text:
Cosmos

The cosmos (κόσμος,, ) is an alternative name for the universes or its nature or order. Usage of the word cosmos implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity. The Cosmos can be Universe  or  Multiverse  depending on cosmology.

The cosmos is studied in cosmology – a broad discipline covering scientific, religious or philosophical aspects of the cosmos and its nature. Religious and philosophical approaches may include the cosmos among spiritual entities or other matters deemed to exist outside the physical universe.

Etymology
The verb κοσμεῖν (κοσμεῖν) meant generally "to dispose, prepare", but especially "to order and arrange (troops for battle), to set (an army) in array"; also "to establish (a government or regime)", "to adorn, dress" (especially of women). Thus kosmos meant "ornaments, decoration" (compare kosmokomes "dressing the hair," and cosmetic). The philosopher Pythagoras used the term kosmos (κόσμος, Latinized kósmos) for the order of the universe. Anaxagoras further introduced the concept of a Cosmic Mind (Nous) ordering all things. The modern Greek κόσμος "order, good order, orderly arrangement" is a word with several main senses rooted in those notions. κόσμος has developed, along with primary "the universe, the world", the meaning of "people" (collectively).

Ancient Greek religion
The 1870 book Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology noted
 * Thales dogma that water is the origin of things, that is, that it is that out of which every thing arises, and into which every thing resolves itself, Thales may have followed Orphic cosmogonies, while, unlike them, he sought to establish the truth of the assertion. Hence, Aristotle, immediately after he has called him the originator of philosophy brings forward the reasons which Thales was believed to have adduced in confirmation of that assertion; for that no written development of it, or indeed any book by Thales, was extant, is proved by the expressions which Aristotle uses when he brings forward the doctrines and proofs of the Milesian. (p. 1016)

 * Plato, describes the idea of the good, or the Godhead, sometimes teleologically, as the ultimate purpose of all conditioned existence; sometimes cosmologically, as the ultimate operative cause; and has begun to develop the cosmological, as also the physico-theological proof for the being of God; but has referred both back to the idea of the Good, as the necessary presupposition to all other ideas, and the cognition of them. (p. 402)

The book The Works of Aristotle (1908, p. 80 Fragments) mentioned
 * Aristotle says the poet Orpheus never existed; the Pythagoreans ascribe this Orphic poem to a certain Cercon (see Cercops).

Bertrand Russell (1947) noted
 * The Orphics were an ascetic sect; wine, to them, was only a symbol, as, later, in the Christian sacrament. The intoxication that they sought was that of "enthusiasm," of union with the god. They believed themselves, in this way, to acquire mystic knowledge not obtainable by ordinary means. This mystical element entered into Greek philosophy with Pythagoras, who was a reformer of Orphism as Orpheus was a reformer of the religion of Dionysus. From Pythagoras Orphic elements entered into the philosophy of Plato, and from Plato into most later philosophy that was in any degree religious.

Anaximander
Anaximander was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who is widely referred to as the "father of astronomy" and even as the "father of cosmology" as a result of his works to explain the origin and makeup of the physical universe. He is regarded as the most important of the Ionian philosophers, and was a pupil of Thales. Traditionally, details of his life and opinions are perpetuated not only by Aristotle and Theophrastos, but also by a great number of secondary authors. He lived throughout the fifth and fourth centuries, BCE, and was most likely the first philosopher to try to rationalize the system of the Earth, Sun, and Moon by the use of geometry and mathematics. Anaximander was also said to have created the first map of the world, however, like much of the rest of his works, this has been lost since his time. There is, however, documentation of Anaximander being responsible for the conception of the first mechanical model of the world, which is outlined by a geocentric model. He postulated that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and that its shape was convex and cylindrical, with life existing on one of the two flat sides. Beyond the Earth, sits the other planets, which Anaximander also details the order of. Next are the fixed stars, which he regarded as wheel-like condensations of air filled with fire, provided at certain places with openings through which flames are discharged. Anaximander places the Moon beyond these stars, and assumed it to also be wheel-like in shape, being nineteen times the size of Earth. Finally, on the top of the universe is the Sun, which interacts with the Moon, and the relationship between them is described in terms of aperture, in which a stoppage in would lead to eclipses.

In this model, the Sun is a ring, 28 times the size of the Earth, with a hollow rim, filled with fire, which at a certain place is seen through an aperture as in a pair of bellows. He also postulated regarding the formation of thunder and lightning, maintaining that they are caused by the wind becoming compressed inside a thick cloud and suddenly breaking through, causing the loud sound to be heard as the cloud is bursting. He claimed the fissure then looked like a spark because of the contrast with the dark cloud. Anaximander's model set a precedent for succeeding theories, including Copernicus's system, with the major change being the shift away from the geocentric model and towards the heliocentric model of the universe. The explained model, although accredited to Anaximander, did necessarily take from ideas originated in foreign cultures, such as the astronomical wheels which are known from Persian cosmology. But even without detailed commentary, these elements of the Anaximander tradition give a strong impression of an original and courageous thinker making conscious efforts towards producing a rational explanation of fundamental physical principles, the nature and motion of heavenly bodies, the shape of Earth, its place in the universe, etc.

Early views of cosmos
Eastern and Western thought differed greatly in their understanding of space and the organization of the cosmos. The Chinese saw the Cosmos as empty, infinite, and intertwined with the Earth. Western ideas, based on the ancient Greeks' understanding of the cosmos, believed in a multi-planar divided cosmos that was finite and filled with air.

European view
Early Europeans viewed the cosmos as a divinely created, spatially finite, bifurcated cosmos, divided into sublunary and superlunary realms. Objects above the lunar disc were believed to be stable, with heavenly bodies believed to be made out of a refined substance called "quintessence". This was understood to be a crystalline, completely transparent substance that held all of the superlunary spheres in perfect order. After their creation by God, these spheres did not change except for their rotation above the Earth. Objects below the lunar sphere were subject to constant combination, separation, and recombination. This was because they consisted of the chaotic elements of earth, air, fire, and water.

The idea of celestial spheres was developed in the cosmological models of Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. They believed in a stable cosmos created by God, where distinct realms were subject to different kinds of order. Some Europeans maintained the Aristotelian view that infinity could only be seen as an attribute of God, with the cosmos being finite. Furthermore, following the Aristotelian view that "nature abhors a vacuum", some Europeans believed that the space between the spheres were filled with air. This theory persisted until the Scientific Revolution, when the discovery that the Sun was in the center of the planetary system rocked cosmological understanding to its core. Other theories such as Atomism posited a void of atoms as the fundamental elements of physics, while Stoicism postulated a void allowing for the cosmos to expand and contract in volume through its cycles.

Chinese view
The Chinese had multiple theories of the processes and components of the cosmos. The most popular of these beliefs was the Xuan Ye theory, the astronomical view of the cosmos as an infinite space with floating pieces of condensed vapor. The Chinese believed that the Earth consisted of condensed yin and the heavens of yang; and that these properties coexisted in constant relation to each other, with yin and yang being used together to explain processes on Earth as well of those relating the Earth in conjunction with the heavens. This idea was described by Joseph Needham as a cosmos that functioned similarly to a complex organism, with discernible patterns in an ever-changing structure. There was both a pattern and a randomness to the cosmos. Because of this, the Chinese believed that earthly phenomena could affect heavenly bodies.

The Chinese believed that qi was the substance of all things in the cosmos and Earth, including inanimate matter, humans, ideas, emotions, celestial bodies and everything that exists or has existed; and that it was qi condensing that created all the matter within the cosmos. This is relatively consistent with the modern understanding of the congregation of matter through gravitational fields.

The Chinese held a belief associated with the Xuan Ye theory, which held space as both empty and infinite. This was inconsistent with the Aristotelian concepts that nature would not contain a vacuum, and that infinity could only be a divine attribute. The idea of the nothingness of space was later recognized as one of the most important discoveries of modern science.

Indian view
The Indians believed in a cyclic universe related to three other beliefs: (i), time is endless and space has infinite extension; (ii), earth is not the center of the universe; and (iii), laws govern all development, including the creation and destruction of the universe. The Indians believed that there were three types of space, physiological, physical, and infinite space. The infinite space consists of undivided consciousness and everything that is inside and outside. However, finite division of space is where time begins, and the division of time is where all beings were first created. It was believed that there are connections between the physical and the psychological worlds, and an equivalence existed between the outer cosmos and the inner cosmos of the individual. This is expressed in the famous sentence – yat pinḍe tad brahmṇḍe, “as in the body so in the universe”.

The ancient Indians mapped out the outer world or the universe at an altar where Yajurveda listed multiples of ten that reached ten million. The numbers used to count to ten million was used as a reference to show the relation of the planets in the universe to Earth, it was not a relevant scale to the entire universe, therefore backing that they believed the universe to be infinite and endless. The Indians calculated the speed of light to be four thousand four hundred and four (4,404) yojanas per nimesa, or about one hundred eighty six thousand (186,000) miles per second. Ancient Indian beliefs also included the belief that the Earth was created after certain stars, these stars include the Sun, Gemini, Aja, and Kurma. Evidence from the Etymological considerations prove this belief and also points towards the discovery of the twin asses, which in western astrology can be found next to the Cancer constellation as Asellus, Borealis, and Asellus Australis.

The Indian cyclic model assumes the existence of countless island universes, which go through their own periods of development and destruction. The conception of cyclicity is taken to be recursive. For an early exposition of these astronomical and cosmological ideas, one may read al-Bīrūnī's classic history of Indian science, composed in 1030 AD, and for an even earlier, popular, view of Indian ideas, one may consult the Vedantic text called the Yoga Vāsiṣṭha (YV), which at 32,000 shlokas is one of the longest books in world literature.

Australian view
Australian cosmology has a vast and varied history.

Australian cosmology beliefs were based around the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's ideas, also known as Indigenous astronomy, and it was around before the Babylonians, Greeks, and the Renaissance period. They found ways to observe the Moon, stars, and the Sun, this enabled them to create a sense of time. This also allowed them to navigate across the continent, create calendars, and predict the weather. One of the most important constellations in Australia for the Aboriginal people is the Emu. The Emu constellation represents the connection between the earth and the sky, and stories and representations of their constellations were written on some cave walls in Australia. Another indigenous tribe known as the Euahlayi saw the Milky Way as a river and between the two bright sides represented a Galactic Bulge where the two sons of the creator Baiame and the river made a connection from the earth and the sky. The Yolngu people were one of the first to discover how the tide of the ocean works. They discovered the tide had a direct correlation with the Moon. Their reasoning as to why the ocean did not fill up as much as perhaps when the Moon was full versus a crescent moon is because the Moon was not as full either. This contradicts the father of science, Galileo, who said that the tides correlated with the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Multiple indigenous tribes described winter by the Seven Sisters, a group of stars in the sky that provided hunter-gatherers a sort of calendar to indicate whether they should be hunting or gathering, based on the season.

Similarities in observation
There is one way that both the Chinese and the Europeans, along with countless other ancient societies, related to the cosmos. This was through meaning, placed on celestial bodies, that were observed moving above the Earth. The Chinese had a very complex astronomical understanding of the stars and the cosmos that influenced everything from their art and architecture to their myths and science. This was also true of the Greeks and Romans, whose 48 constellations, including the zodiac signs and the constellation of Orion, have been passed down to modern Western cultures. These were likely passed down to them from ancient Babylonian and Egyptian astronomers. Copernicus is said to have been inspired by the fecund sun deity of neoplatonic thought, which may have initially inspired his vision of a heliocentric universe.

Copernican Revolution

Commonly regarded as the foundation of modern astronomy, the common universal view of the cosmos shifted as Nicolaus Copernicus positioned the Sun as the center of the Universe.

Early beliefs
Prior to the Copernican Revolution, the Ptolemaic system, also known as the geocentric model, was widely accepted. This put the Earth at the center of the universe, with the Sun and other planets revolving around the Earth in an epicyclic orbit. Aristotle's geocentric model was also broadly acknowledged, along with his claim that the planets rotated but did not orbit. The reasoning behind this was due to the belief that all objects outside of the lunar sphere were celestial bodies, and therefore could not change, as they were made of quintessence.

There were notable critiques of this model prior to Copernicus. In the Islamic world, Ibn al-Haytham doubted Ptolemy's notion of the planetary orbits, and Muhammad al-Battani recalculated the parameters. However, both still agreed with the geocentric model.

One of the first known astronomers that supported the Heliocentric theory was Aristarchus of Samos. After observing a lunar eclipse, he came to the conclusion that the Sun was farther away from Earth than the Moon and that the Sun was much larger than Earth. He also claimed the Sun was a star. While Aristarchus was later an influence on Copernicus and his groundbreaking work, prior to the 17th century Aristarchus' findings were obstructed by the more established theories of Ptolemy and Aristotle.

Copernican theory
Astronomer and mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus was appointed by the Catholic Church as an official, as his uncle was a bishop in the church. He used his income to further his studies, eventually studying at the University of Bologna in Italy. Copernicus began doubting the knowledge of natural philosophers and their beliefs, claiming that geometrical astronomy instead would result in the true reality of the cosmos. His manuscript, De revolutionibus, pioneered ideas that would change the course of how both the cosmos and astrology were viewed. Most notably, Copernicus claimed that the Sun was the stationary center of the universe. His work also included calculations on the motions of the Moon, and the motions in latitude and longitude of the planets, all which orbit the Sun. Copernicus' work was not immediately published as it disagreed with Biblical teachings, and he feared his work would be rejected by Catholic officials.

Neoplatonism
Copernicus' work was not entirely mathematical conviction. There is evidence that Copernicus was influenced by neoplatonism. Founded by philosopher Plotinus, neoplatonism believes that the Sun is the symbol of The One, or The Universal Soul. It would make sense then that Copernicus would place the god-like figure at the center of the universe. Neoplatonist Nicholas of Cusa claimed the universe was infinite, containing multiple earths and suns. This changed the belief of a finite universe to an infinite one, which emphasized a more obscure and incomplete version of God.

Cosmology
Cosmology is the study of the cosmos, and in its broadest sense covers a variety of very different approaches: scientific, religious and philosophical. All cosmologies have in common an attempt to understand the implicit order within the whole of being. In this way, most religions and philosophical systems have a cosmology.

When cosmology is used without a qualifier, it often signifies physical cosmology, unless the context makes clear that a different meaning is intended.

Physical cosmology
Physical cosmology (often simply described as 'cosmology') is the scientific study of the universe, from the beginning of its physical existence. It includes speculative concepts such as a multiverse, when these are being discussed. In physical cosmology, the term cosmos is often used in a technical way, referring to a particular spacetime continuum within a (postulated) multiverse. The particular cosmos in which humans live, the observable universe, is generally capitalized as the Cosmos.

In physical cosmology, the uncapitalized term cosmic signifies a subject with a relationship to the universe, such as 'cosmic time' (time since the Big Bang), 'cosmic rays' (high energy particles or radiation detected from space), and 'cosmic microwave background' (microwave radiation detectable from all directions in space).

According to Charles Peter Mason in Sir William Smith Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870, see book screenshot for full quote), Pythagoreans described the universe.

"It appears, in fact, from this, as well as from the extant fragments, that the first book (from Philolaus) of the work contained a general account of the origin and arrangement of the universe. The second book appears to have been an exposition of the nature of numbers, which in the Pythagorean theory are the essence and source of all things. (p. 305)"

In September 2023, astrophysicists questioned the overall current view of the universe, in the form of the Standard Model of Cosmology, based on the latest James Webb Space Telescope studies.

In October 2023, astronomers proposed a new, more comprehensive, view of the cosmos, and which includes all objects in the universe, and suggested that the universe may have begun with instantons, and may be a black hole.

Philosophical cosmology
Cosmology is a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe, a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe. The basic definition of Cosmology is the science of the origin and development of the universe. In modern astronomy, the Big Bang theory is the dominant postulation.

Philosophy of cosmology is an expanding discipline, directed to the conceptual foundations of cosmology and the philosophical contemplation of the universe as a totality. It draws on the fundamental theories of physics – thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and special and general relativity – and on several branches of philosophy – philosophy of physics, philosophy of science, metaphysics, philosophy of mathematics, and epistemology.

Spiritual cosmology
In theology, the cosmos is the created heavenly bodies (Sun, Moon, wandering stars, and fixed stars). The concept of cosmos as the created universe and its arrangement has been important in Christendom since its very inception, as it is heavily used in the New Testament and occurs over 180 times. In Christian theology, the word is sometimes used synonymously with aion to refer to "worldly life" or "this world" or "this age" as opposed to the afterlife or world to come, although "aion/aeon" is also at times used in a more other-worldly sense as the eternal plane of the divine.

title: Cosmos


text:
Louis I of Hungary

Louis I, also Louis the Great (Nagy Lajos; Ludovik Veliki; Ľudovít Veľký) or Louis the Hungarian (Ludwik Węgierski; 5 March 1326 – 10 September 1382), was King of Hungary and Croatia from 1342 and King of Poland from 1370. He was the first child of Charles I of Hungary and his wife, Elizabeth of Poland, to survive infancy. A 1338 treaty between his father and Casimir III of Poland, Louis's maternal uncle, confirmed Louis's right to inherit the Kingdom of Poland if his uncle died without a son. In exchange, Louis was obliged to assist his uncle to reoccupy the lands that Poland had lost in previous decades. He bore the title of Duke of Transylvania between 1339 and 1342 but did not administer the province.

Louis was of age when he succeeded his father in 1342, but his deeply religious mother exerted a powerful influence on him. He inherited a centralized kingdom and a rich treasury from his father. During the first years of his reign, Louis launched a crusade against the Lithuanians and restored royal power in Croatia; his troops defeated a Tatar army, expanding his authority towards the Black Sea. When his brother, Andrew, Duke of Calabria, husband of Queen Joanna I of Naples, was assassinated in 1345, Louis accused the queen of his murder and punishing her became the principal goal of his foreign policy. He launched two campaigns to the Kingdom of Naples between 1347 and 1350. His troops occupied large territories on both occasions, and Louis adopted the styles of Neapolitan sovereigns (including the title of King of Sicily and Jerusalem), but the Holy See never recognized his claim. Louis's arbitrary acts and atrocities committed by his mercenaries made his rule unpopular in Southern Italy. He withdrew all his troops from the Kingdom of Naples in 1351.

Like his father, Louis administered Hungary with absolute power and used royal prerogatives to grant privileges to his courtiers. However, he also confirmed the liberties of the Hungarian nobility at the Diet of 1351, emphasizing the equal status of all noblemen. At the same Diet, he introduced an entail system and a uniform rent payable by the peasants to the landowners, and confirmed the right to free movement for all peasants. He waged wars against the Lithuanians, Serbia, and the Golden Horde in the 1350s, restoring the authority of Hungarian monarchs over territories along frontiers that had been lost during previous decades. He forced the Republic of Venice to renounce the Dalmatian towns in 1358. He also made several attempts to expand his suzerainty over the rulers of Bosnia, Moldavia, Wallachia, and parts of Bulgaria and Serbia. These rulers were sometimes willing to yield to him, either under duress or in the hope of support against their internal opponents, but Louis's rule in these regions was only nominal during most of his reign. His attempts to convert his pagan or Orthodox subjects to Catholicism made him unpopular in the Balkan states. Louis established a university in Pécs in 1367, but it was closed within two decades because he did not arrange for sufficient revenues to maintain it.

Louis inherited Poland after his uncle's death in 1370. Since he had no sons, he wanted his subjects to acknowledge the right of his daughters to succeed him in both Hungary and Poland. For this purpose, he issued the Privilege of Koszyce (now Košice in Slovakia) in 1374 spelling out the liberties of Polish noblemen. However, his rule remained unpopular in Poland. In Hungary, he authorized the royal free cities to delegate jurors to the high court hearing their cases and set up a new high court. Suffering from a skin disease, Louis became even more religious during the last years of his life. At the beginning of the Western Schism, he acknowledged Urban VI as the legitimate pope. After Urban deposed Joanna and put Louis's relative Charles of Durazzo on the throne of Naples, Louis helped Charles occupy the kingdom. In Hungarian historiography, Louis was regarded for centuries as the most powerful Hungarian monarch who ruled over an empire "whose shores were washed by three seas".

Childhood and youth (1326–1342)

Born on 5 March 1326, Louis was the third son of Charles I of Hungary and his wife, Elizabeth of Poland. He was named for his father's uncle, Louis, Bishop of Toulouse, canonized in 1317. The first-born son of his parents, Charles, died before Louis was born. Louis became his father's heir after the death of his brother Ladislaus in 1329.

He had a liberal education by the standards of his age and learned French, German and Latin. He showed a special interest in history and astrology. A cleric from Wrocław, Nicholas, taught him the basic principles of Christian faith. However, Louis's religious zeal was due to his mother's influence. In a royal charter, Louis remembered that in his childhood, a knight of the royal court, Peter Poháros, often carried him on his shoulders. His two tutors, Nicholas Drugeth and Nicholas Tapolcsányi, saved the lives of both Louis and his younger brother, Andrew, when Felician Záh attempted to assassinate the royal family in Visegrád on 17 April 1330.

Louis was only nine when he stamped a treaty of alliance between his father and John of Bohemia. A year later, Louis accompanied his father in invading Austria. On 1 March 1338, John of Bohemia's son and heir, Charles, Margrave of Moravia, signed a new treaty with Charles I of Hungary and Louis in Visegrád. According to the treaty, Charles of Moravia acknowledged the right of Charles I's sons to succeed their maternal uncle, Casimir III of Poland, if Casimir died without a male issue. Louis also pledged that he would marry the margrave's three-year-old daughter, Margaret.

Casimir III's first wife, Aldona of Lithuania, died on 26 May 1339. Two leading Polish noblemen – Zbigniew, chancellor of Kraków, and Spycimir Leliwita – persuaded Casimir, who had not fathered a son, to make his sister, Elizabeth, and her offspring his heirs. According to the 15th-century Jan Długosz, Casimir held a general sejm in Kraków where "the assembled prelates and nobles" proclaimed Louis as Casimir's heir, but the reference to the sejm is anachronistic. Historian Paul W. Knoll writes that Casimir preferred his sister's family to his own daughters or a member of a cadet branch of the Piast dynasty, because he wanted to ensure the king of Hungary's support against the Teutonic Knights. Louis's father and uncle signed a treaty in Visegrád in July whereby Casimir III made Louis his heir if he died without a son. In exchange, Charles I pledged that Louis would reoccupy Pomerania and other Polish lands lost to the Teutonic Order without Polish funds and would only employ Poles in the royal administration in Poland.

Louis received the title of Duke of Transylvania from his father in 1339, but he did not administer the province. According to a royal charter from the same year, Louis's bride, Margaret of Bohemia, lived in the Hungarian royal court. Louis's separate ducal court was first mentioned in a royal charter of 1340.

First years (1342–1345)
Charles I died on 16 July 1342. Five days later, Csanád Telegdi, Archbishop of Esztergom, crowned Louis king with the Holy Crown of Hungary in Székesfehérvár. Although Louis had attained the age of majority, his mother Elizabeth "acted as a sort of co-regent" for decades, because she exerted a powerful influence on him. Louis inherited a rich treasury from his father, who had strengthened royal authority and ruled without holding Diets during the last decades of his reign.

Louis introduced a new system of land grants, excluding the grantee's brothers and other kinsmen from the donation in contrast with customary law: such estates escheated to the Crown if the grantee's last male descendants died. On the other hand, Louis often "promoted a daughter to a son", that is authorized a daughter to inherit her father's estates, although customary law prescribed that the landed property of a deceased nobleman who had no sons was to be inherited by his kinsmen. Louis often granted this privilege to the wives of his favorites. Louis also frequently authorized landowners to apply capital punishment in their estates, limiting the authority of the magistrates of the counties.

William Drugeth, an influential advisor of Louis's late father, died in September 1342. He bequeathed his landed property to his brother, Nicholas, but Louis confiscated those estates. In late autumn, Louis dismissed his father's Voivode of Transylvania, Thomas Szécsényi, although Szécsényi's wife was a distant cousin of the queen mother. Louis especially favored the Lackfis: eight members of the family held high offices during his reign. Andrew Lackfi was the commander of the royal army during the first war of Louis's reign. In late 1342 or early 1343, he invaded Serbia and restored the Banate of Macsó, which had been lost during his father's reign.

Robert the Wise, King of Naples, died on 20 January 1343. In his testament, he declared his granddaughter, Joanna I, his sole heir, excluding Louis's younger brother, Andrew, Joanna's husband, from becoming co-ruler. Louis and his mother regarded this as an infringement of a previous agreement between the late kings of Naples and Hungary. He visited his bride's father, Charles of Moravia, in Prague to persuade him to intervene on Andrew's behalf with Charles's former tutor, Pope Clement VI, the overlord of the Kingdom of Naples. Louis also sent envoys to his Neapolitan relatives and the high officials of the kingdom, urging them to promote his brother's interests. Their mother, Elizabeth, left for Naples in the summer, taking with her almost the whole royal treasure, including more than 6628 kg of silver and 5150 kg of gold. During her seven-month-long stay in Italy, she was only able to persuade her daughter-in-law and the pope to promise that Andrew would be crowned as Joanna's husband.

According to the nearly contemporaneous chronicle of John of Küküllő, Louis launched his first campaign against a group of Transylvanian Saxons, who had refused to pay taxes, and forced them to yield in the summer of 1344. During his stay in Transylvania, Nicholas Alexander – who was the son of Basarab, the ruling prince of Wallachia – swore loyalty to Louis on his father's behalf in Brassó (now Brașov in Romania); thus the suzerainty of the Hungarian monarchs over Wallachia was, at least outwardly, restored.

Louis joined a crusade against the pagan Lithuanians in December 1344. The crusaders – including John of Bohemia, Charles of Moravia, Peter of Bourbon, and William of Hainaut and Holland – laid siege to Vilnius. However, a Lithuanian invasion of the lands of the Teutonic Knights forced them to lift the siege. Louis returned to Hungary in late February 1345. He dispatched Andrew Lackfi, Count of the Székelys, to invade the lands of the Golden Horde in retaliation for the Tatars' earlier plundering raids against Transylvania and the Szepesség (now Spiš in Slovakia). Lackfi and his army of mainly Székely warriors inflicted a defeat on a large Tatar army on 2 February 1345. Hungarian warriors were victorious in their campaign, decapitating the local Tatar leader, the brother-in-law of the Khan, Atlamïş, and making the Tatars flee toward the coastal area. The Golden Horde was pushed back behind the Dniester River, thereafter the Golden Horde's control of the lands between the Eastern Carpathians and the Black Sea weakened. A conflict between Louis's uncle and father-in-law (Casimir III of Poland and Charles of Moravia) led to a war between Poland and Bohemia in April. In this war Louis supported his uncle with reinforcements in accordance with the agreement of 1339.

While Louis's armies were fighting in Poland and against the Tatars, Louis marched to Croatia in June 1345 and besieged Knin, the former seat of the late Ivan Nelipac, who had successfully resisted Louis's father, forcing his widow and son to surrender. The counts of Corbavia and other Croatian noblemen also yielded to him during his stay in Croatia. The citizens of Zadar rebelled against the Republic of Venice and accepted his suzerainty. Louis meanwhile returned to Visegrád. He dispatched Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia, to assist the burghers of Zadar, but the ban did not fight against the Venetians.

Neapolitan campaigns (1345–1350)
Louis's brother Andrew was murdered in Aversa on 18 September 1345. Louis and his mother accused Queen Joanna I, Prince Robert of Taranto, Duke Charles of Durazzo, and other members of the Neapolitan branches of the Capetian House of Anjou of plotting against Andrew. In his letter of 15 January 1346 to Pope Clement VI, Louis demanded that the pope dethrone the "husband-killer" queen in favor of Charles Martel, her infant son by Andrew. Louis also laid claim to the regency of the kingdom during the minority of his nephew, referring to his patrilinear descent from the first-born son of Robert the Wise's father, Charles II of Naples. He even promised to increase the amount of yearly tribute that the kings of Naples would pay to the Holy See. After the pope failed to fully investigate Andrew's murder, Louis decided to invade southern Italy. In preparation for the invasion, he sent his envoys to Ancona and other Italian towns before summer 1346.

While his envoys negotiated in Italy, Louis marched to Dalmatia to relieve Zadar, but the Venetians bribed his commanders. When the citizens broke out and attacked the besiegers on 1 July, the royal army failed to intervene, and the Venetians overcame the defenders outside the walls of the town. Louis withdrew but refused to renounce Dalmatia, although the Venetians offered to pay 320,000 golden florins as compensation. Lacking military support from Louis, however, Zadar surrendered to the Venetians on 21 December 1346.

Louis sent small expeditions one after one to Italy at the beginning of his war against Joanna, because he did not want to harass the Italians who had suffered from a famine the previous year. His first troops departed under the command of Nicholas Vásári, Bishop of Nyitra (now Nitra in Slovakia), on 24 April 1347. Louis also hired German mercenaries. He departed from Visegrád on 11 November. After marching through Udine, Verona, Modena, Bologna, Urbino, and Perugia, he entered the Kingdom of Naples on 24 December near L'Aquila, which had yielded to him.

Queen Joanna remarried, wedding a cousin, Louis of Taranto, and fled for Marseille on 11 January 1348. Their other relatives, Robert of Taranto and Charles of Durazzo, visited Louis in Aversa to yield to him. Louis received them amicably and convinced them to persuade their brothers, Philip of Taranto and Louis of Durazzo, to join them. After their arrival, King Louis's "smile was replaced by the harshest expression as he unveiled with terrible words the true feelings he had for the princes and that he had kept hidden until then", according to the contemporaneous Domenico da Gravina. He repeated his former accusations, blamed his kinsmen for his brother's murder, and had them captured on 22 January. The next day Charles of Durazzo – the husband of Joanna I's sister, Mary – was beheaded upon Louis's orders. The other princes were kept captive and sent to Hungary, together with Louis's infant nephew, Charles Martel.

Louis marched to Naples in February. The citizens offered him a ceremonious entry, but he refused, threatening to let his soldiers sack the town if they did not raise the taxes. He adopted the traditional titles of the kings of Naples – "King of Sicily and Jerusalem, Duke of Apulia and Prince of Capua" – and administered the kingdom from the Castel Nuovo, garrisoning his mercenaries in the most important forts. He used unusually brutal methods of investigation to capture all accomplices in the death of his brother, according to Domenico da Gravina. Most local noble families (including the Balzos and the Sanseverinos) refused to cooperate with him. The pope refused to confirm Louis's rule in Naples, which would have united two powerful kingdoms under Louis's rule. The pope and the cardinals declared Queen Joanna innocent of her husband's murder at a formal meeting of the College of Cardinals.

The arrival of the Black Death forced Louis to leave Italy in May. He made Ulrich Wolfhardt governor of Naples, but his mercenaries did not hinder Joanna I and her husband from returning in September. Louis, who had signed a truce for eight years with Venice on 5 August, sent new troops to Naples under the command of Stephen Lackfi, Voivode of Transylvania, in late 1349. Lackfi reoccupied Capua, Aversa and other forts that had been lost to Joanna I, but a mutiny among his German mercenaries forced him to return to Hungary. The Black Death had meanwhile reached Hungary. The first wave of the epidemic ended in June, but it returned in September, killing Louis's first wife, Margaret. Louis also fell ill, but survived the plague. Although the Black Death was less devastating in the sparsely populated Hungary than in other parts of Europe, there were regions that became depopulated in 1349, and the demand for work force increased in the subsequent years.

Louis proposed to renounce the Kingdom of Naples if Clement dethroned Joanna. After the pope refused, Louis departed for his second Neapolitan campaign in April 1350. He suppressed a mutiny that occurred among his mercenaries while he and his troops were waiting for the arrival of further troops in Barletta. While marching towards Naples, he faced resistance at many towns because his vanguards, which were under the command of Stephen Lackfi, had become notorious for their cruelty.

During the campaign, Louis personally led assaults and climbed city walls together with his soldiers, endangering his own life. While besieging Canosa di Puglia, Louis fell into the moat from a ladder when a defender of the fort hit him with a stone. He dove into a river without hesitation to save a young soldier who was swept away while exploring a ford upon his order. An arrow pierced Louis's left leg during the siege of Aversa. After the fall of Aversa to Hungarian troops on 3 August, Queen Joanna and her husband again fled from Naples. However, Louis decided to return to Hungary. According to the contemporaneous historian Matteo Villani, Louis attempted to "leave the kingdom without losing face" after he had run out of money and experienced the resistance of the local population.

To celebrate the Jubilee of 1350, Louis visited Rome during his journey back to Hungary. He arrived in Buda on 25 October 1350. With the mediation of the Holy See, the envoys of Louis and Queen Joanna's husband, Louis of Taranto, signed a truce for six months. The pope promised Louis that the queen's role in her husband's murder would again be investigated, and he ordered her to pay 300,000 gold florins as a ransom for the imprisoned Neapolitan princes.

Expansion (1350–1358)
Casimir III of Poland urged Louis to intervene in his war with the Lithuanians who had occupied Brest, Volodymyr-Volynskyi, and other important towns in Halych and Lodomeria in the previous years. The two monarchs agreed that Halych and Lodomeria would be integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary after Casimir's death. Casimir also authorized Louis to redeem the two realms for 100,000 florins if Casimir fathered a son. Louis led his army to Kraków in June 1351. Because Casimir fell ill, Louis became the sole commander of the united Polish and Hungarian army. He invaded the lands of the Lithuanian prince, Kęstutis, in July. Kęstutis seemingly accepted Louis's suzerainty on 15 August and agreed to be baptised, along with his brothers, in Buda. However, Kęstutis did nothing to fulfill his promises after Polish and Hungarian troops were withdrawn. In an attempt to capture Kęstutis, Louis returned, but he could not defeat the Lithuanians, who even killed one of his allies, Boleslaus III of Płock, in battle. Louis returned to Buda before 13 September. A papal legate visited Louis to persuade him to wage war against Stefan Dušan, Emperor of the Serbs, who had forced his Roman Catholic subjects to be re-baptised and join the Serbian Orthodox Church.

To deal with the grievances of the Hungarian noblemen, Louis held a Diet in late 1351. He confirmed all but one of the provisions of the Golden Bull of 1222, declaring that all noblemen enjoyed the same liberties in his realms. He rejected only the provision that authorized noblemen who died without a son to freely bequeath their estates. Instead, he introduced an entail system, prescribing that the estates of a nobleman who had no male descendants passed to his kinsmen, or if there were no male relatives to the Crown, upon his death. At the same Diet, Louis ordered that all landowners were to collect the "ninth", that is one tenth of specified agricultural products, from the peasants who held plots on their estates. On the other hand, he confirmed the right of all peasants to freely move to another landowner's estates.

The "general accord" between Louis and the royal couple of Naples "was accepted by both sides" during 1351, according to the contemporaneous Niccolò Acciaioli. Joanna I and her husband returned to the Kingdom of Naples and Louis's troops were withdrawn. Louis even renounced the ransom that Joanna I had promised to pay for the liberation of the imprisoned Neapolitan princes, stating that he had not gone to "war for greed, but to avenge the death of his brother". Louis continued to use the titles of his grandfather, Charles Martel of Anjou (the firstborn son of Charles II of Naples), styling himself as "Prince of Salerno and lord of Monte Sant'Angelo".

Casimir III laid siege to Belz and Louis joined his uncle in March 1352. During the siege, which ended without the surrender of the fort, Louis was heavily injured in his head. Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, hired Tatar mercenaries who stormed into Podolia, Louis returned to Hungary because he feared a Tatar invasion of Transylvania. Pope Clement proclaimed a crusade against the Lithuanians and the Tatars in May, authorizing Louis to collect a tithe from Church revenues during the next four years. The pope stated that he had never "granted a tenth of such duration", emphasizing the link between his magnanimity and the release of the imprisoned Neapolitan princes. The pope also authorized Louis to seize the pagans' and schismatics' lands bordering on his kingdom.

Although Louis signed an alliance with the Republic of Genoa in October 1352, he did not intervene in the Genoese–Venetian War, because his truce of 1349 with Venice was still in force. Louis married Elizabeth of Bosnia, who was the daughter of his vassal, Stephen II, in 1353. Historian Gyula Kristó says that this marriage showed Louis's renewed interest in the affairs of the Balkan Peninsula. While he was hunting in Zólyom County (now in Slovakia) in late November 1353, a brown bear attacked him, inflicting 24 wounds on his legs. Louis's life was saved by a knight of the court, John Besenyő, who killed the beast with his sword. According to Matteo Villani, Louis launched an expedition against the Golden Horde at the head of an army of 200,000 horsemen in April 1354. The young Tatar ruler, whom historian Iván Bertényi identified as Jani Beg, did not want to wage war against Hungary and agreed to sign a peace treaty. Although no other primary source mentioned that campaign and treaty, the Tatars made no plundering raids in Transylvania after 1354, which suggests that Villani's report is reliable. In the same year, Louis invaded Serbia, Stefan Dušan successfully repelled the invasion, preserving, or even extending his original borders in the north. Under pressure, Dušan initiated negotiations with the Holy See for acknowledgement of the popes' primacy. Peace with Dušan was concluded in May of 1355. The following year, Louis sent reinforcements to Casimir III to fight against the Lithuanians, and Hungarian troops supported Albert II, Duke of Austria, against Zürich. The Venetian delegates offered Louis 6–7,000 golden ducats as a compensation for Dalmatia, but Louis refused to give up his plan to reconquer the province. He signed an alliance with Albert II of Austria and Nicolaus of Luxemburg, Patriarch of Aquileia, against Venice. Upon his order, Croatian lords besieged and captured Klis, a Dalmatian fortress that Stefan Dušan's sister, Jelena, had inherited from her husband, Mladen Šubić.

In summer 1356, Louis invaded Venetian territories without a formal declaration of war. He laid siege to Treviso on 27 July. A local nobleman, Giuliano Baldachino, noticed that Louis sat alone while writing his letters on the banks of Sile River on each morning. Baldachino proposed the Venetians to assassinate him in exchange for 12,000 golden florins and Castelfranco Veneto, but they refused his offer because he did not share the details of his plans with them. Louis returned to Buda in the autumn, but his troops continued the siege. Pope Innocent VI urged the Venetians to make a peace with Hungary. The pope made Louis the "standard-bearer of the Church" and granted him a three-year tithe to fight against Francesco II Ordelaffi and other rebellious lords in the Papal States. Louis sent an army under Nicholas Lackfi's command to support the pope's troops in Italy.

Louis marched to Dalmatia in July 1357. Split, Trogir, and Šibenik soon got rid of Venetian governors and yielded to Louis. After a short siege, Louis's army also captured Zadar with the assistance of its townspeople. Tvrtko I of Bosnia, who had succeeded Louis's father-in-law in 1353, surrendered western Hum to Louis, who claimed that territory as his wife's dowry. In the Treaty of Zadar, which was signed on 18 February 1358, the Republic of Venice renounced all Dalmatian towns and islands between the Gulf of Kvarner and Durazzo in favor of Louis. The Republic of Ragusa also accepted Louis's suzerainty. The Dalmatian towns remained self-governing communities, owing only a yearly tribute and naval service to Louis, who also abolished all commercial restrictions that had been introduced during the Venetians' rule. The merchants of Ragusa were explicitly entitled to freely trade in Serbia even during a war between Hungary and Serbia.

Wars in the Balkans (1358–1370)
Serbia started to disintegrate after the death of Stefan Dušan. According to Matteo Villani, an unidentified Serbian lord sought Hungarian assistance against his more powerful (and also unnamed) enemy in the late 1350s. Historians John V. A. Fine and Pál Engel write that the Serbian lord was a member of the Rastislalić family; Gyula Kristó and Iván Bertényi identify him as Lazar Hrebeljanović. Royal charters of 1358 show that Hungarian troops fought in Serbia in October 1358. The next summer Louis also marched to Serbia, but Stefan Uroš V of Serbia avoided battle.

Louis and the royal army stayed in Transylvania in November 1359 and January 1360, implying that he planned a military expedition against Wallachia or another neighboring territory. A charter of 1360 said that a Romanian voivode, Dragoș of Giulești, restored Louis's suzerainty in Moldavia after a rebellion of local Romanians. According to most Moldavian chronicles, Dragoș, who is sometimes identified with Dragoș of Giulești and sometimes as Dragoș of Bedeu, departed "from the Hungarian country, from Maramureș" at the head of his retinue, crossed the Carpathian Mountains while chasing an aurochs and settled in the valley of the Moldova River in 1359. The same chronicles presented this "dismounting" by Dragoș as a decisive step towards the development of the Principality of Moldavia. Another Romanian voivode, Bogdan, who had rebelled against Louis and plundered the estates of the Romanian landowners loyal to the king already in the 1340s, departed from Hungary and invaded Moldavia in the early 1360s. Bogdan expelled the descendants of Louis's vassal, Dragoș, from the principality. According to John of Küküllő, Louis launched several expeditions against Bogdan, but their dates cannot be determined. Bogdan ruled Moldavia as an independent prince.

Upon the pope's request, Louis sent Hungarian troops to relieve Bologna, which was besieged by Bernabò Visconti's troops. After Visconti lifted the siege, Louis's mercenaries pillaged the region and refused to cooperate with the papal legate; Louis had the commander of the army imprisoned. After a conflict emerged between Emperor Charles IV and Rudolf IV, Duke of Austria, rumors spread about a conspiracy to dethrone the emperor in favor of Louis or Rudolf. Charles IV, Rudolf IV and Louis met in Nagyszombat (now Trnava in Slovakia) in May. The emperor and the duke mutually surrendered their claims to the other party's realms. Louis also persuaded the emperor to renounce his suzerainty over the Duchy of Płock in Poland. Louis decided to convert the Jews in Hungary to Catholicism around 1360. After experiencing resistance, he expelled them from his realms. Their immovable property was confiscated, but they were allowed to take their personal property with them and also to recover the loans they had made. No pogrom took place, which was unusual in Europe in the 14th century, according to historian Raphael Patai.

Emperor Charles IV and Rudolf IV of Austria signed a treaty of alliance against the patriarch of Aquileia, who was Louis's ally, in August 1361. Fearing the formation of a coalition along the western borders of Hungary, Louis asked his former enemy, Louis of Taranto (Joanna I's husband), to send at least one of his brothers to Buda, and mediated a reconciliation between Rudolph IV and the patriarch. At a meeting with Louis's envoys in Prague, Emperor Charles made an insulting remark about Louis's mother, stating that she "was shameless", according to Jan Długosz's chronicle. Louis demanded an apology, but the emperor did not answer.

In preparation for a war against Bohemia, Louis ordered the mobilization of the royal army and marched to Trencsén (now Trenčín in Slovakia). However, his supposed allies (Rudolf IV of Austria, Meinhard III of Tyrol and Casimir III of Poland) failed to join him, and the emperor initiated negotiations that lasted for months with the mediation of Casimir III. Louis was finally reconciled with Charles IV at their meeting in Uherské Hradiště on 8 May 1363.

Louis invaded Bosnia from two directions in the spring of 1363. An army under the command of Palatine Nicholas Kont and Nicholas Apáti, Archbishop of Esztergom, laid siege to Srebrenica, but the fortress did not surrender. As the royal seal was stolen during the siege, a new seal was made and all Louis's former charters were to be confirmed with the new seal. The army under Louis's personal command besieged Sokolac in July, but could not capture it. Hungarian troops returned to Hungary in the same month. Pope Urban V proclaimed a crusade against the Muslim powers of the Mediterraneum upon Peter I of Cyprus's request on 31 March 1363. Urban V urged Louis to join the crusade, emphasizing that he was a powerful monarch, a devout Christian, and "well-placed to help". The next month the pope levied a three-year tithe on the church revenues in Hungary and asked Louis to support the papal officials to collect the tax. However, Louis made every effort to hinder the activities of the papal tax collectors, stating that he needed resources to cover the costs of his future wars against the infidels and the pope's enemies in Italy.

Louis signed a treaty with Emperor Charles and Rudolf IV of Austria in Brno in early 1364, which put an end to their conflicts. In September, Louis visited Kraków to attend the large congress where Peter I of Cyprus attempted to persuade a dozen European monarchs to join the crusade. Louis was the only monarch to promise assistance, but later failed to fulfill his promise. At the congress, Casimir III of Poland confirmed Louis's right to succeed him in Poland if he died without a male issue. Louis, who had not fathered a son either, invited a distant relative of his, Charles of Durazzo, to Hungary in 1364, but did not make the young prince his official heir. Louis allowed the Jews to return to Hungary in the same year; legal proceedings between the Jews and those who had seized their houses lasted for years.

Louis assembled his armies in Temesvár (now Timișoara in Romania) in February 1365. According to a royal charter that year, he was planning to invade Wallachia because the new voivode, Vladislav Vlaicu, had refused to obey him. However, he ended up heading a campaign against the Bulgarian Tsardom of Vidin and its ruler Ivan Sratsimir, which suggests that Vladislav Vlaicu had in the meantime yielded to him. Louis seized Vidin and imprisoned Ivan Stratsimir in May or June. Within three months, his troops occupied Ivan Stratsimir's realm, which was organized into a separate border province, or banate, under the command of Hungarian lords. The Byzantine Emperor, John V Palaiologos visited Louis in Buda in early 1366, seeking his assistance against the Ottoman Turks, who had set foot in Europe. This was the first occasion that a Byzantine Emperor left his empire to plead for a foreign monarch's assistance. According to Louis's physician, Giovanni Conversini, at his first meeting with Louis, the emperor refused to dismount and to take off his hat, which offended Louis. John V pledged that he would promote the union of the Byzantine Church with the Papacy, and Louis promised to send him help, but neither the emperor nor Louis fulfilled their promises. Pope Urban encouraged Louis not to send help to Constantinople before the emperor guaranteed the Church union.

Louis stayed in Transylvania between June and September 1366, implying that he waged war against Moldavia. He issued a decree authorizing the Transylvanian noblemen to pass judgments against "malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians". He also decreed that testimony of a Romanian knez who had received a royal charter of grant weighed the same as that of a nobleman. In the same year, Louis granted the Banate of Severin and the district of Fogaras to Vladislav Vlaicu of Wallachia, who had accepted his suzerainty. Tvrtko I of Bosnia also accepted Louis's suzerainty after Hungarian troops assisted him in regaining his throne in early 1367.

Louis made attempts to convert his pagan or "schismatic" subjects to Catholicism, even by force. The conversion of the pagan Cumans who had settled in Hungary a century before was completed during his reign, according to John of Küküllő. After the conquest of Vidin, he sent Franciscan friars to the new banate to convert the local Orthodox population, which caused widespread discontent among the Bulgarians. In 1366, he ordered that all Serbian priests be converted and rebaptised. He also decreed that only Roman Catholic noblemen and knezes were allowed to hold landed property in the district of Sebes in Temes County. Louis supported the religious orders, especially the Franciscans and the Paulines, for whom he and his mother set up dozens of new monasteries. Upon Louis's request, Pope Urban V sanctioned the establishment of a university in Pécs in 1367, with the exception of a faculty of theology. However, Louis did not arrange for sufficient revenues and the university was closed by 1390.

Vladislav Vlaicu of Wallachia made an alliance with Ivan Shishman, a half-brother of the former ruler of Vidin, Ivan Sratsimir. Their united armies imposed a blockade on Vidin. Louis marched to the Lower Danube and ordered Nicholas Lackfi, Voivode of Transylvania, to invade Wallachia in the autumn of 1368. The voivode's army marched through the valley of the Ialomița River, but the Wallachians ambushed it and killed many Hungarian soldiers, including the voivode. However, Louis's campaign against Wallachia from the west was successful and Vladislav Vlaicu yield to him in next summer. Upon his initiative, Louis restored Ivan Stratsimir in Vidin. Ivan Stratsimir swore loyalty to Louis and sent his two daughters as hostages to Hungary.

From the late 1360s, Louis suffered from a skin disease with symptoms similar to leprosy. Thereafter he became even more zealous and dedicated more time to praying and religious contemplation. After his meeting with Louis in 1372, the papal legate, John de Cardailhac, stated: "I call God as my witness that I have never seen a monarch more majestic and more powerful ... or one who desires peace and calm as much as he." He also changed the priorities of his foreign policy and began neglecting the Balkan states. Casimir III of Poland and Louis signed a treaty against Emperor Charles IV in Buda in February 1369. At their next meeting in Pressburg (now Bratislava in Slovakia) in September, Albert I of Bavaria, and Rupert I of the Palatinate joined their coalition against the emperor and the Habsburgs. However, Emperor Charles IV persuaded the two Wittelsbachs (Albert I and Rupert I) to break off the coalition in September 1370.

Union with Poland and reforms (1370–1377)

Casimir III of Poland died on 5 November 1370. Louis arrived after his uncle's funeral and ordered the erection of a splendid Gothic marble monument to the deceased king. He was crowned king of Poland in the Kraków Cathedral on 17 November. Casimir III had willed his patrimony – including the duchies of Sieradz, Łęczyca and Dobrzyń – to his grandson, Casimir IV, Duke of Pomerania. However, the Polish prelates and lords were opposed to the disintegration of Poland and Casimir III's testament was declared void. Louis visited Gniezno and made his Polish mother, Elizabeth, regent before returning to Hungary in December. His uncle's two surviving daughters (Anna and Jadwiga) accompanied him, and the Polish Crown Jewels were transferred to Buda, which raised discontent among Louis's new subjects. Louis's wife gave birth to a daughter, Catherine, in 1370, seventeen years after their marriage; a second daughter, Mary, was born in 1371. Thereafter Louis's made several attempts to safeguard his daughters' right to succeed him.

During a war between Emperor Charles IV and Stephen II, Duke of Bavaria, Louis intervened on the duke's behalf and the Hungarian army invaded Moravia. After the duke and the emperor signed a peace treaty, Louis and the emperor agreed upon the betrothal of their children early the next year. The Ottomans annihilated the Serbian armies in the Battle of Marica on 26 September 1371. Lazar Hrebeljanović, one of the Serbian lords, swore loyalty to Louis. Pope Gregory XI urged Louis to resist the Ottomans but also pleaded with him to send reinforcements to Italy to fight against Bernabò Visconti. A war broke out between the Republic of Venice and Francesco I da Carrara, Lord of Padova, who was an ally of Louis, in the summer of 1372. Louis sent reinforcements to Italy to assist Francesco da Carrara. The Venetians defeated the Hungarian troops at Treviso and captured its commander, Nicholas Lackfi, forcing Louis I to sign a peace treaty on 23 September 1373.

Louis and the representatives of the Polish nobility started negotiations of Louis's succession in Poland in the autumn of 1373. After a year of negotiations, he issued the so-called Privilege of Koszyce on 17 September 1374, reducing the tax that Polish noblemen paid to the king by about 84% and promising a remuneration to noblemen who participated in foreign military campaigns. In exchange, the Polish lords confirmed the right of Louis's daughters to inherit Poland.

Louis invaded Wallachia in May 1375, because the new prince of Wallachia, Radu I, had formed an alliance with the Bulgarian ruler, Ivan Shishman, and the Ottoman Sultan Murad I. The Hungarian army routed the united forces of the Wallachians and their allies, and Louis occupied the Banate of Severin, but Radu I did not yield. During the summer, Wallachian troops stormed into Transylvania and Ottomans pillaged the Banat.

From the middle of the 1370s, the Lackfis' influence diminished and new favorites emerged in the royal court. James Szepesi was appointed judge royal in 1373, and Nicholas Garay became the palatine in 1375. The organization of central government was also modified to create a more centralized power structure. Louis's "secret seal", that he had always taken with him during his wars and journeys, was declared authentic, and Louis entrusted it to the secret chancellor who was always to accompany him. A new high official, the Lord Chancellor were authorized to use the great seal in the king's name in 1376 or 1377. Demetrius, Bishop of Zagreb, who was of humble origin, was the first to hold this new office. The Lord Chancellor became the head of a new central court of justice, called the court of "the king's special presence" in 1377. From around the same time, the royal free towns delegated jurors to assist the master of the treasury, who headed the court of appeal for the towns. A new official, the treasurer, took over the financial duties of the master of the treasury.

The Lithuanians made raids in Halych, Lodomeria, and Poland, almost reaching Kraków in November 1376. A riot broke out in Kraków against the unpopular queen mother, Elizabeth, on 6 December. The rioters slaughtered about 160 servants of the queen-mother, forcing her to flee to Hungary. Taking advantage of the situation, Władysław the White, Duke of Gniewkowo, who was a male member of the royal Piast dynasty, announced his claim to the Polish crown. However, Louis's partisans defeated the pretender, and Louis made him abbot of the Pannonhalma Archabbey in Hungary. Louis appointed Vladislaus II of Opole his governor in Poland. In summer 1377, Louis invaded the territories held by the Lithuanian prince, George, in Lodomeria. His Polish troops soon captured Chełm, while Louis seized George's seat, Belz, after besieging it for seven weeks. He incorporated the occupied territories in Lodomeria, together with Galicia, into the Kingdom of Hungary. Three Lithuanian princes – Fedor, Prince of Ratno, and two princes of Podolia, Alexander and Boris – accepted Louis's suzerainty.

Last years (1377–1382)

Tvrtko I of Bosnia had himself crowned king, adopting the title of "King of Serbia, Bosnia and the Coastland", in 1377. Whether Louis had approved Tvrtko's coronation cannot be decided. A new war broke out between Venice and Genoa in 1378. Louis supported the Genoese and Trogir became the regular base of the Genoese fleet, which transformed Dalmatia into an important theater of war. Louis also sent reinforcements to Francesco I da Carrara to fight against the Venetians.

The cardinals who had turned against Pope Urban VI elected a new pope, Clement VII on 20 September 1378, which gave rise to the Western Schism. Louis acknowledged Urban VI as the legitimate pope and offered him support to fight against his opponents in Italy. As Joanna I of Naples decided to join Clement VII's camp, Pope Urban excommunicated and dethroned her on 17 June 1380. The pope acknowledged Charles of Durazzo, who had lived in Louis's court, as the lawful king of Naples. After Charles of Durazzo promised that he would not claim Hungary against Louis's daughters, Louis dispatched him to invade Southern Italy at the head of a large army. Within a year, Charles of Durazzo occupied the Kingdom of Naples, and forced Queen Joanna to surrender to him on 26 August 1381.

The envoys of Louis and Venice had meanwhile started negotiations on a new peace treaty, which was signed in Turin on 24 August 1381. According to the treaty, Venice renounced Dalmatia and also promised to pay 7,000 golden florins as an annual tribute to Hungary. Louis also stipulated that Venice was to transfer the relics of St Paul of Thebes to the newly established Pauline monastery at Budaszentlőrinc.

Royal charters referred to military actions in Lodomeria and Wallachia in the first half of 1382, but no further information of those wars was preserved. Louis, whose health was quickly deteriorating, invited the representatives of the Polish prelates and lord for a meeting in Zólyom (now Zvolen in Slovakia). Upon his demand, the Poles swore loyalty to his daughter, Mary, and her fiancé, Sigismund of Luxemburg, on 25 July 1382. Louis died in Nagyszombat (now Trnava in Slovakia) in the night on 10 or 11 September 1382. He was buried in the Székesfehérvár Cathedral in a chapel that had been built upon his orders.

Family

Louis's first wife, Margaret, was the oldest child of Charles, Margrave of Moravia, and his first wife, Blanche of Valois. Margaret was born in 1335. The exact date of the marriage of Louis and Margaret is unknown, but it occurred between 1342 and 1345. Margaret died childless on 7 September 1349.

According to the Chronicle of Parthénope, the Neapolitan princes whom Louis had imprisoned during his first campaign in Southern Italy proposed him to marry Queen Joanna I's younger sister and heir, Mary. She was the widow of Charles of Durazzo, who had been executed on Louis's orders. During the siege of Aversa in the summer of 1350, Louis met her envoy in the nearby Trentola-Ducenta and the terms of their marriage were accepted. However, Mary was forced to marry Robet of Baux after Louis left Southern Italy.

Louis married his second wife, Elizabeth, around 20 June 1353. Elizabeth was the daughter of Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia, and Stephen's wife, Elizabeth of Kuyavia. Louis and his new wife were within the prohibited degree of kinship, because Louis's mother and his wife's grandmother were cousins, but they applied for a papal dispensation only about four months after their marriage. Historian Iván Bertényi says that this haste suggests that Elizabeth, who had been living in the court of Louis's mother, was pregnant at the time of the marriage. If this theory is valid, Louis's and his wife's first child was stillborn. Their next child, Catherine, was born in 1370 and died in 1378. The next daughter, Mary, who would succeed Louis in Hungary, was born in 1371. Louis's youngest daughter, Jadwiga, who was born in 1373, became queen regnant of Poland.

Legacy
Louis was the only Hungarian monarch to receive the epithet "Great". He was mentioned under this byname not only in Hungarian chronicles in the 14th and 15th centuries, but also in a 17th-century genealogy of the Capetians. Both his chivalrous personality and his successful military campaigns contributed to the development of his fame as a "great king". Louis waged wars in almost each year during his reign. Louis "always desired peace at home and war abroad for neither can be made without the other", according to Antonio Bonfini's late 15th-century chronicle. Historian Enikő Csukovits writes that Louis's military actions show that he continued and accomplished his father's policy through recovering Croatia and Dalmatia and waging wars in Southern Italy, in Lithuania and in the Balkan Peninsula. On the other hand, Pál Engel says that Louis's "expeditions often lacked a realistic goal and sometimes even a reasonable pretext ... it was war itself that gave him pleasure".

In the age of Romantic nationalism, Hungary during Louis's reign was described as an empire "whose shores were washed by three seas" in reference to the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas. For instance, in 1845 the poet Sándor Petőfi referred to Louis's reign as a period when "the falling stars of the north, the east and the south were all extinguished in Hungarian seas". Poland remained an independent country during Louis's reign and its borders did not extend to the Baltic Sea, and Louis's suzerainty along the northwestern shores of the Black Sea was also uncertain.

In Polish historiography, two contrasting evaluations of Louis's reign in Poland coexisted. The "pessimistic" tradition can be traced back to the views of the late 14th-century Jan of Czarnków, who was banished from Poland during Louis's reign. Czarnków emphasized that "there was no stability in the Kingdom of Poland" and the royal officials "continually pillaged the property of the poor people" during Louis's reign. According to the "optimistic" historiographic tradition, Louis continued Casimir the Great's policy of preserving the unity of Poland against the separatist magnates of Greater Poland with the assistance of lords from Lesser Poland.

John of Küküllő emphasized that Louis "ruled neither with passion, nor with arbitrariness, but rather as the guardian of righteousness". Antonio Bonfini also described Louis as a just king wandering among his subjects in disguise to protect them the royal officials' arbitrary acts. Even Jan of Czarnków underlined that Louis "did not rule in an absolute manner; on the contrary, the foundations ... of [the Poles'] freedom were laid by him".

New palaces and castles built at Zólyom, Diósgyőr and Louis's other favorite hunting places were "masterpieces of the highest European standards" of his age, according to historian László Kontler. Louis initiated the compellation of the Illuminated Chronicle, which preserved the text of earlier chronicles. The 147 miniatures decorating the Illuminated Chronicle testify the mastery of Hungarian workshops during Louis's reign.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Louis I of Hungary


text:
Talk:Gabbro

Question
I know it says "first draft," but this looks remarkably like the text at "http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~jill/gabbro.html" (I was looking for the chemical formula for gabbro). Epopt, are you ~jill? --Vicki Rosenzweig
 * I am not ~jill; the page no longer resembles hers at all. --the Epopt

this page needs more information on CERTAIN types of rocks like the classification and all that

Clarification?
The first sentence under the Petrology section makes no sense to me: "Gabbro is an extrusive melting lava." Gabbro is an intrusive rock type, not extrusive, and would form from magma rather than lava. If this sentence is saying something, it needs to be clarified. I am removing it from the article as it stands. -- BlueCanoe 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm.. that bit of nonsense dates from 2 March - how did I miss that? Good move - maybe I have too many articles on my watchlist. Vsmith 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

essex, wales and essexite
I don't believe that there is an essex in wales, and essex, england has no igneous rocks at outcrop, I suspect that the type locality would be in New England USA where there are a number of intrusive rocks that have place names derived from east anglia, england e.g. Chelmsford granite. It could of course be new south wales, for all I know.

Should include the fact that it is intrusive equivalent of extrusive basalt.
96.252.103.113 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Life in gabbro deposits
.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.137.238 (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting, but I've placed it in the Serpentinite article rather than the article here, since the bacteria may feed on hydrocarbons released by serpentinization of underlying ultramafic rock. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Bojite
If anyone can clarify the term Bojite, a rare type of gabbro, it would help.Jstuby (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymology section does not include the origin of the term. It is a history of who used the term first, and where. This source indicates:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/gabbro "from Italian (Tuscan) gabbro, a word among the marble-workers, of obscure origin; perhaps from Latin glaber "bare, smooth, bald" (see glad)"Drbeechwood (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 * There is, however, a place called Gabbro in Tuscany, which has also been suggested as the origin of the word. I'll try to find an WP:RS for that. Mikenorton (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gabbro


text:
Talk:Dravidian languages

epiconum
A new section on gender uses the word epiconum more than once. The word is otherwise unknown to the Web; may I presume that epicene was intended? —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The recent additions to the grammar section seem to be a mechanical translation from the article on the German wiki, and contain many such flaws. The original text has Epicönum, which is the German word for epicene.
 * The whole thing needs extensive repair. It's best to go back to the original source, which in the case of the Nominal morphology section in the dewiki article is Krishnamurti (2003) chapter 6. The Verbal morphology and Syntax sections of the dewiki article have no citations, but may also be based on chapters 7 and 9 of Krishnamurti. Kanguole 08:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I wonder whether epicœne is used much in English. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Dravidian and NE Caucasian connection
I added a paper showing evidence of a connection between Dravidian and NE Caucasian languages. Comments are welcome. Ionian9876 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I will remove it per WP:UNDUE. First, a linguistic paper published in non-specicalist journal ("Biological Sciences", seriously?) is always a red-flag, especially nowadays that mainstream historical linguistic journals are much less hesitant to accept papers about computational methods than 10 years ago. Secondly, the paper has little to zero impact: it has 6 cites on Google Scholar, and none of the citing papers actually mentions this peripheral proposal of the paper. –Austronesier (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Will the removed text be suitable for re-addition after reinforcement by this 2020 paper by Ceolin et al: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.488871/full that reiterates the same point? This paper has 20 cites and was cited in both this: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2020.0197 and this Science magazine article: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abd9223 ? Ionian9876 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you even ask when you restore it anyway with "WP:3RR" as edit battlecry in the summary? Try WP:BRD for a change.
 * The first citation you mention is "in-universe", and the second one (Matsumae et al. 2021) doesn't mention the proposed connection between Dravidian and NE Caucasian languages. How many among the 20 papers (not including self-cites from the same research group) do mention it? –Austronesier (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ionian9876, this isn't a really serious theory accepted among linguists, and Austronesier has made a strong case as to why it should not be considered. Specifically, this claim would wholly upend part of the understanding of historical linguistics and it was published in an unrelated journal, which sort of feels like a WP:ECREE problem. Specifically:
 * Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people.
 * Emphasis added. This wasn't published in a place where the peer review would be conducted by the relevant community, and it's absolutely an extraordinary claim. Its inclusion here does not feel warranted. Warrenmck (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "this isn't a really serious theory accepted among linguists": While I agree that the specific claim of a close relation between Dravidian and Northeast Caucasian languages (not "Caucasian languages" as written by you in your edit summary; there are other language families of the Caucasus like the Kartvelian family and the Northwest Caucasian family) seems to be not discussed among linguists (maybe until now), Ceolin et al mention the discussion of Alarodian family and Elamo-Dravidian family among linguists both of which in some formulations include Elamite. Additionally, there is no prevailing view among linguists about the NE caucasian-Dravidian relation precisely because it had specifically not been discussed among linguists (publicly). So, no question here of "contradicted by the prevailing view..." or "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions". I think the claim of the relation is not an extraordinary claim but just an ordinary claim (how is it extraordinary without any prevailing view either specifically against it or for?). Ionian9876 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there is no prevailing view among linguists about the NE caucasian-Dravidian relation precisely because it had specifically not been discussed among linguists (publicly).
 * Linguists also haven't talked about the link between Icelandic, Sumerian, and Esperanto. Much for the same reasons, I imagine. Warrenmck (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems some editor(s) of Wikipedia make claims out of thin air. Esperanto is primarily drawn from Indo-European languages. Icelandic is an Indo-European language. From the Wikipedia article Sumerian language, "Sumerian was at one time widely held to be an Indo-European language, but that view later came to be almost universally rejected." @Warrenmck Ionian9876 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm implying that the notion that the connection between caucasian and Dravidian languages isn't discussed by linguists is because it isn't seen as plausible, akin to trying to demonstrate a link between Sumerian, Esperanto (which is a conlang), and Icelandic. Sometimes something isn't discussed much because to those familiar with the field it's completely implausible. While it's possible with time there may be a link from the Dravidian languages to other languages of the world, this paper isn't it, as evidenced by its publication not even being in the right field's journal. Sorry if that wasn't very clear. Warrenmck (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think most linguists think it is implausible. They just did not discuss it in an article or book as of yet. There is a difference between just not discussing a claim (for example, a five-year old child not discussing if the Big Bang happened) and being opposed to the claim (for example, a supporter of the now-falsified steady state hypothesis opposing that the Big Bang happened.) Anyway, I think we should not prolong the discussion unnecessarily. @Warrenmck Ionian9876 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if they do oppose the claim without any reason (as evident by no published claim about the opposition), then the opposition to the claim is just wrong in principle. Ionian9876 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That the study wasn’t published in a journal related to the field, meaning that it wasn’t reviewed by people familiar with the actual topic, is a pretty substantial red flag. If they have more substantive evidence I’m certain they can get it accepted by linguists. Until then, its inclusion is clear WP:UNDUE. Note that I’m not the only linguist in here saying this. Warrenmck (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the evidence is somewhat significant although this is my personal opinion. Also, I do not accept your claims of authority on linguistics "...that I'm not the only linguist...": Essjay controversy. Ionian9876 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m only claiming authority insofar as I am a trained historical linguist, and I’m trying to explain why this type of evidence isn’t up to standard. This isn’t exclusive to linguistics; any paper published way outside the appropriate journal has the same issues. It is possible there is some real substance here, but without it being reviewed by people qualified on the topic (in peer review) it can’t really be given too much weight.
 * And again, why should this paper be included when countless other proposals for genetic relationship are not? Warrenmck (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, re: you’re invoking the Essjay controversy; I edit Wikipedia under my real name. It is not a huge leap to get from there to my profile on ResearchGate. I am not a professor of linguistics, nor do I have a PhD (in linguistics), but considering how consistent I am with linguistics being my jam here I don't know why I would pretend to have a qualification for clout, especially considering WP:NOR. Remember to assume good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Warrenmck, also remember that Krishnamurti (2003) does not discuss the NE Caucasian family or Alarodian languages at all. Ionian9876 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As the article notes, Dravidian has been compared with a vast number of language families. Is this proposal more notable than all of those? It appears to be advanced only by a small team, who never publish in linguistics venues. (One suspects that their reliance on systactic feature would not go down well there.) We do mention a few proposals that don't have wide support, but at least those are discussed in a fair bit of the linguistic literature. Kanguole 22:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Addionally, the long-range proposals for including Dravidian in hypothetical macrofamiilies that we mention in the article are cited from primary and secondary sources which actually make or discuss the claim of a genealogical relationship. The two papers cited now don't even do that: they just report a signal that is visible based on their novel methodolgy: A peculiar long-range connection has instead emerged from our experiments which may deserve some future attention. –Austronesier (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Austronesier, "they just report a signal": They report a significant signal. In addition to that, they did discuss the genealogical relationship. Their methodology is different from the 'traditional' methodology but that doesn't make it wrong. Their paper is cited in a paper of Science magazine. Aren't Ceolin et al notable enough to be included just because other recent papers which cite them do not discuss the claim specifically (assuming what you say is true) especially when my wording attributed the claim to them specifically ("Research by Ceolin and others...") in a non-confirmatory style ("provide evidence...")? Ionian9876 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They report a significant signal.
 * In a journal outside of the relevant field, which is a very paltry amount of evidence to counter the entire understanding of linguistic relationships on. As has been pointed out, I cannot imagine that paper would have survived a linguistics journal and linguistics journals do not shy away from publishing data science papers at this point. That it was published outside of linguistics (again, WP:UNDUE).
 * This point was particularly salient:
 * As the article notes, Dravidian has been compared with a vast number of language families. Is this proposal more notable than all of those?
 * Warrenmck (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kanguole, this proposal is atleast as notable as all those other claims if not more. Remember that Ceolin et al also claim to disprove linguistic relations between Uralic and Dravidian, between Indo-European and Dravidian, etc. You are correct that this claim of NE Caucasian connection is not discussed in the wider literature. However, I fail to see how this would make it not notable enough to be included. My wording "Research by Ceolin and others provide evidence..." attributed it to only Ceolin et al and did not sound confirmatory("provide evidence..."). You can suggest changes in the wording to make it more palatable. Ionian9876 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Aren't Ceolin et al notable enough to be included just because other recent papers which cite them do not discuss the claim...? In a nutshell: exactly. Wikipedia is a tertiary source build on content from secondary sources. For articles about a specific topic, we require significant coverage in secondary sources. For a mention of something in an existing article (even a passing mention), the threshold is obviously not as high. It's a matter of WP:due weight which is established by consensus. But: the absolute necessary condition is coverage in secondary sources (not counting self-cites from the same authors). It is not a sufficient one, but with zero citations in secondary sources, a hypothesis cannot be even just mentioned in Wikipedia. It's simple: if others haven't cited it (yet), we won't do it either. WP is not a soapbox to propagate new ideas; we reflect coverage in reliable secondary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Okay, that adds up. Let's wait and see for any subsequent coverage. Ionian9876 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Number of speakers
The speaker figure of 220 million is cited to Kolipakam et al (2018). Within that paper (on the first page), the figure is cited to Steever in The Dravidian Languages, Routledge, 1998, p. 1. A second edition of the latter book appeared in 2020, in which the figure (in the same place) was given as 250 million. Kanguole 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Potential edit war brewing
@Lijing1989 and @Kanguole, you're both reverting a fair bit and I just wanted to encourage you to discuss it here. For what it's worth, I tend to be pretty heavy handed on removing content on linguistics articles but I actually think Lijing1989's intro to that section adds quite a bit of clarity given the structure of the article. Warrenmck (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Lijing1989 has arrived here after the two of us disagreed on an unrelated page (Talk:Tang dynasty).
 * The text that they've added is a confusing mass of names and excessive bolding. Every one of those names, and the equivalences between them, is already present just below the inserted text. It also repeats some wording already present further down in the same section. Kanguole 21:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The current version has more detail and has lots of sources supported. The discussion about Tang dynasty is totally irrelated, I just put 5 comments in about 3 days and did not continue that topic. You discussed that topic about 4-5 months and still engage which I did not have interesting. Lijing1989 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly does appear to be related: in the midst of a disagreement on Talk:Tang dynasty, and immediately after another editor reverted your edits to Tang dynasty, you came here for the first time, to re-insert old text.
 * Your addition has more text, but all of it duplicates information that is already in this section. Moreover it is a blizzard of names and excessive bolding that is difficult to read.
 * As for "lots of sources", you removed one source, Krishnamurti (2003), pp. 19–20, and added one, Krishnamurti (2003), p. 21, which was already cited 5 times in that section (where the same info is presented). Kanguole 20:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So you means I cannot have any disagreement with you in any article,right? If I have any disagreement with you, then you will relate the disagreement with the talk in Tang dynasty, right?
 * As I said before, I invloved in that topic about 3 days, You involved that topic about 5 months. I don't think it is such a big talk. Even in that topic, most of my comments was not reply for you but for Aza24.If you mean conflict, the major conflict is between I and Aza24. I even did not reply you much. If every disagreement in any topic can be related. I involved in the talk in Allies of World War II about 3 months which 100 times than tang topic and have lots of disagreement with mulitple editors. Did anybody relate any edition I made with that tallk? By the way, most of my editions was othe first time in the article I come so don't say anything like I came here first time. In the same way, you can say the same thing in my edition in Sasanian Empire Al-Farabi,Aristotelianism Holbon. I don't see much of the second time edition in my previous edition
 * So do you still have question about that topic? If you have, I can explain more. If no, then can we focus on this topic?
 * Lijing1989 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The link I provided above speaks for itself regarding what happened here.
 * If you wish to speak for the content of your partial revert of this edit, you could respond to the remarks I made about it above. Kanguole 09:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sheduled tribes in India
Are all Central Dravidian (Kolami–Parji), North Dravidian (Brahui-Kurukh), Gondi-Kui languages speakers considered as sheduled tribes in India? Kaiyr (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dravidian languages