom of Hungary existed. Likewise, as I mentioned above (based on a reliable source, Cartledge), "Partium" is the short form of "part of the Kingdom of Hungary": do you want to say that Bihar County was located in "the parts of the Kingdom of Hungary" without being a county of the Kingdom of Hungary? Borsoka (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On this map they say that Partium = "parts of Hungary in the Transylvanian Principality" (parts of Hungary that formerly were a part of Hungary). It is absurd to say that it was simultaneously a part of the Transylvanian Principality and of the K. of Hungary.
The head of the Hungarian People’s Party of Transylvania (PPMT), Toro Tibor talked about an "autonomous Partium" in 2012. Does that mean that the Kingdom of Hungary existed 3 years ago? 91.148.21.65 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above reference to Cartledge's work on this subject. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On this map referring to the year 1606, the "Magyar Királyság" (Kingdom of Hungary) is represented in green, and Várad is not included in it. 77.234.252.94 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Várad was located in the Partium, and Partium is the shortened form of the expression "Partium regni Hungariae" (=parts of the Kingdom of Hungary), as it is proven by the above quote from Cartledge's work. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check the map from the book A Concise History of Hungary by Miklós Molnár where the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary are clearly contoured and Várad is outside of these borders. 82.119.111.82 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to write that Bihar County was located in the "parts of the Kingdom of Hungary" outside the Kingdom of Hungary. Interesting approach. Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Between 1541 and 1688 the Kings of Hungary from the House of Habsburg considered themselves de jure sovereigns of the whole realm of St. Stephen. But that does not mean that all those lands belonged in fact to the Kingdom of Hungary. 95.105.157.140 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check 2 more maps where Bihar is not included in the "Magyar Királyság": Hungary and Transylvania in 1629 and a map presenting the formation of the duchy of Transylvania 188.167.57.196 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar[edit]

Anon, could you cite a source which makes a connection between Bihar County and Bihar (Khazar)? Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can IF you can prove im a word for word quote from a reliable source that Ménmarót's Kazarorszag was anachronistically named after *future* inhabitants of the land who would come with the Magyar invasion and that the Kabars were not simply rebels from the Cozars already settled in Bihar land when the Magyars arrived. 188.29.164.60 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have to verify anything because I do not state anything. Could you verify your claim about the connection between the alleged ruler and Bihar County?Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bihar_County&oldid=1206297410"