File talk:Europe map 1092.PNG

This map has an essential error - Poland was a kingdom since 1025, so it is a mistake calling Poland in 1092 as a "principality". Also at that time Pomeranians did not exist - their lands were included into the Kingdom of Poland about the 1000 AD. Also there is nothing about Prussia.

I am not a historician, so cannot assess if there are mistakes in other regions of Europe, but I really would consider to revise this map by a historician of that time. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.201.167.254 (talk) May 21, 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Normans didn't control anywhere near that much of Wales in the 11th century, either. — OwenBlacker | Discussion 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia wasn't united with Kingdom of Hungary until 1102.

About the Eastern Romance speakers (“Vlachs”) we have here the influence of the Austro-Hungarian historiography on the american one, but real History is not that simple. The Austro-Hungarian and Russian thesis of the «vanishing during thousand years» of the Eastern Romance speakers between 276 and the 14-th century, which the hungarian contributors push here, convinced that only their sources are «international and academic», is only one of three theses, all three of which have arguments and are presented in secondary university sources:

• a first thesis, supported by books like Eduard Robert Rössler, Romänische Studien: untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte Rumäniens ("New Studies: Investigations into the Ancient History of Romania"), Leipzig, 1871 or Béla Köpeczi (dir.), Erdély rövid története ("Abridged History of Transylvania"), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1989, ISBN 9630559013, asserts that the Romance populations disappeared north of the Danube in the 3-th century and did not reappear until the 14-th century at the earliest: the Magyars were therefore the first people in Transylvania;
• a second thesis, supported by books like История на България ("History of Bulgaria") volume III, Sofia 1982 or Ivan Duychev, Идеята за приемствено стта в средновековната българска държава (“The idea of ​​continuity in the medieval Bulgarian state”), in: Проучвания върху средновековната българска история и култ ура (“Studies in Medieval Bulgarian History and Culture”), Sofia 1981, pp. 74–78, states that there were no Roman populations south of the Danube before the 14-th century, these having survived only north of the Danube after the withdrawal of the Roman Empire in the 3-th century: the Southern Slavs and the Proto-Bulgarians were therefore the first peoples in the Balkans;
• a third thesis, supported by books like Rumen Daskalov, Alexander Vezenkov, Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies) Vol. III in Balkan Studies Library, Brill 2015, ISBN 9004290362, or Alexandru Avram, Mircea Babeş, Lucian Badea, Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and Alexandru Vulpe (dir.), Istoria românilor: moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate ("History of the Romanians: the heritage of ancient times") vol.1, ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest 2001, or History of Romania, Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies) 2005, pp. 59–132, ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4, asserts that the Eastern Romance populations never stopped their transhumant pastoral travels between the north and the south of the Danube from the end of the 3-th century to the beginning of the 14-th century and thereafter.
  

Wikipedian contributors do not have to decide between these three theories, but to present all three. Regardless, even if the arguments for all three theories were worthless, insufficient evidence proves neither the absence nor the presence of a population. In any case, it is unrealistic to imagine that the speakers of the Eastern Romance languages could disappear for a thousand years only to reappear inexplicably afterwards, and that this group would be the only one not to able to cross the Danube, the Balkan mountains and the Carpathians, while the Goths, the Slavs, the Avars, the Proto-Bulgarians , the Magyars, the Pechenegs, the Cumans, the Alans, the Tatars and the Ottomans did. Although the activist contributors engage in an editing war to sometimes mention, sometimes erase this group, one fact remains and constitutes in itself irrefutable proof of linguistic continuity between the end of the 3-th and the beginning of the 14-th centuries: the Eastern Romance languages ​​exist north and south of the Danube.
The insistence of the Magyar contributors to remove the maps or mentions which show a continuity north of the Danube is issued from the nostalgia for “Greater Hungary” tragically dismembered in 1920 (by the Allies and in particular the will of the french leader Georges Clémenceau and the american president Woodrow Wilson with his “14 points"), and also in the illusion that if they managed to demonstrate that the Magyars arrived there before the Romanians, this could delegitimize Romanian sovereignty over Transylvania and give Hungary a chance to recover this region.
Magyar contributors have particularly strived to erase this map here and also this other org/wiki/File:RomaniaHistRegions.jpg which, according to them, would be the expression of “Romanian irredentism”. In fact, modern Romania extends over several historical European regions inherited from medieval geography, some of which it shares with its neighbors, including Hungary.
However, these Magyar contributors consider that a historical region cannot belong to several modern countries but must be framed within the current borders of a single one, thus subjecting history to current geography. For them, the adjective românești can only mean «claimed by modern Romania» (while in reality it means «also inhabited by some Romanian populations»). For those who think that Romanians have no history before 1856, a traditional region cannot be a «common historical heritage» (e.g. Hungary and Romania sharing historical regions like Banat or the Körösvidék-Crișana). These ideas are not specific to Romania: there are contributors who think that Italians did not exist before the “Risorgimento” since it was the latter which created the consciousness of being Italian, and that they therefore have no history before 1870. This is why, wherever they can, the Magyar contributors remove this map as well as any historical map which does not adopt their point of view.
These controversies and this mutual denigration prove Winston Churchill right when he said: “The Balkan region has tendency to produce more history than it can consume.”
Some other “sources” (Romanian sources are not “irrelevant” just because they are Romanian):
Nicolae Iorga, Teodor Capidan, Constantin Giurescu : History of the Romanians, Romanian academy, multiple issues
Kristian Sandfeld, Linguistique balkanique ; problèmes et résultats, Champion, Coll. linguistique de la Société linguistique de Paris, Paris, 1930.
Dimitri Kitsikis, La Montée du national-bolchevisme dans les Balkans, Avatar, Paris 2008
Vatro Murvar, The Balkan Vlachs : a typological study, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1956, p. 20
Alain Du Nay, André Du Nay et Árpád Kosztin, Transylvania and the Rumanians, Matthias Corvinus Publishing, 1997, 337 p. ISBN 978-1-882785-09-4, p. 15
Olivier Gillet, «Histoire de la Transylvanie: le différend historiographique hungaro-roumain», in: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 1997, tome 75, fasc. 2, p. 457–485
Georges Castellan, «Quelques problèmes d'histoire entre Hongrois et Roumains», in: Melikov zbornik : Slovenci v zgodovini in njihovi srednjeevropski sosedje, Vincenc Rajšp et al., Ljubljana, Založba ZRC 2001, p. 153–162. 2A01:CB1C:821F:A400:9104:CD3F:AFC9:53FF 10:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB1C:821F:A400:CC90:7009:94D4:1894 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)