Talk:Boris Kalamanos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hóman's Borises[edit]

Bálint Hóman wrote of two Borises in his Magyar történet ([1]). One Boris was identical with Boris Kalamanos, who died around 1154, fighting against the Cumans, according to Hóman. The other Boris was Ban Boris, whom Géza I made Ban of Bosnia, for which Géza I's brother, Stephen (the former Duke of Bosnia) fled to the Byzantine Empire in 1158. Consequently: (1) Hóman does not identify the two Borises; and (2) he does not write that Boris Kalamanos was made Ban of Bosnia by Géza I. An earlier debate also makes it clear that Nada Klaić does not identify "Ban Boris" with Boris Kalamanos either. For Boris Kalamanos died around 1154, "Ban Boris/Boric" ruled in Bosnia in 1167, all theories identifying them can easily be described as a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Historians like Simeon Bogdanović explicitly say Boris Kalamanos and "Borić" were the same person, so don't delete their claim based on your POV on Hóman. Also, Klaić quotes Hóman as saying "Banus Boris" (not just Boris) when discussing Arpads' right to Bosnia (p.48 in her book), and Kalamanos was the only Arpad named Boris at that time. (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
However, Klaić does not say that Ban Boris was a member of the Árpád dynasty. And the exprerssion "борис" cannot be find in the allegedly cited book by Simeon Bogdanović. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't allow primary sources or POV. My refs are secondary sources: Klaić's on Hóman, and Vukićević & Ćosović's on Bogdanović. (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Nobody cite primary sources, but you have not verified that either Hóman or Klaić identify Boris Kalamanos with Ban Boris, and you have not been able to prove that the allegedly cited book by Bogdanović identifies the two Borises. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hóman and Bogdanović are primary sources here, and you are just a Wikipedia editor. What does Bogdanović have to do with Klaić?! Klaić identified Hóman's Banus Boris as an Arpad, otherwise she wouldn't have bothered opposing Arpads' right to Bosnia; the only Arpad by name Boris at the time was Boris Kalamanos. (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Would you quote the text from Klaić's work which proves that she identifies Boris Kalamanos with Ban Boris? During the previous debate, this claim was not proved. Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to cite the obvious. So can you answer: what does Bogdanović have to do with Klaić? (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
However, it is not obvious. The claim that Klaić identified Ban Boris as a member of the Árpád dynasty has not been proved for a while. If you cannot cite more than one historians who identify Boris Kalamanos with Ban Boris, how can you prove that this is not a fringe theory, especially if we take into account that ordinary men can rarely rule after their death (Boris Kalamanos died in the early 1150s, Ban Boris still ruled around 1167). Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue of Borić's identity is so poorly understood and so rarely addressed that 1 reference is a gem. On your dates speculation: historic dates are almost always based on primary sources not allowed on Wikipedia, but for the sake of discussion: don't you find it improbable (in light of your own POV) that 2 men for whom at least one historian claimed were the same person, dies in the same year the other man appears? Again: what links Bogdanović to Klaić?! (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
No, one reference is not a gem. It is a minority or fringe POV. "My" dates are not speculations: they are based on scholarly works cited in the relevant articles. No, it is not interesting: a man who dies in the early 1150s can hardly be identical with a man who is mentioned for the first time in the late 1150s. I do not know (and have not claimed) any link between Bogdanović and Klaić: the former allegedly identifies Boris Kalamanos with Ban Boris, the latter clearly does not identify the two men. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You asked me to quote where Bogdanović equates them: "Међутим, један од познијих писаца (Синиша у Летопису Матице српске, књ. 151) вели, такође, да је Ана била кћи босанскога бана Борића. Али ту узима да су бан Борић и Борис, син Коломана I, краља угарског, једно лице". So it's not allegedly, but literally. Bogdanović ref is a gem as it doesn't fall into questionable sources. The Undue tag must go. Also, here's an example of a ref on Boris possibly not been who you think, and on historic dates surrounding him being speculative, with another example here. (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You have not cited a single quote which states that the two Borises were identical. According to Google Translate, the above quote says that a late primary source claims that a certain Anna was the daughter of Boric which would imply that Boric was identical with Boris. However, you have not presented the conclusion of the scholar who wrote this sentence. The other citation also proves that Boris Kalamanos died in the 1150s. How could this source prove that he was identical with a man who ruled Bosnia in the 1160s? Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't know how Google translates but my bolded text means "But he holds that Ban Borić and Boris, son of Coloman I, Hungarian king, were the same person" So the source does state explicitly that Bogdanović claims Boris and Borić (what do you mean by "two Borises"?) were identical. Again, I only use secondary sources like Klaić or Vukićević & Ćosović. Historians surely know best. (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your translation which again proves that there is one historian who identifies Boris Kalamanos and Ban Borić. By the way, what is his full name and when did he live? However, we still cannot forget that the other historians whom you cited (Hóman and Klaić) do not identify Boris Kalamanos and Borić. We still have to take into account that a man who died in the 1150s according to the scholarly works cited in this article (Boris Kalamanos) could not rule Bosnia in the 1160s (like Ban Borić). Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm sure there are more as I have seen them. Regardless, you should remove the Undue tag. I don't know Bogdanović's details, but he seems like a prominent historian because I saw his name a lot in unrelated texts. The Klaić ref to Hóman's claim of "Arpads' right to Bosnia" is clear too since there was only one Boris of Arpads in that era - Boris Kalamanos, and we don't need to cite the obvious. Besides, the dates from that era are speculative at best, as the above 2 Google Books refs show. (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, we cannot certainly identify Bogdanović. Interestingly, renowned historian's names are known by specialists in my country. Klaić does not identify "Ban Boris/Borić" as a member of the Árpád dynasty, as it is obvious from an earlier discussion. Yes, dates are uncertain, however, it is obvious (also based on the works you cited above) that modern scholars say, Boris Kalamanos died in the 1150s (while Ban Borić ruled Bosnia in the 1160s). Consequently, I am more and more convinced that any reference to Boris Kalamanos's rule in Bosnia should be deleted from the article as a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we can. You jumped the gun: I didn't say Bogdanović couldn't be identified, I said I didn't know much about him. But a search returned this profile of his. The lead paragraphs says he was "официр аустријске војске и српски историчар који се претежно бавио српском средњовековном историјом" ("an Austrian officer and Serbian historian specializing in Serbian medieval history"). On dates issue: you can't say "dates are uncertain" and then claim "modern scholars" (how is that an argument?) somehow deciphered the names but not dates. The tag should go. (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this was what I assumed. A historian, who died in 1909, identified Boris Kalamanos with "Ban Boris/Borić". Why do you think that this view is still relevant if we cannot refer to a single other historian who has accepted this identification during the last couple of decades? You may not know, but WP is an enncyclopadia which is based on works published by scholars, and not on our own research. Consequently, our argumenations should also be based on references to scholars' works. If no furhter academic work can be cited to verify the old claim, we should delet it from the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see your point: the era when a historian lived is irrelevant, as people cite historians from, say, ancient Rome. Bogdanović and those who cited him were scholars obviously. (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Klaić ref on Hóman: on p.49 she actually does explain who she and Hóman meant by the Boris she talked about on p.48 (pages per PDF copy): "Bela je u Borisu, nepriznatom Kolomanovu sinu (s Ruskinjom Eufemijom) imao jakog protivnika" ("Bela had an archenemy in Boris, the Coloman's bastard son (with Russian Euphemia)"). In fact, in two last paragraphs on p.57 Klaić speaks of Borić and Boris as the same person. Those are the only 3 mentions of a Boris in her book. So the issue is settled as to the Klaić reference as well. Please restore the original text. (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we could refer to the 19th-century historian, if we could prove that his view has been widely accepted - but we cannot. Yes, we know that Boris Kalamanos was the son of Coloman's wife - nobody denies this fact. Would you quote the text proving that Klaić identifies Boris Kalamanos with Ban Boris/Borić, because you have so far been unable to prove this claim. Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Or was he 20th century, given the year of his death? But that's irrelevant: Roman historians are just fine and so is he. Also, didn't you state above that researching isn't our job? And I agree: all we can do is provide references by scholars, as I did. Besides, there is nothing to prove here, since on p.48 Klaić denies Homan's Banus Boris was given Bosnia by Geza, and immediately on p.49 she reveals identity of the Ban Boris she/Homan talk about as Boris Kalamanos. No other mention of Boris in the whole book. Are you admitting defeat now? (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
However, Hóman did not identify Boris Kalamanos with "Banus Boris", consequently your reference to his work is misleading. Hóman wrote of Boris Kalamanos's death in the early 1150s before mentioning the appointment of Banus Boris to rule Bosnia in the late 1150s. Would you quote the text from Klaić's work which proves that she identified Boris Kalamanos with Banus Boris? Remember, during our last debate you could not quote a single text which verifies this claim. I am afraid, we should again delete the whole fringe theory, because it cannot be verified. Borsoka (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what an old Talk discussion by third parties has to do with this/me. Anyway, as we can't take your word over Klaić's on what Homan said/meant, I have provided the quote in the above, so I can repeat it for you if you have problems with English comprehension: on p.48 Klaić denies Homan's Banus Boris was given Bosnia by Geza, and immediately on p.49 she reveals identity of the Ban Boris she/Homan talk about as Boris Kalamanos; she makes no other mention of a Boris in her book. So she has no doubts, only you do. You simply lost; the original text must be restored and tag removed. (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
For you still cannot quote a single text from her book to verify your claim I delete the fringe theory from the article. Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I cited it above twice (in bold for everyone to see) but you're unable/unwilling to comprehend - sad either way. (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
No, you have not quoted her text - you presented your interpretation of her text. Hóman did not identify Boris Kalamanos and Ban Boris - as I have mentioned several times. Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have - the most we can do is cite her exact words as I did. She identifies Homan's Banus Boris as Boris Kalamanos, and disputes the consequential Arpads' claim over Bosnia. I agree there's no point in continuing this discussion which you obviously lost. (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia rule[edit]

Warning to user Borsoka: Do not delete the following section from the article as it is well supported by reliable secondary sources:

"According to a renowned Hungarian historian Bálint Hóman, Hungarian rulers since Béla II had a valid claim over the Bosnian Princedom given by king Géza II of Hungary to prince Borisz."[1][2] Indeed, Simeon Bogdanović and other historians state that Boris Kalamanos and Bosnia's first ruler ban Borić were in fact the same person,[3] thus denying the widespread legends according to which Boris died around 1150." (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, do not refer to renowned Hungarian historian Hóman, because he does not identify Boris Kalamanos with Boric/Boris, as I have hundred times mentined to you. People rarely rule after their death. Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you're hallucinating about, but you haven't offered any proof that Boris died when you say he died. Just some legends. Get serious (if they teach that at your papist academy of deception). (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It was not me who said that he died, but two contemporary authors: Otto of Freising and Niketas Choniates. Please do not refer to Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski when claiming that Boris' death in 1153 or 1154 is a "legend", because the cited reliable source does not say this. Borsoka (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please remember, that the renowned Hungarian historian Hóman writes of the death of Boris Kalamanos before mentioning the appointment of Boris/Boric to Bosnia. Do you assume that Hóman wrote of the appointment of a zombi? Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course they are hear-say (legends), unless you can provide a secondary source that cites a reliable historical document. No, Homan does not say that at all. Even if he did, it would just mean he considered the two versions equally plausible - something Wikipedia must reflect too. (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please read the stable version of the article. You can find proper references to a secondary source (Makk) which cites reliable historical documents (Freising and Choniates). Please do not refer to Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski when claiming that Boris' death in 1153 or 1154 is a "legend", because that book does not say this. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
They don't cite a primary source, so those are legends. The 2 versions are equally valuable to Homan and so are to Wikipedia too. (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
No. They are historians who concluded that Boris died in 1153 or 1154. Hóman does not contradict to them, as it has been hundreds of times demonstrated. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course not. Historians too must follow rules: in historical sciences, a reliable primary source makes a proof. They can't declare a legend to be a fact, nor can you submit their allegations as proofs. (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
And editors also should follow rules, especially WP:NOR. We cannot question historians' conclusions based on our evaluation of primary sources (such as Freising and Choniates). Furthermore, we cannot mislead readers with information which cannot be verified by a reference to academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't question anything - their opinion can't turn a legend (dating claim unsubstantiated with primary sources) into a fact. Homan clearly states that Geza II gave Bosnia to Boris, and Klaić argues that that doesn't mean Arpads have legal claim to Bosnia so she too understood that Homan meant Boris Kalamanos. There is no need to state when a historian said something in order to belittle him/her as you tried with Bogdanović; you don't say "In 6th century, Procopius wrote..." either. (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hóman did not associate Boris Kalamanos with Boris/Boric and Klaić did not write that Hóman had made such a statement. She denied that Boris/Boric was a royal official appointed by an Árpádian king. It is quite remarkable that there are not historians in the 20th and 21st centuries who associate Boris Kalamanos with Boris/Boric. Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh please, an Arpad claim to a foreign land could have been founded in an "official's" right only if he was their relative, meaning a royal too. That's the nature of monarchism. Perhaps later historians weren't as courageous when risking careers as an army colonel like Bogdanović would have been. (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR. If my understanding is correct, you think, monarchs who had no relatives or had alredy appointed all his relatives to administer a territory on their behalf could not assume their claims to further territories. Quite unusual theory. Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
We're talking early medieval Europe, when and where monarchs would normally extend sovereignty rights on to one of their own kin, or else weaken their position making them open to counterclaims. (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please try to substantiate your claims by referring to academic sources, as per WP:NOR. If a renowned historian (Ferenc Makk) concludes that both Freising and Choniates refer to Boris Kalamanos' death, please try to respect his view. Makk is often cited by other historians who write about the 12th-century history of the Balkans. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
That's well said - his view. But any view without a primary source to prove it is a legend, especially in historic dating. And now you and your papist buddies have locked the article to the incorrect (papist) version, and called it "status quo ante". lol But that's how you papists (Opus Dei and other tools) see truth as you run this fake encyclopedia. (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please read the primary sources (Freising and Choniates) based on which modern historians concluded that Boris Kalamanos died in the early 1150s. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
And that's why you papists are the most shameless bunch of thugs: a "modern historian" label should attract people to his portrayal of legends as facts, while "In 19th century" label should repel people from a historian with balls like Bogdanović? Nice try. You pope's zombies are getting more and more hilarious by the day. (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bálint Hóman (1938) Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters I, Berlin, p. 391. "In 1158, Duke Ladislaus came to Bysanz, in whose Bosnian duchy Geza had already appointed Banus Boris as a regent some years ago." His Regency was on behalf of Duke of Bosnia prince Ladislaus who was a minor when, in 1137, he got Bosnia at age 6.
  2. ^ Nada Klaić (1994) Srednjovjekovna Bosna: Politički položaj bosanskih vladara do Tvrtkove krunidbe (1377 g), Grafički Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb, p.48-49. ISBN 9536112051, 9789536112050. PDF Klaić quotes Hóman as saying Banus Boris got Bosnia from Géza II to rule as Regent, and then identifies Ban Boris as prince Boris Kalamanos. Regency was precisely on behalf of then-minor prince Ladislaus, the Duke of Bosnia, but who after coming of age in 1149 never took the possession of the province, so Bosnia became Boris's permanently.
  3. ^ Milenko M. Vukićević, Stevo Ćosović Znamenite žene i vladarke srpske, Svet knjige, 2005. pp.134. ("Међутим, један од познијих писаца (Синиша у Летопису Матице српске, књ. 151) вели, такође, да је Ана била кћи босанскога бана Борића. Али ту узима да су бан Борић и Борис, син Коломана I, краља угарског, једно лице." ("One of the later writers (Siniša in Annales of Matica Srpska, book 151) also says that Ana was daughter of Bosnian Ban Borić. But there he holds that Ban Borić and Boris, son of Hungarian king Coloman I, were the same person."),