File talk:Balkans850.png

2012

Is it 850 or late ninth century? I think the references need pages, as to know which exact borders they support. Byzantine and Bulgarian border fluctuated, and what is the status of Bosnia?--Zoupan (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Change of august 14, 2017

There are not a Principality of Wallachia in this time, but there are a region of Wallachia (Μαβροϐλαχία, Влашка, Vlaška, Влъсиа...) in the bulgarian kingdom (which controlled the salt and gold mines of Bihar Mts.). The names "Wallachians" / "Vlachs" don't means "modern Romanians" but nomadic shepherds in transhumance across the low-Danube bassin and Balkan area, speaking different languages: romance, but also slavic, albanian and others. Please don't trust protochronist PoVs and verify all sources before revert. Thanks. --Mélomène (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Change of 2018, may 22

«Vlasija» is the name of a forest (today deforested). «Valko» means «wolfs» in slavic language. Don't be afraid : the names and peoples of the IX century haven't any influence against the modern hungarian claims, and the bulgarian rule of the IX century don't give arguments to an eventual claim of modern Bulgaria or Romania. It's history, not actual politics. Please ! ;-) --Julieta39 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Changes of 2023, august 5

Despite the opinion of some nationalists who think that everything that does not correspond to their point of view (the Awarenwüste theory of Eduard Rössler) is “false“ and “invented“, this map is inaccurate: the Slavic principality of Blatnograd is confused with the ancient Pannonia, the river Dniester is confused with the Prut, the Aegean islands are already Genoese five centuries in advance, and the Bulgarian lands across the Danube are minimized, with precise borders, when in reality they were often fluctuant; this area is represented without the Bulgarian control on the gold, copper and salt mines in Transylvania (also exploited on the Dacian and Roman times) and the regional name “Wallachia“ were reverted because it has been taken in a modern and narrow sense, concerning only the principality of Wallachia (1330-1859). But the Hungarian contributors restaured the austro-hungarian thesis of “Desert of the Avars” (Avar sivatag) emitted during the 19-th century but reactived since the fall of communism. According with this thesis, the current overborders Magyars (who have become an issue in Hungarian domestic politics with the theme of their historical rights) are historiographically presented in secondary sources as “residual islands” of a Hungarian population that was initially uniform throughout the inner Carpathian arc, but later overwhelmed by “allogenous immigrants”. This thesis denies the presence, at the time of the arrival of the Magyars, of Slavic or Romance populations, affirming that following the massacre of all the Avars by the Carolingians in 805, the Magyars would have found a country devoid of any sedentary inhabitant, despite the attested existence of Slavic states such as Moravia or Blatnozeria and later the “banats” (vassal duchies) of Croatia, Serbia, Wallachians and others with their “seats” and their autonomy.
According to this hungarian thesis of “residual islands”, the diversity of the populations of “millennial Hungary” only began later, from the 13th century, by “immigration from the Balkans”, and would have become “massive" due to the Turkish conquest and then the Habsburgs established their military borders in the 17th century: thus, the Treaty of Trianon would be the culmination of a process of “decline by submersion of the original population”. This electoral theme impacts mainly the secondary sources and the historic maps as this one. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Claude Zygiel, this map depicts the year of 850, the original map has no "Wallachia" name there. Why should we change it? This the nationalism based on the highly disputed Daco-Roman theory that put a non existent "Wallachia" state in the map. Wallachia established in 1330, just 500 years later. Which is clearly a history falsification. I see it is not alien thing for you: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Claude_Zygiel#Manipulating_historical_maps

I see first you tried to overwrite the original map with the falsified one, but other users also noticed this, please do not alter history maps!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg

Then you uploaded separately the falsified map, where even you detached Transylvania and some northern regions from the Kingdom of Hungary. Why? And you put Vlachs and removing the Pechenegs. Then you started to spread everywhere this fake map. Why? It is clearly in the spirit of the disputed Daco-Roman theory. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_1097-corrected.jpg

What next? Do you will cut Kingdom of Hungary half and put a Romanian country there between 800-1300 as in the Romanian fake maps? The national-communist dictator Ceaucescu celebrated the 2050th anniversary of the state of Romania in 1980 in North Korea style. Fake map Dacia! in the 9-13th century [11] Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist times, Romania 9-13th century: [10]

I do not see Wallachia on academic international history maps:

File:Europe 814.jpg

File:Europe 912 en.jpg

File:Europe About A.D. 1000.jpg

File:First.Crusade.Map.jpg

File:Public Schools Historical Atlas - Europe 1135.jpg

File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg

A passing remark by Anna Comnena reveals that nomads of the Balkans were "commonly called Vlachs" around 1100. Follow this logic you could write "Wallachia" in the full Balkan in the map of 1100.

Example: British historian, Martyn Rady https://www.academia.edu/1825911/Nobility_land_and_service_in_medieval_Hungary

"During the late twelfth century, however, the balance of forces on the Danube changed. The nomadic Cumans commenced not only a series of irruptions into both Hungarian and Byzantine territory, but also participated in the Bulgarian revolt, which led to the reestablishment of the Bulgarian empire and to the subsequent loss of the Greek forts on the Lower Danube. Around this time too, Cumans began to settle in large numbers east of the River Olt in the area which would later be known as Cumania. Just a little later, Vlach chieftains are first recorded in this region. A number of these and of their successors bore such Turkic names as Karapeh and Bazarab, while the toponymy of some of the earliest and most densely populated areas of Romanian settlement shows strong evidence of Cuman place-names. All this suggests an early Romanian symbiosis with the Cumans and points to a possible Cuman role in establishing the first Romanian political organizations."

"The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." OrionNimrod (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod: . Hi ! Romanian, Magyar or Slavic nationalism always tends to "erase" what it dislikes to them, but this produces absurdities such as the "Awarenwüste" theory, the idea that the shepherds called "Vlachs" were necessarily all exclusively Romanians, or that the speakers of the Eastern Romance languages would have disappeared for a thousand years from the region to reappear miraculously afterwards, or that they were the only people unable to cross the Carpathians, the Danube and the Balkans, why? because in a nationalist point of view, it is absolutely necessary that they were totally absent either from Transylvania, or from Serbia or Bulgaria.
If the word "Wallachia" bothers you before the begin of the so-called principality in 1330, remove just it on the map or ask me to do so, but this does not mean that Bulgarian control over the mines of the Maros basin should be denied.
"Wallachia" is just a geographical name but its leaders and inhabitants never called it that: it was Romanska zemlya or Tsara romaneaska meaning not "Romanian" but roman in reference to the orthodox Romaioi of the Eastern Roman Empire; another names were Havasalfold ("snow-covered plain"), Bulgarovlahia and Ungrovlahia (the "Wallachia of Bulgary", later " of Hungary" - "Wallachia" meaning "Sheep pasture"). This it known to non-nationalist specialists of the Balkans and Byzantium, whose works are quoted. Viszlát, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Claude Zygiel,

I showed exclusively (non Hungarian made) international history maps. I see, only you who want change those maps as I listed more examples.

Just today I see a possibly Greek user also do not like these history falsifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Crusade&curid=106131&diff=1169629868&oldid=1169611214 OrionNimrod (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod: . OK, each one show a point of view, or another one, but frankly, unless it's statements like "The Holocaust never existed and it's an invention of the Zionists" or "Greeks never lived in Anatolia until the 15-th century", I don't believe that we, editors and mapmakers, are entitled to assert that "this" modification is an improvement and "this other" a falsification. Especially in the case of fluctuant borders, linguistic areas and nomad peoples... In any case, the "Trump & Putin style" is not mine. Carefully, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Claude! Why are you doing this again, we have written about this so much last year? Upload a new file with your alterations, and leave the original history maps unaltered! Enyavar (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Enyavar: . Because there is no scientific reason to consider the Austro-Hungarian thesis (the disappearance of speakers of Eastern Romance languages ​​for a thousand years, and their inability, single-handedly, to cross the Carpathians, the Danube and the Balkans while all other peoples did so) as the only valid one, and the theses of the Balkan historians (as Roman Kovalev, (ed.), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, Brill, pp. 151–236. ISBN 978-90-04-16389-8; Ian Mladjov, “Trans‐Danubian Bulgaria: Reality and Fiction“, in Byzantine Studies, n.s. 3, 1998 [2000], 85–128; Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu, “The North-Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries AD)“ in Ioan-Aurel Pop & Ioan Bolovan (eds.), History of Romania, Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies) 2005, pp. 59–132. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4; Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500, University of Washington Press, 2011 ISBN 0-295-97291-2, [1], or Victor Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century, Koninklijke Brill 2009, ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5) as all false, without any scientific value.
This is why, having understood that an original map should not be modified, I drew another one which shows the other thesis, and clearly warning readers that this is a modified work, so that things are clear. Either way, maintaining the “original“ map and deleting the modified one is tantamount to telling readers that the only right ans serious theory is the Austro-Hungarian one. Have a nice day, as long as we talk nicely, everything is fine. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as you continue to flout the community regulations, you deserved to be banned! GPinkerton (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My little personal status has no importance. As long as community regulations will be used to push some opinions to the detriment of others, the information presented to readers will be biased. So I will continue to draw maps, indicating the sources, but not by transforming the old maps of Shepherd or others, whatever their biases (there is a large cartography from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, from a lot of nationalist sources, or from the Bible like < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Table_of_Nations.jpg >.) --Claude Zygiel (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Spelling

It's Salerno (not Salermo) and Benevento (not Beneveto), --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

en:Stari Ras

Old Ras at the time was not part of Serbia or Serbian. Actually, it wasn't since the 7th century, being a border area between Bulgaria/Bulgarians and Serbia/Serbians in the 9th and 10th century. In DAI it was not listed among inhabited cities of Serbia. According to archaeological research, the fortifications at Ras-Postenje and Ras-Pazarište were abandoned in the early 7th century, and re-settled and renovated in the mid-9th century by the Bulgarians, with the pottery and other material showing Bulgarian origin.[3] The 10th century De Administrando Imperio mentions Rasa as a border area between Bulgaria and Serbia, and not among inhabited cities of Serbia, which is supported by newer research.[4][3] The lack of material of Bulgarian origin in Vrsjenice (assumed to be Serbian city Destinikon), indicates that the border between Serbs/Serbia and Bulgarians/Bulgaria in the 9th and 10th century was at Pešter (to the north at Čačak).[3]

3 Špehar, Perica N. (2019). "Reocupation of the Late Antique Fortifications on the central Balkans during the Early Middle Ages". Fortifications, Defence Systems, Structures, and Features in the Past. Zagreb: Institute of Archaeology. pp. 118–120, 122.

4 Ivanišević, Vujadin; Krsmanović, Bojana (2013). "Byzantine seals from the Ras fortress" (PDF). Recueil des travaux de l'Institut d'études byzantines. 50 (1): 450. Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)