File talk:Great Schism 1054 with former borders.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[Untitled][edit]

I corrected the map according to the following maps:

- http://www.vaticanotours.com/schism.html

- http://www.generationword.com/images/bible_school/maps/church_history/1054_schism.gif

- the map from Serbian history atlas (if you need to check the original map, please contact me)

  • Could you please check the sources below. Thank you.

Note: User:Iaaasi asked me do I have sources about Great Schism, so I sent him an scaned page from one Serbian history atlas that show religion distribution in 1054. According to that source, parts of the Kingdom of Hungary in the east of river Danube are presented as mixed Catholic-Orthodox, while areas of present-day south-eastern Romania, Moldova and south-western Ukraine are presented as mixed Pagan-Othodox. Name of this source is: Dragan Brujić, Vodič kroz svet Vizantije, Beograd, 2004, page 51. I just want to clarify what this source is saying and that I sent scaned page to User:Iaaasi, but I am not arguing which source should be used as basis for this map. PANONIAN (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a debate about it[edit]

Do the borders of the states in this map follow religious or political lines? Please clarify. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map contains several inaccuracies that need to be corrected before it can be used with articles. First: The Livonian coast around the Gulf of Riga was definitely not Christian in 1054. When Saint Meinhard arrived there in 1184, he only found pagan Livonians in the area who over the next 30 years were converted to Catholicism. Second, in 1054 the border between Estonians and the Russian principalities ran along the Narva River and Lake Peipus, mutual raids notwithstanding. This is where the border still lay 150 years later in 1208, when the Livonian Crusade was launched to convert the pagan Estonians to Catholicism. According to the current map, however, the eastern half of Estonia was supposedly Orthodox already by 1054. Please upload a corrected version of the map, this version should be deleted. --Vihelik (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The political borders are correct. Please don't delete this map which is based on real western political maps/sources. The map represents so called state-religions in >>>sovereign<<< states with estabilished church hierarchy and church infrastructure.


Just look the maps of Europe in the 11-12th century.:

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

http://www.old-map-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/map_19th_centuryKI_europe_in_the_11th_century.jpg

http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Europe_1000.jpg --Framedropped (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Framedropped (talk • contribs)

Oh, really? Than explain the Catholic areas in the Orthodox Byzantine State (aprox. area of modern Albania), the Orthodox areas in Catholic Croatia (on the southern border) and the religious mosaic in Prussia. Moreover, why isn`t the Emirate of Sicily painted green (i.e. muslim) if the color is an expression of the state-religion? If the map follows political borders + state-religios than what are all these issues? Please stop adding the map to articles since the map is factually wrong, or correct it: e.g. half of the Kingdom of Hungary is Orthodox (Romanian and Serbian) and the lands outside the Carpathian arch, possibly under Petcheneg political dependency, are also Orthodox (Romanian). ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please add pagan areas in the hearth of the Kingdom of Hungary. Poor Gerard Sagredo and Bystrík didn't die for nothing... Ta ta! ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that southern Italy (which in 1054 was part of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire) and Sicily, were under the jurisdiction of the Partriarchate of Constantinople, since the Empreror Leo III transferred these territories from the jurisdiction of Rome in 740 (and as far as I know, they returned to Rome's jurisdiction only after the Normans conquered these regions), but the map seems to ignore this. And also (as already noted by someone else) the situation depicted in Transylvania does not seem very accurate, since there was a considerable Eastern Orthodox presence there, even in the 13th century there are mentioned to be a significant number of Orthodox monasteries there ("Pope Innocent III expressed in a number of letters between 1204—1205 his discomfort over the great number of Orthodox monasteries in Transilvania, Banat, and Crisana", "That the number of Greek-Orthodox churches and monasteries was large enough, is to be inferred from several letters Pope Innocent III wrote during 1204—1205"). Another problem is that Armenia is shown as Eastern Orthodox, but it is non-Chalcedonian. I am not really against the idea of having a map showing the religious situation after east-west schism (although, this schism does not really have a fixed start), however, I think it's obvious that the current map needs some fixes. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/631511/Vlach

Pope Innocent III wrote a letter because he worried about that new phenomenon.

And another interesting letter from 1234:

Pope Gregory IX sent a letter to Bela, Prince of Transylvania (later King Bela IV.( asking him "in the name of God" to grant asylum to "those poor Vlach refugees" who wished to escape the harsh rule of the Cumans.The asylum was granted, and the first three groups of Vlach immigrants entered Transylvania from the South, and were settled, under their own chieftans, in the Forgaras, Hunyad and Bansag districts, on specially designated mountain-pastures called in the royal documents as "Silva Vlachorum", Forest of the Vlachs. These Vlach immigrants, who received asylum within the Hungarian Kingdom, and others who followed later, became the ancestors of the Transylvanian Rumanians. Officially they were called VLACHS, from which the Hungarian name OLAH and the German name Wallach derived, in contradistinction to the Rumelians and later Rumanians who did not enter the Western culture-circle but stayed East and South of the Carpathians under Byzantine and later Slavic influence" finally evolving at the end of the nineteenth century into Rumania.

The existentence of Vlachs (similar to Daco-Roman ancestor theory of Romanians) in Transylvania is controversal and

discussed. Therefore all famous Western Encíclopedias write about the official Romanian Daco-Roman theory (as Romanians want to see their past) but they mention the immigration Theory about Vlach shepherd nomads. There aren't Valch material proofs (buildings cemeteries) in Transylvania before 13th century. The earliest contemporary sources are the Byzantine chronicles the Kievian Chronicles and later the Polish Chronicles. These chronicles are also support and depict the Vlach migration theory.

What did the old contemporary foreign chronicles write about Transylvania:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dfacts/dfacts01.htm#heading2


Similar to most folks of Balkan (except Croats and Greeks /Byzantine empire/), the vast majority of Vlachs (romanians) remained in their shepherd-nomadic lifestyle until the early 17th century.

The Daco-Roman discuss have a lot of literature, it can fill in a minor library. However it is offtopic.

Were they christian? Perhabs they were babtisted, however the church infrastructure and skilled clergy lacked. It was more like a christian-like superstition than a real christian population and faith. It was true for serbians until the 12th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments and counter-arguments regarding the Vlach presence in Transylvania are discussed in more details in the Origin of Romanians article, and I don't think it's necessary to bring that debate here, the issues discussed here are more about the religious situation during the times of the East-West Schism (regardless of the ethnic situation). There are sources (as shown above) mentioning a considerable Orthodox monastic presence in Transylvania around the years 1204-1205, and this can also mean that the Orthodox were probably the majority (since the total number of Orthodox Christians must have been higher than the number of Orthodox monks), and I also doubt that a large number of Orthodox monasteries, can just suddenly appear as a new phenomenon. (And regarding, the religious situation of the regions which became known as Wallachia, I think the claim that it was pagan, it's just an unsourced assumption, if the Orthodox influence extended as far as Transylvania, and actually as far as northern Russia, I think it could rather be easily assumed that there was some Orthodox influence in Wallachia as well.) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the age. Our time is 1054 which is the middle of the XI.century. However, 1204-1205 is the XIII. century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.236 (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also sources mentioning Eastern Orthodox influence in Transylvania before 1054, "the gyula in charge of Transylvania and the territory east of the River Tisza was baptised in Byzantium...the gyula did not attack Byzantium any more, he maintained his Orthodox faith of the Byzantine rite", "Gyula had Greek Orthodox priests brought to Transylvania to convert his people.", "Jula I (Gyula) had close relations with Byzantium — around 950 — , adopting the Orthodox confession", "One was Gyula, a relation of Stephen's and ruler of Transylvania. The other was Ajtony, the wealthy master of the southern part of the country. Both adhered to the eastern stream of Christianity and their Orthodox priests came from the nearby Byzantine Empire...", "...Gyula of Transylvania, and as late as 1030, Ajtony, lord of the Maros region, who both were Greek Orthodox...", "In the first years of the 11th century, Prince Achtum of Banat built a monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist in Morisena, where he settled some "Greek monks" (ie, Orthodox monks).", "...a chieftain known as Achtum (in Hungarian, Ajtony)...was baptized according to the Orthodox rite...There is evidence for the promotion of Orthodoxy in and around Szeged in the first quarter of the eleventh century", (I think there is enough evidence showing, in Transylvania, an Eastern Orthodox presence in the 10th-13th centuries). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The vast majority of the early christians in Hungary was Otrhodox in the 10th century. Transylvania wasn't more orthodox than the other part's of the country. However Christians were minority that time. Orthodox church had many followers also in northern (present-day slovakia) and central parts of the country. Stephen's father, Prince Géza estabisilished catholic bishopry in the westernmost part of the country. Therefore the existence of greek (orthodox) or latin (catholic) church didn't mean ethnic background yet.

Gyula and other names are just fantasy. Gesta Hungaroroum is not a reliable source. It isn't considered as reliable source by western scholars. (Hungarian Slovak Serbian historians din't support the Gesta). Only Romanians considers tha gesta as a reliable source. Read the Gesta Hungarorum article. Gesta Hungaorum has serious contradictions/paradox with other more reliable sources, (like Byzantine chronicles , polish chronicles and kievian Nistor chronicle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.133 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the map. I repaired the borders in connection with Prussia (User: Vihelik mentioned some problems) , and the northern borders. In addition, St Stephen of Hungary and Miesko I of Poland chose the western Christianity around 1000, these are facts. Those were deeply Catholic states where the Eastern Christianity was almost banned.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However. Before Stephen's reign the "greek" Chruch had more followers than "latin" church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.239 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before Stephen,the population of Principality of Hungary was mostly pagan. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Eastern Orthodox Christianity was so quickly banned from Transylvania, then why was there still a considerable Orthodox monastic presence there during the years 1204-1205? ("Pope Innocent III expressed in a number of letters between 1204—1205 his discomfort over the great number of Orthodox monasteries in Transilvania, Banat, and Crisana", "That the number of Greek-Orthodox churches and monasteries was large enough, is to be inferred from several letters Pope Innocent III wrote during 1204—1205"). I think there was enough evidence shown above about this (please also check the earlier posts), and at least, unless there is a considerable number of sources claiming that Transylvania was entirely Western Catholic, I think there's no reason to show it this way. And as said above, that's not the only problem, southern Italy (Calabria) and Sicily were under the jurisdiction of Constantinople in 1054, and they were brought under Rome's jurisdiction only after the Normans conquered these territories ("...Sicily and the rest of Byzantine Italy almost immediately. Placing the churches of these territories under the control of their new papal suzerain was only a matter of time...Invariably, the growing Norman menace was also disturbing for the patriarchate, since it was rapidly and increasingly undermining the Byzantine rite in Calabria and Apulia, where a sizable Orthodox population was still to be found.", "In 1059 the next pope, Nicholas II, desiring to increase papal power and reestablish authority over Southern Italy, met with the Norman leader Robert Guiscard and recognized him as the “Duke of Puglia and Calabria and future Duke of Sicily” in exchange for Robert's oath of loyalty to the pope. Robert swore to place all the churches in his state under papal jurisdiction, and thus the survival of these churches came to depend on their recognition of Rome's jurisdiction....In Calabria the Normans replaced Greek bishops when they could, and when this was not possible due to local opposition, they exacted only loyalty to Rome."). And as also said before, Armenia is not Eastern Orthodox (as currently shown in this map), it is non-Chalcedonian. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just one problem. Raguza (Dubrovnik). It was under Croatian control prior to 1054 if I am right, but I am not sure. Maybe we should repair those borders there (the surrounding area of Raguza). According to this map http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg Raguza was part of the Croatian state.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kindom of Hungary had Greek-Ortodox churches in the XI-XII-XIII centuries, I do not deny that. These churches were spread !everywhere! in Hungary (not just Transylvania) and the greatest number of them was in Pannonia and Southern Hungary. (of course, later, Transylvania because of the Vlach migration from XIII centuries)
  • We know about Ortodox monasteries, Marosvar (Torontal county), Dunapentele (Fejer county), Visegrad (Esztergom county), Veszpremvolgyi (Veszprem county) St Demeter (Szeremseg county), (Sources: VI clement pope's letter to bishop of Nitra 1344 or Innocent III's letter 1204).
  • The number of Ortodox churches was marginal (as compared to Catholic Churches) in Kingdom of Hungary and those had mostly Greek (moreover Slav and Hungarian) nones and monks
  • By the XIII century, The majority of these churches, monasteries was controlled by the western clergy.(The history of churches of Transylvania from XIII-XIV centuries is another story)Fakirbakir (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I wish to thank you for fixing southern Italy and Armenia. Regarding the religious situation of Hungary, most of the sources posted earlier were explicitly speaking about Transylvania (and except those, the following also explicitly refer to Transylvania, "One complication was that the Orthodox Church, with its legitimately married priests, retained many outposts in eastern Transylvania in the 11th and 12th centuries","The Greek-Orthodox religious influence touched Transylvania the most. Many of the Magyar chieftains (later noblemen) converted not to Roman, but to Byzantine Christianity...", so I think there are enough sources which would support representing Transylvania in blue color on this map. However, if there was a considerable Orthodox influence also in Pannonia, then in that case, I think that Transylvania, and parts of Pannonia and Southern Hungary should be shown with both colors (by having orange and blue lines shown on these lands). I have still not seen yet any sources claiming that there was an overwhelming "Roman Catholic" majority in Transylvania (or in all of Hungary), and in that case showing only Orange color in Pannonia and Transylvania could give the impression that these lands were nearly entirely Western Catholic. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transylvania was a Catholic district, diocese. Gyulafehervar was the centre of Diocese of Transylvania (established 1009). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_11th_cent.png There were Ortodox churches (Southwest Transylvania, Banat), but the majority of the churches was Catholic.(After 1000, St Stephen forced the development of ecclesiastical, He tried to achieve (and it was successful) a 'western' standard development (Every 10 villages had to get a church among others). Do not forget there was a pagan mass. Pagan revolts were a lot. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia we need to support our views with reliable secondary scholarly sources (such as books written by modern historians, and a map from Wikipedia, or any other wiki website, cannot be considered a reliable source for another Wikipedia map or article, and the presence of a "Roman Catholic" diocese in Translyvania does not actually mean that there wasn't also a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence there), please check Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information (it states there that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true....Articles on Wikipedia or on websites that mirror its content should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference"). There were already enough sources shown above, claiming explicitly that there was a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence in Transylvania during these times, and unless there are shown other more reliable sources explicitly claiming that there was an overwhelming "Roman Catholic" majority in Transylvania, showing Transylvania on the map as being only "Roman Catholic" can be considered Original Research. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More religious maps about middle ages:
Fakirbakir (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Transylvania (and Southern Hungary, Pannonia), prior to Stephen, we can talk about stronger Greek-Orthodox presence (for instance the chieftains Gyula or Koppany), however after the coronation (in 1000), the catholic church founded Catholic bishoprics and began to proselytize the population (and little doubt that included Romanians in Transylvania).Source, after the !East-West Schism! we can observe growing Orthodox Romanian presenceSource, moreover nobility required adherence to Catholicism (If they had wanted social and political privileges). Hungary become a deeply Catholic state where the Greek-Orthodox church was marginal.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first sources starting from the 12th century about Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania.[1]Fakirbakir (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting these maps and books. But many of these maps are more about the Avignon-Rome schism([2],[3]), and even have some serious errors, such as an Islamic Constantinople before 1453 ([4],[5]), another one does not even show Transylvania. You have also shown a map about the Western schism from the Vatican tours website, but I could also mention another map from an article shown on the Vatican tours website about the East-West Schism, and it shows Transylvania as "Eastern Orthodox" (however, that map has some other problems). Others do not show the year when they're represesnting the division([6],[7], it should also be noted that the last one was made in the year 1915, making it quite old). The one representing a period closer to this map seems to be the 1097 map, but it it was made in the year 1926, also making it somewhat old. However, I don't think a map can have more weight than a scholarly book (on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history"), the following support a significant Orthodox presence in Transylvania during the 11th century: "A history of East Central Europe: East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500", by Jean W. Sedlar, published by the "University of Washington Press" in the year 1994, ISBN 9780295972909, "...the Orthodox Church, with its legitimately married priests, retained many outposts in eastern Transylvania in the 11th and 12th centuries...", a book titled "The ethnic history of Transylvania" by Endre Haraszti (who seems to be a Hungarian historian, he also wrote another book where he speaks about the vlach migration, so he obviously does not refer to Romanians when he speaks about Eastern Orthodox religious influence), published by the "Danubian Press" in the year 1971, ISBN 9780879340049, "The Greek-Orthodox religious influence touched Transylvania the most. Many of the Magyar chieftains (later noblemen) converted not to Roman, but to Byzantine Christianity...", there is also a book published in 1975 by the St. Bonaventure University (which is a "Roman Catholic" university) which states "The Greek missionaries did a thorough job because, about 1000, King Stephen's uncle, Gyula of Transylvania, and as late as 1030, Ajtony, lord of the Maros region, who both were Greek Orthodox", another book which is titled "The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer" by Paul Stephenson, and published in 2003 by the Cambridge University Press, claims that "There is evidence for the promotion of Orthodoxy in and around Szeged in the first quarter of the eleventh century" (this actually refers to southern Hungary).
Now regarding the books you posted, I still do not see where are they claiming that the Eastern Orthodox influence in Transylvania was just marginal (or non-existent), this one claims that the Hungarians "began proselytizing Transylvania's indigenous people. There is little doubt that these included some Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church" (there is no claim here that this made the "Eastern Orthodox" presence absent or just marginal, and it even suggests that there were Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church). This other book you posted states "Participation in the social status and po- litical privileges of the nobility required adherence to Catholicism, prompting the resistance of pre-Christian Hungarians and Cumans in Hungary, then increasingly of the Orthodox Romanians after the East-West Church schism of 1054", this also does not say that the Eastern Orthodox presence was just marginal or inexistent (it just claims that there was increased resistance of Orthodox Romanians, after East-West schism of 1054, against conversion, and this doesn't mean that there wasn't a significant Eastern Orthodox presence there, and we're referring here to all Eastern Orthodox populations, not just Orthodox Romanians). And the last book you shown, also does not claim that there was no Eastern Orthodox presence in Transylvania during the 11th century (or that it was marginal), it just claims that "In historical sources starting from the 12th century, the Transylvanian Romanians are mentioned as belonging to the Eastern (“schismatic”) Church." (but this refers only to Transylvanian Romanians, not to all "Eastern Orthodox" people, and this does not mean that there was no "Eastern Orthodox" presence in Transylvania during the 11th century).
I admit that there was also a "Roman Catholic" presence in Transylvania, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't also a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence there (and there are enough sources supporting this), in my opinion this wiki map should show both religions present in Transylvania and southern Hungary (by showing several blue and orange lines on these lands). I also wish to underline again, that when we're talking here about "Eastern Orthodox Christians" we're not referring here specifically to Orthodox Romanians (regardless when they appeared), it's not important for this map if these Eastern Orthodox Christians in Transylvania during the 11th century were Magyars, Slavs, Romanians, Bulgars or others (this is not an ethnic map, this map is supposed to just show how these religious influences extended around 1054, regardless of who these people were). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Cody to weigh in on whether there was an Orthodox presence in Transylvania as of 1054. I consulted a history of the Church by Fr. Mircea Păcurariu (an expert in the field), and it appears that, yes, the Orthodox Church continued to function in Transylvania after the province's incorporation into the Kingdom of Hungary. To be sure, the Hungarian authorities and the papacy strove to convert the native population to Catholicism, for instance replacing Orthodox bishops with Catholic ones. However, Păcurariu concludes that an Orthodox hierarchy, including bishops, remained, as well as monasteries and stone churches with numerous believers. For instance, a document of 1205 mentions an Orthodox bishop in either Hunedoara or Bihor, while the previous year, King Emeric, writing to the Pope, mentioned "Greek" (i.e., Orthodox) bishops and monks in his domains. So yes, the Eastern Rite Orthodox Church survived in Transylvania as of 1054, and was followed by a good many inhabitants there. I would suggest cross-hatching Transylvania and Eastern Hungary on the map. - Biruitorul Talk 15:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question. Is there any reliable source which not only states but also substantiates that there was a significant Orthodox presence in Transylvania around the year 1054? Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just few remarks. (1) Byzantine and Slavic sources mention that Gyula was baptised in Constantinople around 948 and he was followed to Tourkia by a Greek bishop. However, when his grandson, Stephen I of Hungary conquered around 1003 "King Gyula's kingdom", it was still inhabited by pagans accourding to the contemporary Annals of Hildesheim. Therefore, based on the fact that Gyula was baptised it cannot be stated that afterward a significant Orthodox population inhabited Crisana and Transylvania. For example, there is no archaeological evidence that a Christian population inhabited any part of Transylvania in the course of the 10th century; maybe a small church found in Alba Iulia (which was the seat of the Gyula) can be dated to the period, but it has not been proven yet. (2) The Legend of St. Gerard actually mentions that Achtum was baptised according to the Greek faith, but the same source also describes him as a non-perfect Christian who had seven wifes. Moreover, the same source also describe the proces how the inhabitants of Achtum's domain were Christianized after Achtum had been defeated by Csanád. (3) None of the letters written by Pope Innocent III or Emeric of Hungary mentions bishoprics specifically in Transylvania, Crisana or the Banat. They refer to Orthodox bishoprics that existed in the Kingdom of Hungary. And under Béla III and Emeric significant parts of modern Bosnia and Serbia were annexed (for a short period) to the kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except the books mentioned earlier, I have also found the following book, titled "Byzantium and the Magyars" by Gyula Moravcsik (an author who has written many books on these topics), which also offers more details regarding the "Eastern Orthodox" influence on Hungary "The oldest Hungarian books of liturgy preserved from the 11th — 12th centuries show that the feasts of several saints (St. Nicholas. St. John of the Flowers, and others) were held on the basis of the Byzantine, and not the western calendar.Thus, for instance, St. Demetrius' day was celebrated on 26 October, instead of 8 November. Further Byzantine influence can be seen in the celebration of St. Ivan's day or in the Hungarian cult of the Virgin Mary.Hungary was the first country where the Presentation of the Virgin Mary had been made a feast at the end of the 12th century.One should add the great cult of St. George at the beginning of the age of Arpad's dynasty as a further manifestation of the eastern influence. We find followers of the Orthodox Church in Hungary even after the 13th century.", (the last part could even suggest that there were more Eastern Orthodox Christians before the 13th century), the same book also makes the claims that "The influence of the Greek Church was strongest in eastern Hungary", and that "It appears from a letter written in 1234 by Pope Gregory IX to Bela IV that there were at the time many Magyars living in Transylvania who belonged to the Eastern Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your answer. But I think my above question is still valid: is there any reliable source which substantiates and not only states that there was a significant Orthodox population in the Kingdom of Hungary around the year 1054? Latin liturgical books adopting some Orthodox practices can prove the influence of Orthodox practices, but as they were written for Western liturgical use cannot prove the existence of Orthodox believers (Believers for whose liturgy follows the Western rite cannot per definitionem be Orthodox). The letter of Pope Gregory IX written in 1234 to Béla IV does not mentions any Magyars living in Transylvania who belonged to the Eastern Church. The letter refers to (1) the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania (to the east of Transylvania) (2) where the Hungarian and German immigrants converted to Orthodoxy under the influence of the local (Orthodox) Romanians (Victor Spinei (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5, p. 155.) Catholic Hungarians who converted to Orthodoxy somewhere to the east of the Carpathians around 1234 cannot prove or suggest the existence of an Orthodox Hungarian population somewhere to the west of the Carpathians around 1054. Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned before Greek-Orthodox monasteries were in Szeremseg, Pannonia, Southern Hungary. I also did read something about Russian monks next to Tihany abbey ('Barat-lakasok') and it was dated by the 11th century (Andrew I, but unfortunately, I do not remember source exactly). That is also fact St Stephen chose the 'Western Christianity'. Hypothetically, before Stephen, The Eastern Christian church was stronger. However, there was a pagan mass. After the coronation, 54 years elapsed until the Schism and there was a serious 'western' proselytization. Whether there was a significant Orthodox presence or that was just marginal by 1054? Now I am really unsure.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cody7777777, thank you for your remarks. I must accept that the source you cite substantiates the claim that there were Orthodox monasteries in Hungary (Let's forget, that the small monastery at Hodos was built as a Catholic monastery and it was a Catholic monastery until 1293 when it was destroyed by the Cumans. It was later rebuilt by Serbs in the 14th century and thus it became an Orthodox monastery.) Just one remark, the claim that married priest in the 11th century in Hungary proves the influence of Orthodox church (even it is based on a reliable source) is totally misleading: in the 11th century there were not only married priests, but also married bishops in Hungary (similarly to Norway, Scotland and other Western countries far from any Orthodox influence) - and the Orthodox Church prohibited the marriage of bishops even before the Western Church. Nevertheless, I accept that the reliable sources substantiate the above claim, and our task is to summarize the text of reliable sources and not to present our own concerns. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information you provided, it's interesting to learn about the married priests and bishops, and the monastery from Hodos. I'm glad we reached a consensus. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have repaired the map. I had to reassess my point of view. I found a detailed dissertation about this theme. It seems well established and contains reliable sources from -among others- Hungarian historians. [8] Unfortunately,It is in Hungarian, however it states the Hungarian Kings (especially Andrew I 1046-1060, Geza I 1074-1077), cultivated very good relations with the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The current version is indeed an improvement. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong. The map is about the state religions after the great schism. The orthodox believers hadn't episcopates in medieval Hungary. Stil the majority of the population was catholic and the Hungarian kings were vassals of Virgin Mary (aka papal state) , the depiction of the Hungarian state (with 10 catholic episcopates and two archepiscopates) as a half orthodox state is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.167.28 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Orthodox believers had no episcopate around 1054 in Hungary, but they had in Medieval Hungary (for example the one established for Gyula) 2. Around 1054 there were 8 bishoprics and 2 archbishoprics in Hungary 3. The Hungarian kings were not vassals of the Holy Virgin, the kingdom of Hungary was dedicated to her according to the legends of King St Stephen written at the end of the 11th century. (Moreover around 1074 Pope St Gregory VII claimed that St. Stephen had become the "vassal" of St Peter, that is the king had accepted the suzerainty of the Holy See.) 4. The map does not represent "half Orthodox population". Actually, I do not accept the claim that there were any significant Orthodox population in Hungary around 1054, but because there are reliable sources which substantiate (or better to say seem to substantiate) this claim, we should not take it simply aside. Borsoka (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The crown was sent from Rome. It's clear and traditional proof for vassalage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.203 (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contemporary source (Theotmar of Merseburg) mentions that St Stephen received the crown "with the favor and the urging" of the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III. But I think this is a new discussion. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew I was Greek-Orthodox,
      • He was not Greek-Orthodox. He was baptised according to the Greek rite in Kiev before the Great Schism. But all the dioceses in Hungary were in the hands of bishops of the Latin rite during his reign. There is only one reference to Orthodox bishops in Hungary before the 13th century - the Greek Hierotheos who followed Gyula around 953 to Transylvania from Constantinoples. The Orthodox bishoprics in the 13th century Hungary were located most probably in the newly conquered Bosnian and Serbian territories.
  • He established Orthodox monasteries, around 1050(for instance Tihany, Visegrad),
      • He established monasteries that followed the Greek rite, but he also established Benedictine monasteries (Tihany Abbey).
  • Andrew I and Geza I got crowns from the Byzantine Empire.
      • Stefan Nemanjić the first crowned king of Serbia received the crown from the Pope, although Serbia was an Orthodox country and he was Orthodox. Similarly Kaloyan of Bulgaria received a crown from the Holy See, although he and his country was Orthodox.
  • We can presume Orthodox monasteries in Tihany, Veszprevolgy, Marosvar, Dunapentele, Visegrad, St Demeter(Szeremseg).
      • They are not just presumptions, they are facts. Those monasteries existed until the 13th century.
  • We can assume Orthodox bishopric in Hungary in the 11th century (Turkia Metropolita), however It is debated, Gyula Kristo disagree with this.
      • Yes, we can assume. Or we can also assume Buddhist monks in Pécs in the 9th century. :)
  • A lot of temples had names of Eastern Orthodox saints in the 11th century.
      • Not eastern Orthodox saints, but saints who were popular in the Orthodox Church. But those saint (St. Nicholas, St. Demetrios, the Holy Virgin, St. George...) were also venerated by the Latin rite Church.
  • A lot of churches have been built in Greek-Orthodox style at this time.
      • Similarly to a lot of Venetian churches. And some Orthodox churches were built in Western style.
We talk about around 1054. I am sure the Catholic Church was very 'strong' at this time, but I had to reassess my opinion in connection with Orthodox presence, please read this dissertation what I mentioned before, It is Hungarian work, from Hungarian historians. My problem is rather the Catholic-Pagan-Orthodox ratios. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Hungarian work looks like a well-written reliable source (and it qualifies a reliable source for WP purposes). However, lots of "probably", "might be", etc. expressions can be read in that source. Yes, Hungarian Greek Catholics have from the 19th century tended to trace back the origins of their Church to the ancienest Hungarians who followed the Greek rite, instead of to Serb, Romanian, Rusin Hajdús. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that my personal concerns are not relevant here against reliable sources (even if they only seems to be reliable, in my view). Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest in connection with the map? Fakirbakir (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically , there are only latin writings sources letters from these monastries & churches. They were under the control of Catholic church hierarchy, therefore they were (similar to the monarchs kings of Hungary) on the party of Roman Pope after the schism. The depiction of Hungary as a semi-orthodox state is laughable. Moreover the map represents state religions of countries, orthodox have never been state religion of Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.69 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map was not meant to represent state religions (for example, you can see that both religions are represented in north-western part of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, Armenia was also part of that emprie, but since it was mostly non-Chalcedonian it is not shown as Eastern Orthodox, also Sicily was part of an Islamic emirate, but the map shows only Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox influences), and anyway, if the king Andrew I was Eastern Orthodox, then it also makes sense to show some Eastern Orthodox influence in Hungary. I have also found something in the following book by Cyril Mango and published by the Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198140986 "Furthermore, monastic houses containing 'Greeks' and allowing for Orthodox styles of asceticism were founded by King Andrew I near Visegrad and on an Athos-like peninsula jutting into Lake Balaton.These sites lay beyond the lands in southern Hungary where Orthodox priests and churches were particularly prominent in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.", and even if these sources would be wrong, they cannot be ignored by Wikipedia. Cody7777777 (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These (partly) greek monastries churchs were bilingual latin/greek, they didn't support Constantinople in the power-strugle after/in 1054, they supported the Roman pope. They didn't produced charters letters and other writigs in greek langauage, they used exclusively latin in their written language. Of course they used greek language for some religious singing. There weren't orthodox Hungarian kings, because the Archbishop of Esztergom was catholic, and he was the only person who had the right for coronation. These kings (who was babtisted by orthodox) had to convert to roman catholicism before the coronation.


All of the founder charters of these abbeys were written in latin. Again: In the history of medieval Hungary, there weren't greek writings which were created in Hungary. All medieval Hungarian written letters charters and documents were written in Latin language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.69 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deed of foundation of Veszpremvolgy monastery was written in Greek-Byzantine style.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


And nothing more... After the death of Stephen I, the Orthodox relgion wasn't more relevant than the Judaism or the Islam in medieval Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.208 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you state something, you have to prove that point of view with source. I am willing to fix the map if you give us reliable source in this theme. The distribution of religions in Kingdom of Hungary is not an obvious thing in the 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prove the relevance of greek monks in the country after the reign of saint stephen. You can't cite written sources in greek language, however tons of contemporary written sources are in latin. Again, you can't prove that these "orthodox" (?) monks were under tha controll of church hierarchy of Constantinople after the schism. Your sources didn't write abot these basic facts, which had key-relevance in this topic.

Wikipedia is based mainly on secondary scholarly sources, not on our interpretations of primary sources (please check Wikipedia's policy for more information, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"). Even if you are right, since there are secondary sources claiming that there was an Eastern Orthodox presence in southern Hungary, they cannot be ignored by Wikipedia. (Also, regarding you're earlier edit summary, the source mentioned earlier by Fakirbakir was Hungarian, not Romanian or Serbian.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Again, the map is about the break schism between Roman hierarchy and Byzantine-greek church hiearachy. These eastern rite followers became part of roman hierarchy. (similarly to Eastern Catholic Churches in modern period). Therefore they became a greek-rite version of the sceptered roman catholic church in Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.211.137 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map shows the extension of "Western Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" influences during the 11th century, and the secondary sources shown earlier mentioned an "Eastern Orthodox" (not a "Roman Catholic" Greek-Rite) presence in southern Hungary.Cody7777777 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No. I knew the originator of the map. It's about the religious power-struggle between the Papacy and Constantonople centered church from 1054.

What do you mean 'from 1054'? This map demonstrates power-struggle of religions or positions of religions at the eve of the East-West Schism (1054). Not from, or from to. We talk about the middle of the 11th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fakirbakir, you don't know the originator of the map. After the great schism, constantinople centered Eastern church hierarchy hadn't power in Hungary. It was similar to the Greek Catholic Church. These orthodox weren't more than the "greek branch" of Roman catholic church. Constantinople centered church defeated when Stephen became the first king of Hungary. The greek-speaking churches became the part of Roman Catholic hierarchy (led by the Pope). Read the history of the file. The theme / name of the map is not the language/rite, but the Scism. The schism is about the power strugle over the countries, therefore the language of the church is not relevant in the topic. Check mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I tend to accept 84.2.153.109's view (there is no contemporary reference to or other evidence of significant Orthodox communities in the Kingdom of Hungary around 1054), but WP is written based on reliable sources and some of these sources suggest that there were such communities in the medieval kingdom. Therefore, I think for the time being the discussion of this specific issue should be closed. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of map is about the church languages instead of east-west schism. The original designer of the map is not allowed to redraw his map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books and authors don't support your claims. After Stephen's death ,the existence of 10 or 15 DENOMINATED orthodox churches doesn't matter in such a large kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As already said before, there are secondary sources which claim that there was an "Eastern Orthodox" presence in southern and eastern Hungary during the 11th century, they do not talk about a "Roman Catholic Greek-Rite", they clearly use the expressions "Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox", and these terms have been used when describing the Churches in communion with Constantinople, meaning that these Eastern-Rite Churches from Hungary were in communion with Constantinople (or "Eastern Orthodox"). Some of these secondary sources were also published by reputed universities([9][10]). They could be wrong, but our personal views, are not really important for Wikipedia (especially, if they're not supported by secondary sources). I think these things were already explained clearly enough before (and although I do not really want to not assume good faith on your actions, to be honest I have to say that I'm nearly starting to feel like I'm "feeding a troll" by replying). (I would also like to add that the East-West Schism is not just a conflict of jurisdictions, or "power-struggle", between Rome and Constantinople, it is a much more comlpex issue, also involving theological and rite differences, and it does not really have a fixed beginning, many differences where already starting to become obvious since the so-called "Photian Schism", 1054 is only a conventional date, but obviously this map shows the situation around 1054, and it should also be noted that the conflict during the years 1053-1054 had also started from rite differences, such as unleavened or leavened bread used in the Eucharist, so these rite differences also had an importance in this conflict.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Again, the sources and authors didn't support the idea that the greek churches were under the controll of Constantinople ( Not the patriarches of Constantinople but the Byzantine Emperors were the top religious leaders of Orthodox church until the middle of 12th century, when the other Orthodox churches started to separate from Constantinople. ) Two antagonistic church-hierarchy in one country (led by a foreign moarchs who were overlords of orthodox countries at that time yet) was impossible. That greek languge or orthodox rite churches were under the roman catholic hierarchy. (similar to greek catholic church from the 18th century). The map is about the Schism. The schism is only about the break between Constantinople and Rome-led churches. You were not allowed to redraw this map. The designer (Tobi85) didn't allow it for you.

I think there is a misunderstanding in the above statement. None of the materials made for WP belong to any of the editors. There is no need for any licence to redesign any of the materials. (Nonetheless, I still tend to accept the above view. Hungarian monarchs whose wifes followed the Orthodox rite set up monasteries that followed the Greek rite. Some Orthodox monasteries were founded by Hungarian tribal leaders, for example by Achtum, who had adopted Orthodox Christianity for political purposes. The territories where other monasteries were situated, such Sremska Mitrovica, were annexed by the Kingdom of Hungary. But none of the monasteries were subordinated to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch, they were under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic diocesian prelate. But, as reliable sources claim that those monasteries belonged to the Orthodox religious community, we cannot ignore them.) I still suggest that the debate should be taken aside for some period (let's say for 30-60 days).Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:84.2.153.109! This map is a public domain. We have a right to edit that. If Tobi85 did not like it he could withdraw that -with good justification, of course-. And again, we talk about 1054. I can not disregard a Hungarian dissertation about this theme. I can not disregard Gyula Moravcsik's work. The dissertation is about -among others- religions in Kingdom of Hungary in the 11 th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fakirbakir, your biggest problem, that your books and authors didn't support your imaginations & claims. All of the greek churches in Hungary belonged to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.128 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please share with us the reliable sources your above claim is based on? The "books of Fakibakir" substantiate the claim that there were Orthodox monasteries in the Kingdom of Hungary. Even if we do not accept that idea, we have to accept the fact that many scholars follow it. I do not like repeating myself but I still suggest that the endless and pointless debate should be suspended for a while. Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please share with us the reliable sources your above claim (that greek rite churches of Hungary belonged to Constantinople/Byzantine Emperor) is based on? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.152.142 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should not even reply, but please check the sources from the earlier posts (they explicitly stated that there were Orthodox communities in southern and eastern Hungary, and in English the words "Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodox" do not describe a "Roman Catholic Greek-Rite", these words in English describe the religious community which also includes the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople). I don't think it is really necessary to post these sources again, especially if you intend to ignore them. (And the map legend just writes "Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church", it does not write "Churches under the jurisdiction of Rome" and "Churches under the jurisdiction of Constantinople", so we need only sources claiming that there were Orthodox communities in Hungary, it doesn't even matter which bishops had jurisdiction over these communities.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


These greek-rite churches weren't more than the medieval analogous of Papacy led Greek Catholic Churches. However there aren't English terms/idioms for that medieval phenomenon. Therefore the books mentioned that greek-rite churches very simple: "Orthodox". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.236 (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited: "Another source of conversion to Christianity was Byzantium, which affected the geographically close southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania. As a function of the political relations of Hungarian kings, monasteries and convents belonging to the Byzantine Church were founded sporadically in the eleventh century, even in the central and western parts of the country." The architecture of historic Hungary (P. Lövei p. 11.)Fakirbakir (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've repaired the map because of the sourse (spread sporadically).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However the situation which you mentioned existed before the great schism. After the schism, these greek churches became the scepter of Archbishop of Esztergom. Therefore Your reasoning wasn't correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.91.8 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Note: IP 84.0.91.8 is a sockpuppet of the banned user Stubes99 (Iaaasi (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to see a source about that. I am willing to fix the map if it is true. I mentioned two different sources about this theme, both of them assumed Orthodox presence in the eleventh century. Andrew I (1046-1060) was the biggest founder of Orthodox monasteries. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, !after 1054!, Andrew I established a Greek-Orthodox monastery in 1056 (in Visegrad).Moreover, monastery of Visegrad was led by Byzantine rite till 1109.Magyarország képekben: honismertető album, Volume 1 /In Hungarian Fakirbakir (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a supporting source for your statement. Please prove that Hungarian kings estabilished Byzantine ruled churches and risked a papal excommunication after 1054. This greek-speaking churches weren't bízantine ruled churches especially after the schism.

I presented 3 sources above. No one said that "Hungarian kings estabilished Byzantine ruled churches". They existed against the Church and King's will (Iaaasi (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I protected the image for 2 weeks. Please refrain from edit warring. --Ben.MQ (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to claim that Hungary was purely Catholic only 54 years after this country adopted Catholicsm as official religion (Iaaasi (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No one answered to this remark, so I restored the version that presents the religious structure of Hungary, Wallachia and Moldavia that respects the source Dragan Brujić, Vodič kroz svet Vizantije, Beograd, 2004, page 51.
This map presents the situation from 1453. The map corresponding to the 1054 situation is this one
Also these maps: [11][12][13][14] refer to a later period, not to 11th century (Iaaasi (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Croatia-Hungary border[edit]

The border in the present map looks to much "curvy", according to some maps it should run straight http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg anyone knows more about that?Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by User:Spiridon Ion Cepleanu[edit]

User:Spiridon Ion Cepleanu, I'd like to know which was the reason for creating a 100 % Catholic area in Transylvania. Thanks in advance for your answer. Iaaasi (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A lot of maps about this period and this subject show Transylvania (entire) as a 100 % catholic land, and Moldavia-Wallachia as not christian (paganist) lands (see [15] as an example. I draw this map according with the academic historic works. The 100% catholic area in Transylvania is the Szekely lands (sedes) where Vlachs & Slavs were few. Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spiridon Ion Cepleanu this representation is anachronic, because according to scholars the migration of Székely people to present-day Székely Land started around 1150 (a century after the Great Schism). Iaaasi (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but since Matyas Unger & others, if the actual Szekelys are settled here, it's because this part of a very forested land, had a sparse (magyar, pecheneg, post-avar ?) population and must be better forbidden... Religious maps represent this area as an enclave of the Esztergom bishop included in the Kalocsa bishop's domain. But if you think better to take off this area, I'm ready to do it. --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spiridon Ion Cepleanu, what religious maps are you exactly talking about? If you have sources representing this religious enclave at the moment of the Great Schism, the map can remain at it is. My concern was that you placed by mistake a Szekely population group in eastern Transylvania in 1054. when they supposedly lived elsewhere in the Hungarian Kingdom (in Bihar/Bihor county etc). Iaaasi (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Este vorba de hărțile de la paginile 64 (stânga sus) și 88 din Hans-Erich Stier (dir.), « Westermann Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte », 1985, ISBN 3-14-100919-8. Cu bine, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with specific Mediterranean and Balkan areas[edit]

Sicily[edit]

This map is set during the time of the Emirate of Sicily, under which part of the native population had converted to Islam. Shouldn't Sicily be shown as own part-Christian therefore, with hatched lines? Also I believe there are sources on what parts of Sicily were Muslim and what parts remained Christian but I don't have them right now. --Yalens (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania[edit]

Here I have sources. Etleva Lala has a whole book in English (Regnum Albaniae) I can link discussing this and there are others too including ecclesiastical sources and ones in Albanian like Anamali. Admittedly its complicated but I don't think the map is representative. It got right that the area around Shkoder had Catholics, but the area isn't big enough. Dioceses like Pult were Catholic the whole time. The area should extend further North, East and South. I don't know the exact boundaries (atm at least), but there are areas (Pult, Lezhe, etc) that I'm pretty certain based on sources were never majority Orthodox. One issue complicating things is that there was an area in the North of Albania that was Catholic the whole time around Shkoder, Pult etc (contrary to nationalist myths that "Ghegs converted to Catholism to resist the Slavs" whatever that means, sadly these myths are adopted by some modern commentators but actual sources covering the medieval era tend to refute them) but this area also rapidly expanded in the following few centuries eastward and southward, so its unclear how representative it is to paint most of North Albania (which I'm using for areas north of Kruja) as Orthodox when they either weren't or were only Orthodox for a pretty short time.

Furthermore, although most of Central and Southern Albania was immediately under Orthodoxy after the split, in some places this was also so short it feels like a misrepresentation to put the areas as solidly Orthodox. Kruja was Orthodox for barely over a hundred years (Catholic after 1167), and was Catholic for 5-6 more centuries until the 17th~18th century when it became Bektashi Muslim. In the 13th and 14th centuries Catholicism spread very rapidly throughout Central Albania as well as Southern Coastal Albania and became dominant for political reasons, and Orthodox Albanians fled south deserting some areas. The sources also note that in some areas the conversion to Catholicism wasn't total and an Orthodox population remained alongside a Catholic population (for example, Durres). We even have in the 13th centuries Catholicism in Vlora and as far south as Butrint, and in more northern areas Catholicism spread into Prizren (outside of modern Albania's borders) and a Catholic minority appears in Skopje (I doubt the region changed from being mostly Orthodox tho). That Northern, parts of Central, and parts of Coastal Southern Albania were or became Catholic rather than Orthodox played a really significant role politically and culturally in the Medieval Balkans, even though that's largely forgotten today.

So I'd say no matter what North(west?) Albania should be fixed so that a bit more is Catholic, and with regard to the rest, there should either be a new map set in say 1370 or so (peak of Catholic power, for contrast with this one), or a hatched representation representing the historically mixed allegiance of the area between the East and the West. Thoughts? --Yalens (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bogomils[edit]

Is there really sourcing to show that they were so proliferous? I've read about them in Bosnia, in Bulgaria, but not as if there was some contiguous distribution of them running continuously through Serbia etc. And if they were, were they for a long time, or at least at the right time?--Yalens (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia and Bosnia -- Bihac area[edit]

I don't know about around 1054, but I'm dubious about an Orthodox population being in Bihac and its environs at the time. Later on Bosnia was ruled by Catholics and heavily Catholic with some Bogomils, while Orthodox were limited to very specific regions that to the best of my knowledge did not include anything as far west as the Bihac area (which was under Croatian rather than Bosnian rule for a lot of the time anyway). In early Ottoman times, it was a staunchly Catholic area that was a security hazard for the Turks because it was on the frontier, so they pretty deliberately Islamized it-- hence its now one of the most heavily Muslim region of Bosnia. There are a lot of Orthodox in the area now but that's at least in part because of later migrations that are documented. Obv if there's a source for some part-Orthodox enclave in Croatia then there's no problem here, but it seems surprising. --Yalens (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't simplify the past please, even if some modern sources do it.[edit]

Please, even if you trust only the modern national points of view about the multicultural past, don't erase the existence of Bogomils in the Balkans and of the Orthodox slavs and others in Eastern Hungary (proven by slavonic inscriptions Црковнъ писаный). Thank you.
Bitte, auch wenn Sie nur an moderne nationale Meinungen über die Vergangenheit glauben, löschen Sie nicht die Anwesenheit von Bogomilen auf dem Balkan und Orthodoxen in Ostungarn, die durch die Inschriften Црковнъ писаный bewiesen werden. Danke.
S'il vous plaît, n'effacez pas, en suivant les points de vue nationalistes modernes, la présence des Bogomiles dans les Balkans et des Orthodoxes en Hongrie orientale (prouvée par les inscriptions votives Црковнъ писаный et aussi par des sources écrites compilées par Wenceslas Alexandre Maciejowski Essai historique sur l'Église chrétienne primitive des deux rites chez les Slaves, ed. A. Ascher, Berlin 1846, pp. 221-222). Merci. --Mélomène (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bogomilism[edit]

Priest Bogomil yes, but the Bogomilist form of Paulicianism is not rumor or hearsay: see [16], [17], A. Lombard: Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bons-hommes, Geneva 1879; Herzog, "Paulicians", Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn, Vol. 2. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp. 1776–1777; Newman, A.H. (1951) "Paulicians" in Samuel Macaulay Jackson , ed. New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, VIII, Baker Book House, Michigan, pp. 417–418 ; Peters, Edward (1980) Heresy and authority in medieval Europe: documents in translation, Middle Ages University of Pennsylvania Press Middle ages series, University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 108 ISBN: 0-8122-1103-0. ; Paul Poupard (dir.), Dictionnaire des religions, PUF, 1984; Van Antwerp Fine, John (1991) The early medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century, University of Michigan Press, p. 171 ISBN: 0-472-08149-7. and Crampton, R. J. (2005) A concise history of Bulgaria, Cambridge concise histories, Cambridge University Press, pp. 18–19 ISBN: 0-521-61637-9. . --Claude Zygiel (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Ercwlff's question "how come this was not done before?" : - may be because simplification is easier? ("a kingdom = one unique faith") I don't know. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous problems, map is unreliable[edit]

There are numerous problems concerning this map:
A) The sources given

  1. File:Expansion of christianity.jpg: it only concerns the spread of Christianity, not the jurisdictions of the Catholic and E. Orthodox churches after the 1054 split or Paulicians and Jews. Morevoer, the map's dates covers numerous centuries for each expansion.
  2. http://home.comcast.net/~DiazStudents/MiddleAgesChurchMap1.jpg (archived version) is not usable, because it has no date. The URL simply states "MiddleAgesChurchMap1.jpg", and the Middle Ages are before and after the 1054 schism
  3. Dragan Brujić, Vodič kroz svet Vizantije, Beograd, 2005, page 51: from what I could find online, the book only has 45 pages, and none of the maps I can see within the PDF version has a 1054 map.
  4. In the 12:46, 3 February 2019 revision, User:Claude Zygiel gave as a source for adding the Paulicians File:Paulicianism and Europe. Armenian - Պաւղիկեաններ.png and File:Spread of Paulicanism.png; however, both maps are unsourced

In conclusion, the map has no reliable graphic data on which it can claim to be based upon for anything it contains.

B) the map itself:

  1. What does "Jews" and "Paulicians" represent? Communities, temples, leaders? Why are they dots and not hatched colours like in the East of Hungary and Southern Ukraine?
  2. The "Paulicians" symbols are of two different colours, ideally there should only be one symbol for one legend.

Note) multiple versions

  1. Maybe at one point history split should be made from the versions until 13:31, 28 October 2011 + the 18:14, 3 October 2017 version + 20:17, 8 July 2018 version. Those versions are closer to the original upload and do not contain Bogomils, Paulicians and Jews.

Veverve (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The map in its present state, is not only inspired by other maps but also from various books describing in text the situation of the 11th century (look above). "Jews" and "Paulicians" represent this minorities. As you can see by going up to the beginning of this discussion page, the main sticking point is the diversity of faiths: some of our colleagues do not admit that we represent it, and always ask for more sources, while they do not require it to draw uniform color ranges. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not have an image to base your claims upon, then it is quite difficulte to make something as elaborate as a map.
As for your sources:
General note: giving the chapter is always appreciated.
  1. You did not add the page number of A. Lombard: Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bons-hommes, Geneva 1879.
  2. from what I could find online of Herzog, "Paulicians" in Philip Schaff, ed. A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology: a) it is vol. 3, not 2; b) the Paulicians were in some places in Armenia and Greece (e.g. Kibossa, Amara, Tephrica, Argaum), and in Greek Armenia (where?), and "some of them" (5? 10? 100?) were in Phillipopolis in Thrace.
  3. Van Antwerp Fine, John (1991) The early medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century, p. 171: states there were Bogomils in Bulgaria since the time of the "reign of Peter". It does not state where or how many.
  4. Newman, A.H. (1951) "Paulicians" in Samuel Macaulay Jackson , ed. New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, VIII, pp. 417–418: it states there were congregations of Paulicians at Kibossa, Mananalis, Philippi, Mopsuestia, Colossae. It also states some were at Phillipopolis.
  5. Peters, Edward (1980), Heresy and authority in medieval Europe: documents in translation, Middle Ages, p. 108: it states Paulicianism is not Bogomilism, and that Bogomolism was in Bulgaria but not where.
  6. A Concise History of Bulgaria, p. 18-9: states there are Bogomils (who are not on the map) in Bulgaria, but does not give a precise location
  7. You added as a source Paul Poupard (dir.), Dictionnaire des religions, PUF 1984; however, you did not give its item (it is a dictionary) and page number.
So, to conclude, none of the sources you provided which I could check (8 out of 10) support this map properly, be it on the division of Christianity at the time of the 1054 schism or on the presence of Jews or Bogomils as displayed on the map.
Veverve (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Using this methodology ([18]) we can conclude, as far as 1054 is concerned, that the christian church did not separate, that Jews, Paulicians, Bogomils, Patarini, Valdenses and Catharians perhaps existed, but we don't know where house by house, and that the Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Westermann 1985, ISBN 3-14-100919-8, on its page 64, where it contains a map very close to my completed version, is wrong. So we must erase 90% of the Commons maps voluntarily created by various users without citing sources or citing general thematic books without ringing the precise paragraphs or the exact villages where such and such a community has lived. Greetings, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a map, you need data, not internet hearsays or religious clichés, and you need to use this data properly, i.e. by stating what they say. Furthermore, the goal of this map is not to represent each and every Abrahamic religion in Europe in 1054. Also, showing a religious movement over numerous places while the only place sources state this movement is are only a few places is betraying sources. This methodology does not constitute hypercriticism.
You never once mentioned the Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte as a source. I could only check the 1957 edition (p. 64-5) which indeed contains a map close to the one we are currently discussing. However, the biggest differences is that this 1957 version 1) is about "um 1190" and not 1054 (the one on p. 65 is about 1096), 2) does not contain Jews, 3) contains Bogomils and not Paulicians, 4) is consistent with its symbols (i.e., all religions are a colour, there are no religions showed as dots), 5) does not contain most of the Kievan Rus' and does not contain Northern Europe and Great Britain, and 6) has its Southern Italy part which is different from the one on the WCommons map.
I am indeed in favour of removing unsourced creations which claim de facto of de jure to have historical value from WCommons; I would wish an actual Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day could be in effect in WCommons for those types of images. Veverve (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Veverve. I'm glad you were able to verify the Westermann atlas but I cannot plagiarize its map by reproducing it identically. I did not think it was necessary to cite this atlas, once quoting the narrative books. Transferring the information from the available sources (which are paper books) to a small digital map, necessarily amounts to synthesizing, whether we want it or not. If you are right about Wikipedia, according to the rules you expose, we can already start asking for the deletion of all the maps appearing in the articles devoted to the jews, paulicians, bogomils, "vaudois" and others, so far to there will only remain reproductions of old maps whose authors have been dead for more than 70 years and which convey a lot of oversimplifications and mistakes. Mais cela se fera sans moi: "j'ai fait ce que pouvais, advienne que pourra" (comme comme on disait jadis). Bonne continuation, --Claude Zygiel (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to an earlier version of the map which was closer to the one I found in Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (1957, p. 64-50); none of those two maps in the Atlas are of 1054, as I mentioned above, but it is better than nothing. Also, since this image is titled "Great Schism 1054 with former borders" and not "Abrahamic religions in Europe in the 11th century", I do not see why the Paulicians, the Bogomils, the Jews, the Muslims or the Monophysites should be added on the map; the subject of the map is the break between the Church of Rome and the other Churches. Veverve (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but even for that the map is wrong because the presence of Orthodox churches in eastern Hungary is largely downplayed. As it is now, it would be better to delete this map. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png&oldid=641176832"