Talk:Matthias Corvinus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Older

The text below was recently added to the article by an anonymous author. While it seems valid to refer to the controversy between Romanians and Hungarians, the text as written does not present a balanced view of the dispute and seems to relate specifically to a recent and localised dispute over the replacemtent of a plaque on one particular statue of Matthias). Regarding Matthias' ethnicity, a comment could perhaps be added referring to his mixed ethnicity (Romanian ancestry on his father's side, while his mother was Hungarian), but there has been a separate discussion about the ethnicity of John Hunyadi, and it is not clear what can be regarded as a generally-accepted fact. Scott Moore 12:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matthew Corvin (in Romanian Matei Corvin) is one of the personalities that create great controversies between Romanians and Hungarians. While Romanians celebrate him as a historical Romanian figure, Hungarians are insistent in denying the Romanian ethnical origin of Matei Corvin despite many arguments including a Romanian ethimology of his name. Corvin is clearly a Romanian word. Hungarians avoid the term Corvin or its derivatives calling him only Mátyás, which seems to further support the claim that he was an ethnic Romanian. In all other languages the term Corvin or a derivative is always used.

The story of Matei Corvin has more than historical importance. His statue located in the centre of Cluj Napoca is subject to serious tensions as Hungarians request a public denial of his Romanian origin by posting an inscription on the statue that calls him a Hungarian king. Romanians reject the claim with indignation bringing a large amount of historical arguments that prove his Romanian identity and accuse Hungarians of trying to write the history according to their own advantage.

Beyond the complicated historical debates, it is interesting to note that Matthew Corvin is largely honoured by the Romanians both in historical books and in real life while Hungarian historians treat him briefly and technically insisting that he was not Romanian. This situation seems a bit strange to an objective observer as Matthew Corvin was in fact a successful king of Hungary and Romanians would have very little reason to celebrate him unless he was part of their culture. The number of streets and public schools from Romania that are named Matei Corvin is incredibly high in Transylvania which again seems to support the Romanian identity of Matthew Corvin.

Seems a mess, but there may be some material here worth having in the article:

1. The dispute itself may be worth mentioning.
2. I've added the statement about his father being a Vlach. If that's contested, we should probably seek citations on both sides.
3. "Corvin/Corvinus" is just the Latin for "crow", irrelevant to his ethnicity.
4. We could probably hav more about the statue in Cluj Napoca. The Ceauşescu government apparently came very close to tearing it down, claiming they needed to dig there in search of Vlach remains.
5. The last paragraph is just POV, though I could imagine the same point being made from citable sources.

-- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Not just a mess, but the comments about Hungarians are a fabrication (in some cases the opposite of reality):

• "Hungarians are insistent in denying the Romanian ethnical origin of Matei Corvin". This may or may not be true of some Hungarians, but is certainly not a general position. In fact, a couple of Hungarian history books I've just looked through state quite clearly that John Hunyadi came from a Romanian noble family.
• "Hungarians avoid the term Corvin or its derivatives". Neither is this true. Corvinus is widely used e.g it is the name of a university in Budapest, a radio station, a hotel, a string quartet...The variation "Corvin" is also common.
• "...while Hungarian historians treat him briefly and technically insisting that he was not Romanian". Plain nonsense. In the couple of history books I refer to above, he probably receives more attention than any other figure in Hungarian history.
• "The number of streets and public schools from Romania that are named Matei Corvin is incredibly high in Transylvania which again seems to support the Romanian identity of Matthew Corvin." This is equally true for Hungary.

Maybe something about the statue in Cluj-Napoca can be included in the article about that city. Scott Moore 10:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I'm a Hungarian citizen (who just re-edited parts of the article), and I can just second everything Scott Moore wrote above. To my understanding, the plaque was a work of ultranationalist Cluj Napoca major Gheorghe Funar, and the problems with it are that it omits to mention Matthias was only half Vlach/Romanian, and that he was a king of Hungary (at least I am told). In addition, I was also taught in school about the real-life Dracula as Wallachian ruler and a fighter against the Turks Matthias relied on (I read about that imprisonment later). On the other hand, for what I know, it may be possible that a large part of Hungarians in Transsylvania, unlike here in the Hungarian Republic, are really in denial about Matthias's descent. Or not.

Hi Hungarian citizen. It would be better if you created an account so that you could sign anything you write in Wikipedia. By the way, I agree with Elizabeth Miller that the fictional character of Dracula was not based on Vlad Dracula (also known as Vlad the Impaler). After all, in the novel Dracula says: "We Szekelys have a right to be proud...Ah, young sir, the Szekelys, and the Dracula as their heart's blood, their brains, and their swords, can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach." And Vlad Dracula was clearly not Székely! Scott Moore 14:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just an aside, but that misses the point: that Bram Stoker makes Dracula a Szekely is no argument against Dracula being based on Vlad Tepes. Dracula is also a vampire which Vlad Tepes was clearly not. However, all the historical information given by Dracula in the novel, about his "ancestor" (actually himself) is taken from the exploits of Vlad Tepes. Finally, the fictional character and the historical ruler share the name "Dracula". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm an American citizen, of mixed Hungarian/Latin descent. I would point out that János Hunyadi himself was only partly of Romanian/Vlach descent. At best, he was half Romanian/Vlach. It is quite possible that he had even less Vlach ancestry than that (his father's name often given as "Vajk" or "Voicu"--Vajk is clearly a very ethnic Magyar name--think of the pre-baptismal name of St. Stephen! As for the citation about Vlad Tepes, it should be pointed out that his mother was...Oy--Hungarian! Yet no one in Hungary claims him as "actually Hungarian, not Rumanian". An important aspect of nationality in the historical Kingdom of Hungary is missing from all of these discussions: what we call "nationality" today was almost unknown in the 15th century. Language, religion, and, most importantly, social status defined what group one associated oneself with. Plenty of famous (and not-so-famous) "Hungarians" have decidedly non-Magyar names and ancestry. (There is no such thing as a "pure" or even "mostly pure" Magyar. No such thing!) Think of some of the most famous names in Hungarian (national and diaspora) history: Garay (a name of Croatian origin), Kossuth (Slovak origin), Madl (Austrian origin), Rubik (Czech or Slovak origin), Klein (German origin), Spiner (English origin), Wiesel (German-Jewish origin), Zrinyi (Croatian origen). Some (somewhat) lesser-known include Maticska (Slovak/Polish), Atamaniuk (Ukranian), Kaminski (Polish), and Stetson (Swedish), all family names of my Hungarian ancestors!

If you asked John Hunyadi what his nationality was, he would probably have said "Hungarian", the name of his native country, the same one he lived in, fought for, governed, and died for. It should be remembered that Hungary was and, for those Magyar chauvinists who may wish to forget, remains a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic state. Every Hungarian has a multi-ethnic (and some might argue multi-racial) ancestry. Like Americans, those Hungarians of non-magyar descent soon adopted a Magyar identity. I am not saying that any sense of descent from other nations was ignored, but the assimilation into the dominant Magyar culture was the norm. (Look at the link for Zrinyi/Zrinski above. His brother was a famous poet in Croatian and he was a famous writer in Hungarian, and his grandfather was one of the great heros of Hungary (and, of course, his native Croatia).

The bottom line: a claim of exclusive Vlach ancestry for Corvinus is not only absurd, but misses the point entirely.

InFairness 07:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why there should be so much text in this article about John Hunyadi (as there is a separate article for him). I have also made the point on Wikipedia that the original concept of nation (natio) was very different to modern interpretations. Other contributors have also explained out that nobles in medieval Hungary would not have identified themselves along ethnic lines - they all belonged the the natio hungarica. Scott Moore 11:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear InFairness, why do you confuse Hungary before the Ottoman turks and after them?? Nobody denies Hungary after the 18s century became a multi-ethnic teritory of the Habsburg Empire. But, before the Ottoman age it wasn't. 80% of the population was descendents of Arpad's magyars.

About the Matthias Rex origin: only Romanian propaganda (rooted in Supplex Libellus Valachorum from 1791) holds that he was or Romanian origin. This is doubtful for a couple of reasons:

1. Matthias's grandfather name Vajk is an ancient Turk/Cuman name (Bajk = true man) just like his great grandfather's name: Sorbe (means: unfortunate).

2. Vajk have had a brother named Magos (hungarian origin)

3. John Hunyadi was the second John (wasn't dying) in the family ... quite strange??

4. Historians speculate that he was the illegitimate son of Sigismund (Matthias looked like Sigismund)

What we know is, Matthias' grandfather came from Cumania, have had Cuman name, that's all. No evidence on his romanian origin ...--fz22 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Jmabel, it wasn't the Ceaucescu government who wanted to do away with the statues in the process of an archeological survey but Funar (trenches dug from 1995); and it wasn't Vlach remains but Roman remains that were looked for (and found). (As nationalist Hungarian 'historians' try to connect Hungarians with Huns and Sumerians (heh), nationalist Romanian historians try to connect the Vlachs - who surely have a connection to the Roman Empire by every account, but the issue of contention is whether they migrated to their current dwelling places or were there earlier - to the Romans of province Dacia (in today's Transsylvania), and the Dacians who previously had an empire here. But there is no archeological evidence of continued Roman presence after Dacia was emptied in 256 and 275; Funar wanted archeologists to find it.) DoDo

King Matthew's cited knowledge of the Slovakian language is pretty much anachronic as in that time the term "Slovakian language" is nonsense, being a Czech dialect at best. Aetil (10 Nov 2005)

That is, of course not true and has never been true, the Slovak language is as old as any other Slavic language and what you say is very primitive and shows absolute lack of elementary knowledge in this field (even if not deliberately). But, I do not know, whether he spoke it, and have no time to check it. Juro 03:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Death date

People keep flipping the death date between April 6 and April 26. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives April 6, so unless someone has a heck of a citation to the contrary, this seems clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:53, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Variants on name

Any reason the variants on his name have been pushed to the bottom of the article? Usually we do this in the opening paragraph. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is okay to give the most important variants in the opening line but not a whole plethora of them. Anyone beginning to read the article is not interested in a hard-to-read list of how someone is called in Slovene or Polish (Slovene and Polish subjects of course excepted) but the reader wants to know first who this was and when he lived. This is totally drowned out by such a list. Also, it is not sensible to insert surnames and titles like "king" in the name variants. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am a usability expert and people are not interested that much in name variations. The Turkish variant does not look correct. Yanos is very similar to Janos who was his father. It must be deleted or changed.

Link to Várpalota article

Is this the right King Matthias to be linked to the Várpalota article? It seems so, but I don't have the resources to determine it. The article currently has a link to King Mathias, a fictional character related to LEGO building blocks. I will correct the Várpalota link now, because this is a whole lot more likely to be correct than the LEGO reference. If linking here is not appropriate, I trust that someone will further improve it. Thanks. --Mddake 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Usually, we don't link from fact to fiction except where the fiction has influenced perception of the fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• The question remains whether this is the correct article for the Várpalota article to link to. It is patently obvious that it should not link to a fictional character having nothing to do with the region, which is why I changed the link. --Mddake 01:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, this is the correct Matthias. Thanks for correcting the link. Alensha 23:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca (Roman Empire's Napoca)

Kolozsvár is the hungarian name for Cluj-Napoca. The city has always been named Cluj and the "international" name is also Cluj. My point is that saying "Kolozsvár (now Cluj)" is incorrect as it was not renamed. If there are no objections I will change it to "Cluj (hungarian: Kolozsvár)". (please provide arguments if you want to object) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) 5 Jan 2006.

No arguments against provided --82.76.30.78 13:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Kolozsvár was a hungarian city until the treaty of Trianon. So in context of a hungarian ruler it should be called Kolozsvár.

Napoca is the name that the Romans gave when they conquered Dacia, end of story, no hungarian atom whatsoever.Some people should organize themselves in very large groups, visit Rome, read what ancient Roman poets, historians, politicians have written about Dacia Felix and its constant 200 years of Roman occupation, take pictures of Trajan's Column (which is by the way situated in the CENTER of modern day Rome - how could you have possibly have missed it for the past 2000 years remains a mistery to me) that clearly depicts Emperor Trajan final victory over Dacia.Proof about Romanians origins in Dacians and Roman Empire is infinitely irrefutable, even a 5th grade History teacher from Italy can offer proof for that, get used to it already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.124.68.58 (talk • contribs) 12 Feb 2006.

Excuse me? Yes, obviously the Romans conquered Dacia, those who dispute the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity do not dispute that. What they dispute is a continuous presence in the region. - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the language spoken during Mathias Corvin, and the written language from that time maybe that te name of Latin:Claudiopolis or the German: Klausenburg will be moare appropriate. Maybe for Matei Corvin his nationality was with a very little importance :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CristianChirita (talk • contribs) 19 Feb 2006.

One more thing: the fact that Dacia was conquered, would more point that Dacia was an enemy state, ie. not speaking Roman/Latin. It is not proof. The Dacians could speak any language.Abdulka (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bonfini

"soon learned the finesses of power from his mentor, the Italian Antonio Bonfini" was recently changed to "soon learned the finesses of power from his mentor, the Italian Bonfini". If this was Antonio Bonfini, he certainly should be linked; our article on Bonfini identifies him as a scholar in Matthias Corvinus' court, and I can find references to him elsewhere as an historian and chronicler, but there is nothing about him being regent. Conversely, if not him who was this mysterious Italian? If he was regent of Hungary, he deserves an article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Early life". What I usually do for such issues is go to "Edit/Find" and type the sequence of letters. Dahn 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

About him being regent or not, I have no idea. Dahn 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, I didn't notice that Bonfini was already linked once. He should probably be qualified by nationality on first mention, not second mention (I'll fix that), but I'd still like to see a citation for him being regent, because I can't quickly find one, and you'd think that if he was, our article about him should say so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Linked or not, Bonfini was NEVER a regent in Hungary. As far as I remember, in the Hungarian history there were only 4 governors. Bonfini was neiother of them, neither a regent. Moreover, Bonfini arrived to Hungary inthe late 1470s, and was therefore not the mentor, but the historian of Mathias. Instead, Mathias' uncle, Mihály (Michael) Szilágyi was a governor forr a brief period in 1458.CsB Hungarian link: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Bonfini

Thanks for sorting that out. Dahn 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

then why was it re-edited, by returning to the previous version. Bonfini was NOT a regent, neither a mentor, it is useless to write the opposite. if my rights as a user are not sufficient to delete this silly part of the sentence, somebody please do it for me. CsB

I did not edit it out, and I was not paying attention at that moment. You could make sure it stays by leaving note saying "see talk page" when editing it back in (if anyone reverts you again), and perhaps provide a reference (even if you are sure, others may consider that it was not NPOV for whatever reasons - I do not, but others may). Also, you may find it useful to register as a user. In any case, since the info (taken from a very old and rather casual text in Britannica) was not thought to be reliable enough, so you editing it out on the basis of intimate knowledge (whic I do not have) should heve been welcomed by all. In other words: from my perspective, it looks like someone would have to provide reference for getting the sentence back into the text, more than you would for editing it out. Dahn 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovene name for Mathias Corvinus

While the given name, Matija Korvin, really is the name under which the historical persona is described, there is much wider recognition of Mathias Corvinus as "Kralj Matjaž", or King Mathias in Slovene folk-lore. Kralj Matjaž of lore is said to be a just king of ancient times, who currently sleeps in an underground cavern under the mountain Peca, in the northeastern part of Slovenia, sitting by a table. When his beard will grow to encircle the table nine times, he will awaken and resume his just rule, according to lore. He can be seen here: http://www.hervardi.com/vindija/kralj_matjaz.jpg in a picture on a bee-hive ending, with the words "Kral Matiaš", and here: http://www.akropola.org/slike/Pravljice/kralj%20matjaz/kralj-matjaz-velika.jpg sleeping in the cave with his court - notice the beard circling around the table legs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.172.246.2 (talk • contribs) 24 April 2006.

I may be missing something, but what is the basis to identify Matthias Corvinus (rather than anohter Matthias) with Kralj Matjaž? If this is solid, yes, we should mention the legend in the article, with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference to him as a sleeping king is made on the page and in the article for sleeping kings. I for one do not know if the two are the same ("do not know if", not "do not agree that"), but I think reference to him should include his official or full name in Slavic versions. I also hold the oppinion that Kralj Matjaž may deserve a special article or section of this one - since it supposedly is a mainly mythical development with a certain local tradition (by which I mean: it is not universally linked to the character). Dahn 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Linked or not, Bonfini was NEVER a regent in Hungary. As far as I remember, in the Hungarian history therewere only 4 governors. Bonfini was neiother of them. CsB

Method of Death

A different wikipage said that Corvinus died from eating poisonious figs, but this one mentions him being injured in battle. Which is it?

Surely, the cause of death was not an injury. He died quite suddenly in Vienna, but we can only guess what was the reason. The two most probable cause is a stroke or poisoning. Dzsibril 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual error about Romania's anthem

I have cut from the last section of the article this part "; in one notable example, Matthias (cited as Corvin) is mentioned in the poem that became the national anthem of Romania, Deşteaptă-te, române! (next to Michael the Brave and Stephen III)." While the other sentence is correct, the particular "Corvin" mentioned in Romania's anthem is Matthias' father, John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.105.19.17 (talk • contribs) October 24, 2006.

It can be about Matthias father, or it can be about Matthias himself too. But probably is about both of them. In Romania, especially in Transylvania, both of them are considered very important historical persons. --Roamataa 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Corvin" was never John's name or nickname. It is theoretically possible that the lyrics' author was not aware of that, and that he probably meant to say "John" (just as many Romanians were doing at the time and have done since) - however, since he never did make his point clear, we have to assume that the person in question is the actual Corvin. Dahn 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

why was he made king?

Why exactly was he made king? He had nothing to do with Ladislas the Posthumous' family. Is it because he was a Hunyadi? What exactly happened in the Hungarian Diet that decided Matthias will be their king? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Ladislaus didn't have a son. So was the next king elected. As it was in the case of Sigismund or Ladislaus or Wladislaw. And why Matthias. His family had enough money at soldier at this time. He was stronger than all the others including Emperor Friedrich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ResetGomb (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Another point: Hunyadi was connected to "Turul" blood from the female side of the family. The Diet knew this, we tend to forget or not to emphasize. So there goes the Vlach origin to trash! Abdulka 10:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, with "blood from the female side" you mean the romanian noblewoman Elisabeta Sălăjean . an by connected to the Turul you mean "the most important mythological bird of the origin myth of the Magyars" . Yes myths. so there goes your Magyar origin to trash, Abdulka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

contradiction: origin of corvinus

According to this article:

The later epithet Corvinus was coined by Matthias' biographer, the Italian Antonio Bonfini, who claimed that the Hunyadi family (whose coat of arms depicts a raven—corvus in Latin) descended from the ancient Roman gens of the Corvini.

According to John Hunyadi:

The epithet Corvinus was first used by the biographer of his son Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, but is sometimes also applied to John. The epithet is also related to a legend: during a trip with his parents, a six- or seven-years old John would have shoot with a bow, while his parents were asleep, a rook that stole a precious medallion that emperor Sigismund had given to his father, with which John was playing.

A legend, thought to be discreetly distributed by John himself, was that he was the son of Sigismund of Luxembourg, whose faithful soldier his father was for two decades.

Neither has a solid reference, so I really couldn't say which is correct. Anyone know? - TheMightyQuill 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Vlad II (Dracula), vampires and Holywood?

Just wondering what you people think about adding a reference to this.
Was just reading Vlad II's bio [1], where I read how he married a relative of Matei Corvin.
That reminded me of the movie Underworld [2] in which both lycans and vampires are descendants of the fictional Alexander Corvinus [3].
I guess you can see what I mean: "Dracula" married a Corvinus, then writers used this to create "Alexander Corvinus" and make him the ancester of both vampires and werefolves.
You think it'd be interesting to add this reference to pop culture here?
Apeder 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty big stretch isn't it, considering this fictional Alexander Corvinus supposedly lived about 1000 years before Mattias Corvinus. They borrowed the name, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with Matthias. - TheMightyQuill 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but thought I'd ask in case majority thought it'd be interesting. Thanks for the input. --Apeder 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference is noteworthy since in the movie Alexander Corvinus had a human son who had descendants to modern day. They obviously borrowed the name Corvinus because of his ties with Vlad Dracula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diemert (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin

All the references to his father's Cumanian instead of Romanian origin come from sources in Hungarian, five of them. You would think at least one of them would be in English so we could verify it. --Venatoreng (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All the references to his father's Romanian instead of Cumanian origin come from sources which are not in English. (All of them). You would think at least one of them would be in English so we could verify it.  :) I think this is not the only article on the wiki which has mostly non english sources... (articles like: Origin of the Romanians, Principality of Nitra,Pribina, etc...)Baxter9 (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look at 4 out of the 5 sources which claim he is Romanian :

^ Constantin Höfler, Das kaiserliche Buch des Markgrafen Albrecht Achilles. Vorkurfürstliche Periode 1440-1470 (=QFG, II) (Bayreuth 1850), no. 107, p. 214 GERMAN

^ A. Bonifi, Decad. III, lib. 4, ed. cit., p. 448; vezi şi Decad. III, lib. 9, ed. cit., p. 538 ITALIAN

^ S. Teleki, Iani Pannonii Poemate quae uspiam reperiri potuerunt omnia, I, Utrecht, 1784, p. 454 HUNGARIAN

^ P. Iroaie, I romeni nell opera di Ransano, în „Il Veltro, XIII (1969), 1-2, p. 184-185 ROMANIAN about the works of an ITALIAN humanist.

You can reply if you want, but I need the opinion of a neutral editor/administrator of the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure where I can inform administrators about such problems, but I am sure I will find the place. Cheers. --Venatoreng (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And which one is English from them? Perhaps "Constantin Höfler, Das kaiserliche Buch des Markgrafen Albrecht Achilles. Vorkurfürstliche Periode 1440-1470 (=QFG, II) (Bayreuth 1850), no. 107, p. 214 GERMAN" :) UPDATE: Anyway, I have listed the references for you. Cheers.Baxter9 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try to find translations. While the Romanian origin is supported mainly by non-Romanian authors, the Hungarian position is supported only by Hungarians. Hungarian authors are directly interested in this topic and could write just about anything about it, that does not make them automatically a valid source. --Venatoreng (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hunyadi Mátyás (Matei Corvin) was an important person of the Hungarian history. I dont know why are you suprised that Hungarians are interested in this article and about his life. Also this is why you will find more informations about him in Hungarian (most of the English sources are based on Hungarian or Romanian works)than in English. Also claiming that Hungarian authors are writing fake informations is ridiculous (I could say the same thing about Romanians). The references which I added are valid, and they are the works of known Hungarian historians. You can check them. And what makes your sources valid? Is A. Bonfini (a medival source what you added) better than a modern scientific work? I would not call a professor's work non accredited. And yes, I WILL ADD SOURCED, ACCREDITED INFORMATIONS even if they are in Hungarian, because according to wiki rules I can. (You say that you can add romanian sources, and i cant add Hungarian ones? LOL! :D) You dont have to push your Romanian propaganda here. This is the English wiki. Thank you. Ps: and please add more english sources to the article Origin of the Romanians, because 80% of the sources is Romanian, and I cant verify the informations.Cheers.Baxter9 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What Romanian propaganda ? John Hunyadi was the son of a Wallachian nobleman. The thing is Italian humanists or German scholars had no interest in writing propaganda for Romanians. In King Mattias' time both friends and enemies (like Frederick III of Austria) acknowledged his Romanian origin. They had to fake a history about the Corvinus family tracing back to Ancient Rome, so as to say Mattias was worthy of the throne as a descendant of Julius Caesar himself.

If you are going to add sources in Hungarian, they better be from university professors or recognised specialists. The sources claiming he was Romanian are either FOREIGN or from Romanian scholars. So please, present us the works of Hungarian scholars. Preferably no more than 10, the article will lose in esthetics. Thank you for your time. --Venatoreng (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1)Yes, he came from wallachia. The problem is that Romanians think that only vlachs lived in wallachia. ") 2) First you said that you want english sources and now hungarian....(?) 3) I added the sources, authors etc 5 minutes ago. You can check them, (this is what you wanted) they are all valid. (For example prof. dr. László Rásonyi was a professor and the member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, he teached at many part of the world (example:Ankara).More informations in Hingarian: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A1sonyi_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3, or http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laszlo_Rasonyi.Baxter9 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh ? John Hunyadi is definitely not of Hungarian ethnical origin, yet you consider him Hungarian, do you not ? About the sources : I wanted them to be in English, but since you said you had them only in Hungarian, I said they should be from academic sources. You presented the sources, so I took the liberty of removing the "verification needed" format. Have a nice week. --Venatoreng (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Venatoreng, pls TRY to be a little objective. You will not find professional English source for Matthias, as the professors themselves DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY about his origin! Hungarians have their codexes, legends, even fairy tales dedicated to Matthias, I suppose so does the Romanians. And believe me, if you ask a Serbian, he will say Matthias is Janko Sibinjani's son, so he is Serbian! What is TRUE, and cannot be biased, is that he was Hungarian king. Hungarians are proud of him, so don't be surprised they are sure he is Hungarian, personally I am astonished you are surprised that Hungarians think he is Hungarian. BTW, he was also called second Attila, in his age, not in recent times. What I am writing is that it is not important, what you think of his origin, what is important, is what HE himself thought of his origin, but we cannot ask him :) . You might be Romanian but with origin: mixed Bulgarian, Ottoman, Serbian, or even Hungarian, but you consider yourself Romanian. For sure, we do not know what he thought of himself. But from bare simple logic, I do not expect him to think in Wallachian or Serbian in Visegrád castle at Danube bend! (I could be wrong!) (yet he surely spoke all languages of the region). I am surprised you ask for sources - they are all from few sources from history, all of them in Latin, and all controversial! If it would not be controversial we would not be writing to each other. So if you try to proove Matthias Corvinus is Romanian origin, you should accept the fact that it is not confirmed! If you find a professor who says it is confirmed, you could judge his level of expertise yourself! And next time, pls be more empathic to other nation's feelings ... (to answer your question: check his father, John Hunyadi and you get your sources: Heltai from Hungarian side, Bonfini from other side, none is confirmed!) Why don't we all take him as OUR king? Abdulka Abdulka (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The ruling class of medieval Vallachia and medieval Moldavia were Cumans. This can explain the Cuman/Romanian dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.6.251 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The ruling class of medieval Wallachia were romanians. Wallachia means Romania which includes Moldavia as well. the "cuman" theory is only sustained by hungarian "hisorians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The family's name is Hunyadi not Corvin.

I think the word corvin either comes from corvus meaning crow or the Hungarian word for king, "király". In Hungarian he is commonly referred to as "Mátyás király". Does anyone have any information if the name "Matthias Corvinus" is simply a Latinization of Mátyás király? 71.33.224.155 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Corvin comes from raven (corvus).--ResetGomb (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It means crow and comes from the picture on their coat of arms, I believe. It has nothing to do with "king". (It's interesting that Matthias' father used only the name "Hunyadi", Matthias used both and his son János used only "Corvin".) – Alensha ^talk 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The family name is CORVIN, CORVINE . Hunyadi is a TITLE meaning "Of Hunedoara" and Matyas Kiraly is simply a magyarisation of the latin Mathias Rex. there you have it.

The family name is Hunyadi, it means "from Hunyad" in every word the "-i" ending has the same meaning in other cases its the same as "-y" ending. Corvin has nothing to do with the family it's a later addition. Also Kings are never referred by family names only the title used as king ex. István I. of Hungary etc. also styled as Stephen I of Hungary or Saint Stephen. So the family name is not relevant in deciding the framing of the royal title. Hobartimus (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture hate barbarians, and picture deletions

They alwayd delete the picture of Hunyad Castle,wich was the personal home of Hunyadi family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Matthias Corvinus of Hungary → Matthias Corvinus — Disambiguation is unrequired, and he was ruler of more than just Hungary. DrKiernan (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the original title was such because of Wikipedia-wide practice with hundreds upon hundreds of similar examples abound. And of course as you well know only the most important title is listed in each and every one of these cases out of sometimes maybe twenty titles in the case of some Monarchs. Hobartimus (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want the article to adhere to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), then it should either be at "Matthias I of Hungary" or at "Matthias Corvinus". The convention explicitly states articles should either be at "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" or at a cognomen if they are "overwhelmingly known" by that name. The current title is "{Monarch's cognomen} of {Country}" which is only advised by the convention when two monarch's share identical names and cognomens, such as Louis the Great of France and Louis the Great of Hungary. There are no other kings called Matthias Corvinus, so according to the convention the page should be moved. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not make me laugh that hard please. IIRC It was you that on this(!) very day who told me that the Guideline needs to conform to practice and not the other way around. This is just a sidenote. Hobartimus (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that the article be changed because it's against the convention. I'm pointing out that your argument is illogical. In one breath, you support the convention, and in the next you defend an article that is against it. I say scrap the convention, and put this article at its common name. DrKiernan (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, "of Hungary" is unnecessary and potentially confusing, and certainly not required by the guidelines.--Kotniski (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• I support the proposal to move this article to Matthias Corvinus. The guidelines and consistency ask for Matthias I of Hungary, so referring to them is pointless. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Superfluous, there's no Matthias Covinus of another country. man with one red shoe 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Retracted support for now, actually we need to determine how is he known in English. According to naming convention "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used" -- man with one red shoe 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Raven King: Matthias Corvinus and the Fate of His Lost Library, Matthias Corvinus and the Humanism in Central Europe... but no English langauge biography calling him "Matthias Corvinus of Hungary" or "Matthias I of Hungary" (regardless of the fact that he was Matthias I of Hungary). If you need more proof that "Matthias Corvinus" is the most common name, don't hesitate to ask ;) Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar searches: over 2,500 for "Matthias Corvinus"; less than 10 for "Matthias I of Hungary".

Google book searches: over 70,000 for "Matthias Corvinus"; less than 100 for "Matthias I of Hungary".

The naming conventions sanction the proposed target in this case because he is overwhelmingly known as Matthias Corvinus. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of other Matthias-es. Disambiguation demands that he is either numbered (Mathias I.) OR differentiated by being called "Matthias Corvinus" which makes it possible to tell him apart from Matthias II. and other Matthiases. Btw Corvinus is not similar to Luis the Great. An analogue would be to "Luis the Great" is "Matthias the Just" which he was also called to be sure. As to usage For example a book on the "History of Hungary" wouldn't need to call him ever "of Hungary" ever because it's in the title/topic of the book and or else it's obvious from context / chapter title etc etc. But I will discuss the issue more in the general discussion on NCRYOC or whatever the exact name. Hobartimus (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I consider my worries have been answered therefore I re-institute my support for the move. Also as somebody else pointed he was duke of Austria and the king of Bohemia that seals the deal for me. man with one red shoe 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, this is how he is known, "of Hungary" is unattractive and unnecessary. john k (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I really dont get it. How it is we have many hundreds if not many thousands of articles styled exactly like this for years and years on end and know someone got it into their heads that they should be changed one at a time? Whats going on here? Hobartimus (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We have article titles such as Edward VI of England (which would be analogous to Matthias I of Hungary) and not Edward Tudor of England (which would be analogous to Matthias Corvinus of Hungary). And I know, Corvinus was not a surname - but it's close enough to make a comparision. Surtsicna (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This article does not follow the guidelines. john k (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Support the move if this is the only ruler under this name (Matthias Corvinus) as it is presented and per arguments already present. Example Michael the Brave, it is not Michael the Brave of Romania or something similar also Matthias Corvinus was also a duke of Austria and the king of Bohemia. Adrian (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As has been pointed out, the current title does not follow the guidelines. The title that would is unacceptable because it is not easily recognisable and it is not even comparably well-used. Srnec (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gryffindor (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This declaration appears to be a mistake as Gryffindor has supported the naming convention elsewhere[4], so there is no reason why he should then choose to place this article at a title which breaks the convention. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hobartimus said everything what was needed to say about in his sententous standpoint that the request to move the article under a new name why is not a good idea.--Nmate (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, the reasons he gave have apparently been shown not to apply here - can you at least help supply the required counter-arguments?--Kotniski (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed change is not only against the naming conventions, but illogical as well. The "Matthias I of Hungary" would be much more reasonable in this matter. I don't even know who came up with the "Corvinus" thing either, since it's never been used by him or his father either. Sure, the Hunyadis have a crow in their coat-of-arms, but it has nothing to do with their names (more with the legends surrounding the Hunyadi family). Besides "Matthias Rex" (Latin for "king Matthew") was the most widely used term (I guess that's where his Hungarian name "Mátyás király" came from as well). So instead of cementing the Corvinus suffix(?), I'd prefer having it eliminated (interestingly enough the term "Corvinus" is rarely if ever mentioned in connection with his father John Hunyadi). CoolKoon (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is wrong. As has already been pointed out multiple times, the current title does not adhere to the naming conventions, and the proposed target does. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Corvinus" is very, very commonly used to refer to this king in English. I've no idea about Latin or Magyar, but this is an encyclopedia written in English. john k (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with CoolKoon. The Corvinus cognomen was the creation of Antonio Bonfini that he found out to flatter his boss by creating a theory on his fictional descendance from the Roman Corvus clan; the king himself did not use it. As there are other people with the cognomen Corvinus e.g. Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus or Marcus Valerius Messala Corvinus (consul 58), for disambiguition purposes I would leave the title as is now. In addition to this, it is clear from Google search that the far most common mention of him is simply "King Matthias", the same way as the king actually styled himself. Therefore, if we want to change the current title, "Matthias I of Hungary" seems to be the most appropriate title with reference to the cognomen in the lead. Frederick Barbarossa is also brought under the name Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, although Barbarossa would be more specific.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 15:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a name was not used by a person in their lifetime is irrelevant. The fact that other people are called Corvinus, but not "Matthias Corvinus", also seems irrelevant. Matthias Corvinus is completely unambiguous and is the most common name for him in English, even if it is anachronistic. Frederick Barbarossa ought to be moved to "Frederick Barbarossa," as well. john k (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging from his signature and coinage depicted in the article, he was not called "Matthias I" in his lifetime either. That name presumably only arose in the reign of Matthias II or later. As the argument "it's never been used by him" applies equally to both "Matthias I" and "Matthias Corvinus", it is consequently absurd and cannot be used to support either choice. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support The words "of Hungary" are not necessary. (Daccono (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC))
• Support as we must follow the rules.--Yopie (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The first of the Capetian kings is listed as Hugh Capet and not Hugh I of France, so there is precedence for this naming convention. On a side note, The King of Bohemia is usually a subsidiary title of the Hungarian Kings, so it is a bit redundant to include in a title that one man was king of both, it is generally implied. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vernacular

Could anybody mention reliable sources about King Matthias's vernacular? I am curious because I did read a lot of article on the Internet, but I would need trustworthy sources. Did King Mathias speak in Romanian? (his probably Vlach origin is not an answer) If we do not prove, the article is not correct. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, could not find a reliable source for that, what I could find was that "Besides the learned languages, he was also acquainted with most of the living tongues of Europe" source. I suggest a Google book research, there are many materials on the web that are actually rehashing what Wikipedia says. Maybe we should just mentioned that he knew many languages if we can't find a reliable source that enumerates them. man with one red shoe 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a very good source, I concur with your suggestion, however we have to continue the process of searching. What if King Matthias's father had Cumanian (Turkish) or Serb origin and his mother was already Hungarian. In this case, He would not have had Vlach origin. His father's origin is more than obscure, so we have to beware of what we state. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)