Talk:Géza, Grand Prince of the Hungarians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

And NOW, user:H.J., we can deal with the fact that this entry has very, very little to do with Geza. It's all about his child and grandchildren. That's not very useful. I have a reference book here that refers to Geza as 'grand prince of the Magyars', so I'm changing it to that. I'm cutting all the descendents other than Stephen. For Stephen's children people will have to click on Stephen. that's all I can find out about Geza from what I've got in my office, but it has the advantage of being about Geza. --MichaelTinkler

Baptism date for Geza and Stephen from Catholic encyclopedia. Stephen's baptism is unconnected to accession. Any better sources out there? I'm not comfortable with his title. I'm sure it wasn't 'King', though. --MichaelTinkler --- To MT I was going to look for some info on Geza, since I did not have any. Arpad is correct. Thanks for helping. I realized the Henry II of Saxony entry also and was ready to change it. Hungary specifically celebrated St Adalbert of Prague baptizm in 997 with a postage stamp.

I read Geza king of Hungary, but he might have become king or received the title at the same time his son did. eza of Hungary is fine with me. I added all the info , which can be transferred later, but at least it helps with identifying the people. I got on this Geza thing by reading the Transylvania page. user:H.J.

Combining with Geza /Talk user:H.J., what I did was move the information from 'Geza, king of Hungary' to 'Geza of Hungary'. What you have done just now is put more info into an entry called 'Geza.' Please move this information to Geza of Hungary.

MT, ok I just saw that , will move it user:H.J. --- I might be mistaken but I believe that there were several kings of Hungary named Geza, and what you have as Geza of Hungary should be Geza, Prince of Hunfgary. Pingos

---

Geza of Hungary , is the same as prince of Hungary. MichaelTinkler started him under this name, because we are trying to get some uniform input in wikipedia. That is not easy with all the different names some of the people are known by. Geza by itself will be conbined with Geza of Hungary. user:H.J.

---

Well Géza was fejedelem, which my dictionary translates as "prince", "lord", "monarch". I'd prefer "monarch" since I believe princes are descendants of kings, and Hungary had no king until Stephen I. I haven't checked the article deeply (I should cross-check it with Hungarian resources if time permitted), I'd do someday. --grin 21:52, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sources (hungarian):

• http://aida.lib.jgytf.u-szeged.hu/folyoiratok/aetas/2000_3/2000_3-01.htm

moved from the article space

The reading and pronunciation of the latin name „dux Geza” is disputed by some hungarian historians (Gubbubu 10:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)). Alternative version is Gyécsa.Gubbubu 10:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) The correct translation of "fejedelem" conf. Magay-Orszagh Magyar Angol Keziszotar is reigning prince. The Hungarians at the time of Geza (that is before the first king) had no king, no monarch. The role of fejedelem was close the Turkish Vezir (chief, chieftain). G.G. Ref: History lesson with Dr Szentmartony Kalman

Article name

The article was previously at "Géza of Hungary" and many redirects still go there to the old name. When I noticed this I tried to move it back to the old title to get the redirects back but it didn't work. Hobartimus (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article can't be at Géza of Hungary because he was one of many men known as Géza of Hungary. You know that, don't you? Anyway, you did not correct a "unilateral move". You simply changed "Magyars" to "Hungarians". The former was used in the article when I moved it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I mixed up that a little bit. I tried to move back to Géza of Hungary but couldn't. The change of Magyars->Hungarians occured because it was dissimilar to the title Grand Prince of the Hungarians the parent article. Anyway maybe you misunderstand this time I wanted to move it back to 'Géza of Hungary' only because of the redirects. At least one redirect was broken somehow but I suspect many more could be. Hobartimus (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto's diet

According to Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire) there was a diet in Quedlinburg on 972, not 973. Which one is correct? --Oop (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gyeücsa

I am just wondering whether the "Gyeücsa" form of his name is to be presented in bold. It represents an original Hungarian form and it is not used in books read in English. Therefore I think it should not be presented. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What is sure, it was his "original" name. However I concur it is not really used in English sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Coin

We will have to fix the problem if this coin[1] does not belong to Geza (its description states that it derives from the 970s). Fakirbakir (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the above approach based on the following sources:

• Kristó, Gyula (1994). "Géza". In Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc (eds.). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század) [=Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th-14th centuries)]. Akadémiai Kiadó. p. 235. ISBN 963-05-6722-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "Az a vélekedés (László Gy.) sem igazolódott, hogy [Géza] már pénzt veretett volna."
• Makk, Ferenc (1993). Magyar külpolitika (896-1196) [=Hungarian Foreign Policy (896-1196)]. Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 963-04-2913-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) : "A kutatók többsége úgy foglalt állást, hogy a magyar pénzelés kezdete nem Géza fejedelem, hanem István király nevéhez fűződik..."

Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hungary's first coin ?as a kingdom? is different. See:[2] Fakirbakir (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. Hungary's first coin looks different. Look at the description at the very first picture "This is Hungary's first coin as a kingdom". That coin on the picture is not the same as our "problematic" coin. It looks different therefore our "problematic coin" is not Stephen's first coin (according to the page). I have been trying to find sources for "Geza's coin" but I have not found anything yet. I found two works, Balint Homan's work (Magyar penztortenet 1000 - 1325) and Gyongyossy's work (Magyar penztortenet 1000 - 1526) and neither of them mention a word about Geza's coin. However, this interesting article[3] also mentions, in accordance with Kristo, that Laszlo Gyula stated that Grand Prince Geza was the first ruler who started to mint coins. But that is all. I am still unable to identify where that coin is come from. I have an insight that you are going to be right. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)