Jump to content

Talk:Name of Hungary

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

Ungarii vs. Yugra, Ouggroi

[edit]

Well, this is a bit of a puzzle. The Voguls are known as Yugri in sources beginning in the 12th century, and people tend to imply that the Latin Ungarii is derived from that. But the Latin Ungarii is attested much earlier, as early as 970 in Widukind of Corvey. However the name made it to Europe, it must have got there pretty much the same moment the Magyars themselves did. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the above seems to be that, no, Ungarii does not have the same etymology as Ugri. It seems not unlikely that the two names have influenced one another due to their similarity, but apparently Ungarii is from the Turkic, while Ugri (Οὔγγροι) is from the Uralic, or at least an exonym applied to Uralic peoples, Yugra. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I don't have sources handy, but I'm pretty sure that the lack of the n is due to Slavic: Proto-Slavic *ungr- (< Turkic on-ogur) regularly becomes OCS ǫgr- and Old Russian (j)ugr-.
The reason for the addition of the unetymological h in Hungarii (which was possible because the h wasn't pronounced anyway) is the association with the ancient Hunni. Thus, all forms are explained. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Οὔγγροι is pronounced [uŋgr-] with nasal, so this is comparable to Ungarii, not the Russian form. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following article discusses exaxtly this question, i.e. relation between Ugri and Yugra:
Vásáry, István (1982). "The 'Yugria' Problem". In Róna-Tas, András (ed.). Chuvash studies. Bibliotheca orientalis hungarica. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó. ISBN 978-963-05-2851-1. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Name of Hungary

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Name of Hungary's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hungary":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wegry (Polish)

[edit]

Where does the Polish name for Hungary originate? It looks different from Czech and Slovak names. 82.46.64.88 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Name of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of misleading cotton map

[edit]

That map has nothing to do with the state Kingdom of Hungary, but depicts Hunnic tribes.

The Cotton World Map (also known as the Cottonian Map, c. 1040) really does feel a bit like a “best-of” historical atlas compiled by medieval scholars. It’s not that they believed those ancient kingdoms still existed — rather, in medieval cartography, geographical and historical knowledge simply merged into one seamless whole.

In short: medieval maps didn’t depict contemporary political reality; they illustrated the world’s knowledge — and that knowledge was heavily saturated with ancient era sources.

A bit more detail:

The genre of the Cotton Map: mappa mundi. These weren’t real political maps. They were more like cosmological diagrams meant to represent the entire world as described by the Bible, the Church Fathers, and classical authors. The goal was to organize knowledge, not to provide accurate, up-to-date geography.

Ancient influences: Ptolemy, Orosius, Isidore. Eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon scholars worked from the legacy of the classical world. Roman place-names and Roman provinces — Dacia, Pannonia, Hibernia, Scythia, Numidia, Mauretania, and so on — were part of the standard scholarly vocabulary, regardless of the fact that the political entities themselves had vanished centuries earlier.

For medieval authors, history was a continuous present. They viewed the world as one long, linear, biblical narrative. Anything that had once existed and mattered had a rightful place on the map. If a region was called Lusitania in the age of Augustus, then in their framework it “lived on” — and naturally appeared on the map.

Eleventh-century Europe wasn’t fully mapped. Many important contemporary polities are missing or only vaguely indicated, simply because Anglo-Saxon sources didn’t know them well. It seemed more logical to use names firmly anchored in the old books.

Accuracy wasn’t the point. The mappa mundi was also a spiritual map. Evoking the ancient peoples and kingdoms served to portray the divinely ordered structure of the world. --Countler (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiume

[edit]

Do you understand this?

The Italian Regno d'Ungheria ("Kingdom of Hungary") alone denominated the Free State of Fiume for its existence from 1920 to 1924, the City of Fiume (contemporarily Rijeka, Croatia, but still denominated Fiume in Hungarian) of which the Free State was predominantly comprised having been within the territory of the Kingdom from 1776 to 1920.

This seems to say that the Free State of Fiume was never called that in Italian, but instead Italy called it "the Kingdom of Hungary" as somehow the last remnant of that former state, though it was not a kingdom. Am I reading it right? —Antonissimo (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon cotton map for IP USER

[edit]

gy: Auctoritas Over Empiricism

Modern cartography is empirical; it relies on satellite data, surveying, and the precise tracking of current borders. The medieval mapmaker (often an anonymous monk) operated under a completely different intellectual paradigm: the principle of textual authority (auctoritas).

In the medieval monastic mind, the ultimate truth about the world did not come from contemporary merchants, travelers, or political ambassadors. It came from the library. When drawing a map, a scribe did not ask, "Who rules this valley today?" but rather, "What do the respected ancient authorities say about this region?"

The Cotton Map’s primary textual sources were the writings of Paulus Orosius (a 5th-century Christian historian who wrote History Against the Pagans) and Isidore of Seville (a 7th-century scholar whose Etymologiae compiled classical knowledge), who in turn copied Roman writers like Pliny the Elder and Solinus. Consequently, the map represents a landscape of memory, authority, and scripture. It is a timeline collapsed into a two-dimensional space. 2. Pervasive Anachronisms: Further Examples from the Cotton Map

The placement of the "Huns" instead of the Hungarians (Magyars) is not an isolated error or a deliberate political stance. It is part of a consistent system of classical and biblical mapping. Consider these other prominent examples on the map: Scythia and Sarmatia in Eastern Europe

The map labels vast territories in modern-day Ukraine, Russia, and Poland as Scythia and Sarmatia. By the year 1000, these regions were dominated by the sophisticated state of the Kievan Rus', the Volga Bulgars, and various Pecheneg or Cuman nomadic confederations. To the Anglo-Saxon mapmaker, however, these contemporary political entities were irrelevant; anyone living in the deep Eurasian steppes was eternally categorized under the classical Roman umbrella of "Scythians." Dacia and Gothia in the Balkans

The map places Dacia and Gothia just north of the Danube. By the time the map was drawn, the Goths had long vanished as a distinct political or ethnic group, having integrated into the populations of Western Europe centuries prior, and Dacia had ceased to exist as a Roman province in the 3rd century. Roman Provincial Names in the West

Even closer to home, where contemporary knowledge was readily available, the map relies heavily on Roman administration. Rather than reflecting the highly fragmented feudal duchies of the Kingdom of France or the Islamic Caliphate of Córdoba in Spain, the mapmaker labels Western Europe using old Roman provinces: Gallia, Hispania, and Lusitania. The Fusion of Sacred History and Physical Space

In the Middle East, the Red Sea is painted a literal, vibrant red. Next to it, the map features a drawing of the Golden Calf from the biblical Book of Exodus, along with the desert route taken by the Israelites. This serves as definitive proof that the map tracks sacred history rather than the 11th-century geopolitics of the Fatimid Caliphate. Mythical Races on the Fringes

On the margins of Asia and Africa, the map notes the habitats of the Cynocephali (dog-headed men) and other fantastic monstrous races drawn directly from Pliny’s Natural History.

3. The Logical Verdict: Why the Map Cannot Prove Historical Claims

If a modern historian or polemicist attempts to use the Cotton Map to settle a historical dispute—such as proving who inhabited the Carpathian Basin or Eastern Europe in the 10th century—they commit a severe methodological error. Logically, the map holds zero evidentiary value for contemporary political claims due to three fundamental flaws: A) Radical Anachronism (Temporal Collapse)

The map displays events from the Old Testament (c. 1500 BCE), Roman provincial borders (c. 1st–4th century CE), the Migration Period (c. 5th century CE), and a few contemporary Anglo-Saxon towns (c. 1000 CE) all on the same plane, at the same time. It is logically impossible to extract a precise 10th-century ethnic reality from a document that intentionally collapses 2,500 years of human history into a single image.

B) Derivative, Multi-Layered Transmission

The Anglo-Saxon monk who drew the map never traveled beyond the British Isles. His information was passed down through centuries of copying and recopying texts. A geographic label that traveled from a 4th-century Roman administrator to a 7th-century Spanish bishop, and finally to a 10th-century English monastery, cannot be treated as an eyewitness source for the ethnic demographics of Eastern Europe.

C) "Huns" and "Scythians" as Cultural Tropes, Not Genotypes

To the medieval Western elite, terms like Huni or Scythae were not precise linguistic or genetic classifications; they were geographical and cultural tropes (topoi). Any fierce, horse-riding nomadic or semi-nomadic group emerging from the eastern steppes into the Danube basin was automatically labeled a "Hun" or a "Scythian" by Western chroniclers. When the mapmaker wrote Huni, he was not making a genealogical statement about Attila’s descendants; he was noting: "This is the formidable region from which the horse-riding terrors of history emerge."--Academix-at-all (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AI,
The article is “name of Hungary”, and the map is relevant regarding the history of naming. Everybody knows this is not a geography or modern history map. I see you dont like the first 3 characters in the English name of Hungary. This is simple the history of naming. OrionNimrod (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Name_of_Hungary&oldid=1360403704"