text:
Hornsea

Hornsea is a seaside town and civil parish in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England. The settlement dates to at least the early medieval period. The town was expanded in the Victorian era with the coming of the Hull and Hornsea Railway in 1864. In the First World War the Mere was briefly the site of RNAS Hornsea Mere, a seaplane base. During the Second World War the town and beach was heavily fortified against invasion.

The civil parish encompasses Hornsea town; the natural lake, Hornsea Mere; as well as the lost or deserted villages of Hornsea Beck, Northorpe and Southorpe. Structures of note in the parish include the medieval parish church of St Nicholas, Bettison's Folly, Hornsea Mere and the sea front promenade.

The economy includes a mix of tourism and small manufacturing. Most notably, Hornsea Pottery was established in Hornsea in 1949 and closed in 2000. Modern Hornsea still functions as a coastal resort, and has large caravan sites to the north and south.

The soft soil and low-lying geography result in consistent coastal erosion that threatens some of the infrastructure of the community. This is expected to get worse as climate change causes sea level rise. In some areas, residents have already been forced to take a managed retreat.

Etymology and name
The name Hornsea likely derives from the Old Norse elements horn ("horn"), nes ("headland, promontory") and sæ ("sea, lake").

Hornsea may have been the site of Cornu Vallis, a place-name derived from Brittonic corno ("horn")

Geography
The civil parish of Hornsea is located on the Holderness coast approximately 25 km north-east of Hull. The parish is bounded by the civil parishes of Atwick to the north, Seaton to the west, Hatfield and Mappleton to the south, and by the North Sea to the east. The civil parish contains the coastal town of Hornsea, and a suburb of "Hornsea Bridge" or "Hornsea Burton" south of the former railway line, as well as Hornsea Mere. Excluding the town and its suburbs there are no other habitations of note in the parish, except some farms. The remainder of the parish is low lying farm land divided into fields.

Most of the civil parish lies at between 33 and 66 ft above sea level, with the highest points in the parish under 98 ft. The B1242 road runs north to south parallel with the coast through the parish and the A1035 runs westward connecting with the A165 near Leven. Additionally a foot and cycle path, the Hornsea Rail Trail, part of the Trans Pennine Trail runs south-west from the town centre towards Hull.

Hornsea Mere is a lake of around 2 by with an outflow towards the sea by the Stream Dike Drain. This drain also separates Hornsea from the Hornsea Bridge suburb.

According to the 2011 UK census, Hornsea parish had a population of 8,432. Hornsea is in the Parliamentary constituency of Beverley and Holderness.

Geology and erosion
The underlying geology is primarily boulder clay. High points in the area are formed of gravel. (See moraine.) The topsoils are fine and loamy, whilst the rock beneath the boulder clay is classed as Flamborough Chalk from the Upper Cretaceous period. Historically large stones in the boulder clay were removed for use in road construction – this activity had been prohibited at Hornsea by the board of trade by 1885. Sands and clays were also used locally in building (c. 1885), though better quality materials were found elsewhere.

Some early writers (William Camden 1551–1623) thought that ground conditions in the area were evidence of an earthquake, whilst supposed the Mere and fossil finds to be evidence of a great flood or deluge in the area. Since at least the late 19th century the geological conditions overlying the underlying chalk have been interpreted as being from a glacial process in origin – both the boulder clay and the gravel beds and moraines.

Borings suggest the chalk probably lies at around 60 to 70 ft under the sand, gravel and clay beds at Hornsea, though possibly deeper. Water in Hornsea has been obtained from wells and bore holes, though some borings have yielded water contaminated with iron, whilst others failed to reach an aquifer even at a depth of 976 ft.

The Mere is the last of many lakes in the Holderness area – the remainder had been drained by the late 19th century. At the sea remains of a submarine forest were found in a bed of peat found around halfway between cliff and lower water. The trees found were oak, alder and willow. A variety of fossils have been found in the deposits, including those of the extinct Eurasian cave lion (Felis spelaea), Woolly Mammoth (Elephas primigenius), Aurochs (Bos primigenius) as well as Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) and Horse species (Equus). Molluscs found in the subterranean gravel appear to have been freshwater species. It is thought the source of the submarine forests recorded on the coast at Hornsea may have been a second mere on the eastern side of the present lake which was silted and was lost to the sea at some point.

The coast at Hornsea is subject to erosion. The rate of erosion varies, but has been inferred at around 4 yd per year in the latter part of the 16th century; estimated by George Poulson at 2 yd per year in the late 18th century, though recorded at up to 6 yd in some years in the same period. The rate of erosion may have been influenced by the presence or absence of erosion limiting groynes or a pier. South, at Hornsea Burton, erosion rates rose from 1.3 to 5 yd pa between the periods 1845–76 and 1876–82, thought to be due to the construction of groynes north of the beach at Hornsea. The current (2008) rate of erosion is 0.5 m north of and 2 m south of Hornsea – the difference due to the defences at Hornsea preventing the renewing flow of sediment southwards.

An apocryphal inscription said to have been found in Hornsea references the nearing of the sea by erosion – the figure of ten miles given as the distance the town once stood from the sea is certainly artistic licence.

"Hornsea steeple, when I built thee, Thou was 10 miles off Burlington, 10 miles off Beverley, and 10 miles off sea."

- anon

Hornsea town
The old town of Hornsea is centred on the Market Place, and includes Southgate, Westgate and Mere Side; the resort and promenade is connected to the old town by Newbegin and New Road, and includes much of the Victorian development of the town. Buildings in the town are predominately red brick, with pantile or slate roofs; some structures use local cobbles as a building material. Modern Hornsea also incorporates several caravan sites, mainly on the northern and southern edge. There are two notable parks in Hornsea, Hall Garth Park which includes a historic moated site, and the Memorial Gardens.

The area of 'old' Hornsea centred on the Market Place, and including Hall Garth Park and the large houses around Hornsea Town railway station and Grosvenor Road are now (2007) part of a Conservation Area – the area excludes the 19th/20th century resort, and promenade.

Like other small North Sea coastal resorts Hornsea has a promenade, laid out gardens, hotels, fish and chip shops, gift shops and so on. On the southern edge of Hornsea, near the site of Hornsea Pottery is a shopping centre known as Hornsea Freeport – the Freeport adapted some of the original theme park set up by Hornsea Pottery.

There are three schools in Hornsea: Hornsea Community Primary School, Hornsea Burton Primary School and Hornsea School and Language College.

Hornsea has an independent lifeboat service provided by Hornsea Inshore Rescue, a registered charity since 1994.

Hornsea has a high frequency of all-day public transport bus service to and from Hull, Beverley, Hessle and a daily service to Bridlington, and to Withernsea.

Prehistory to medieval
There is evidence of prehistoric human activity in the area. Near Norththorpe, north of Hornsea crop marks indicate a site interpreted as a Neolithic henge monument, thought to have been later reused as a Bronze Age ringwork. The site is similar to one excavated at Paddock Hill, near Thwing. The site consists of cropmarks indicating circular 6 to 8 m ditch surrounding a 50 m diameter circular area, with a probably entrance point at the east-south-east. There are cropmark indications that an outer ditch existed and that a roundhouse or henge was located inside the monument. Prehistoric finds in Hornsea include a polished Neolithic stone axehead, Neolithic or Bronze Age flints, and Bronze Age flint arrowhead.

There are also cropmarks in the Hornsea area indicating human activity during the Iron Age/Roman Britain period, thought to the remnants of field systems.

An Anglo-Saxon burial ground was discovered in 1913 near the Hydro on Cliff Road – the site was re-excavated in 1982. Thirteen skeletons were initially found, and a further six at the later excavations – a wide variety of grave goods were found including vases, and objects of bronze, ivory, bone, silver, jet and beads.

Hornsea is mentioned as a Manor, as Hornesse, in the Domesday Book. At the Norman conquest overlordship passed from Morcar to Drogo de la BeuvriËre. Drogo fled to Flanders c. 1086 after killing his wife, a relative of William I and Holderness subsequently passed to Odo, Count of Aumale. In around 1088 Odo gave the manor, church and lands at Hornsea to the Benedictine St Mary's Abbey, York. Rights of fishing in the Mere also passed to the Abbey.

The church of Saint Nicholas dates to the 13th century, with alterations in the 14th and 15th centuries. The church is of cobbles plus stone dressings, much of it in the perpendicular style. The font, some memorials and an effigy also date to the 13th century, a restored former medieval market cross is found in the churchyard. The church tower was formerly surmounted by a spire, reported as ruinous in the early 1710s and said to have fallen down in 1733. The church was extensively restored in the 1860s by George Gilbert Scott, including rebuilding of the upper tower; further work was done at the beginning of the 20th century by Brodrick, Lowther & Walker. The medieval rectory of the church was located to the north, at a moated site – some earthwork remains are still extant, and were incorporated into the public Hall Garth Park in the 19th century. Other remnants of the medieval town include a c. 14th century wayside cross on Southgate, probably formed of remnants of other medieval crosses.

During the medieval period Hornsea was a market town, and also functioned as a fishing town and port. In 1377 the Poll Tax recorded 271 tax payers in Hornsea, and a further 264 at Hornsea Beck, and 96 at Hornsea Burton; in 1490 the parish of Hornsea recorded that there were 340 persons in Hornsea, and 240 at Hornsea Beck and 50 at Hornsea Burton.

There is limited evidence on the extent to which Hornsea functioned as a port. However, there are several medieval references to it. In 1228 documents refer to tolls on merchandise from ships both north and south of the beck. Holinshed noted Horneseie Beck as amongst the places on the coast used for trade; and sometime before the reign of Elizabeth I (16th century) the large sum of £3,000 had been spent on a pier at Hornsea – it was destroyed by the sea sometime around the latter half of the 16th century.

Coastal erosion had ended Hornsea's importance as a port by the 16th century, though its market continued to be important locally.

After the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1540) right of ownership of Hornsea were returned to the Crown from St Mary's Abbey. Subsequently, the property was split into three parts – the manor, church and mere.

There were windmills in Hornsea during the medieval period – two belonging to the Abbey of St Mary's are recorded in the 16th century. There was another in Hornsea Burton, recorded as early as 1584, and is documented again in 1663, with the site still recorded in the late 19th century – the mill was located at the end of the Mill Lane (now Burton Lane).

17th to 19th centuries
83 houses were recorded for tax purposes in 1676; and a record of 133 families in the parish was made in 1743. By 1801 the population was 533, rising steadily to 704 by 1811, then to 780 in 1831, and to 1,005 in 1841.

There were several Quakers in Hornsea in the mid 17th century – an early meeting room was in a cottage in Westgate. In 1676 three cottages in Southgate were recorded as being given up for the use as a cemetery by the Acklams, a Quaker family.

In 1732 the town was struck by a 'hurricane' which in addition to destroying the church's spire, unroofed around 40 buildings, as well as causing part of the vicarage to collapse, and overturned one windmill. Another windmill is recorded on Atwick Road in 1732, and in 1820–21 a new windmill was built – by 1909 it was steam operated.

Historically, the common building material in the area has been brick or cobbles – extant buildings in brick date to as early as the late 17th century, alternatively large cobbles have also been used in the area for building construction – several structures of this type survive in the town, dating to the late 17th, 18th or 19th century, including some listed buildings, utilising cobbles or cobbles with brick. The Old Hall in Hornsea Market Place dates to the early 17th century, and is built of brick on cobble foundations.

Whilst enclosure at Hornsea Burton had begun around 1660, the fields around Hornsea were enclosed in 1809.

By the mid 19th century Hornsea comprised three main streets at the eastern end of the Mere – Westgate, Southgate and Market Place; two streets, Newbegin and Eastgate led eastward towards the sea from Market Place, merging around 200 yd from the cliff – the land east of Hornsea town towards the sea was in agricultural use.

A Quaker meeting house, located to the rear of Westgate, now known as 'Quaker Cottage' was used in the 18th century for meetings. Non-conformist churches were built in the early 19th century – an Independent chapel was built on Southgate near to the Market Place c. 1808, with a burial ground to the rear;  and a Wesleyan chapel built on the corner of Back Southgate/Mere Side/Chamber's Lane c. 1814, (replaced in 1870 by one in Newbegin and later used as a school ); a Primitive Methodist chapel was built on Westgate in 1835, replaced and then demolished after a replacement was built in the Market Place in 1864, with a minister's house built on the site.

A tower folly, Bettison's Folly was built c. 1844, by local brewmaster William Bettison, a tower built by a local business man in the 19th century. The tower contains the only fully working retractable flag pole in the country.

Hornsea was promoted as a seaside resort from around 1800, with early attractions including bathing machines, horse races on the beach and a chalybeate spring near the mere. More facilities were built in the 1830s including the first Marine Hotel.

A railway line was sanctioned in 1846 from Arram to Hornsea in 1846, but was unbuilt following the fall of George Hudson and the financial problems of the York and North Midland Railway. In 1861 a company was formed to promote railways in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and obtained an act for a 13 mi line from Wilmington, Kingston upon Hull to Hornsea in 1862. Joseph Armitage Wade, a Hull timber merchant and Hornsea resident was a key promoter of the line. Work began October 1862, with the line completed early 1864 the Hull and Hornsea Railway. Hornsea Railway Station was designed by Rawlins & Gould, built in brick with sandstone, with five central bays surrounded by two five bay extensions on either side – the station is still extant and was listed 1979. Hornsea Bridge railway station was built short of the Hornsea Town terminus, and functioned as a goods station as well as a passenger station. The new railway not only benefited the resort, but also enabled Hornsea to function as a dormitory suburb to Hull.

There was significant growth in the small scale fishing that took place at Hornsea before the railway – persons recorded as Fishermen rose from 3 in 1851 to a dozen or more in the 1870s to 1890s, with 12 boats and 20 men recorded in 1894 – crab was the major catch, rather than wet fish – crabbing continued to the 1930s but declined after the Second World War.

At the same time as the promotion and development of the railway the town was also improved: New Road was laid out in 1848 to improve access to the sea – in the 1860s/'70s Joseph Wade establishing a brick and tile works, and developed Grosvenor Terrace – No.31 of which was layered with his patent 'Acorn' tiles. The coming of the railway was followed by further development, including Alexandra Hotel (1867); Wilton Terrace (1868); the high status dwellings Brampton House (1872–73); and the Grosvenor Estate, built during the period from 1865 to the early 20th century.

Civic improvements following or coincidental the opening of the railway included a gas works (1864, J.A. Wade); a gasworks for the Lansdowne estate, Cliff Road (1870, W.M. Jackson, closed 1899); improved drainage (1874–75, local board); and a Waterworks on Atwick Road (c. 1878, local board).

Wade's brickworks was established c. 1865 south of Hornsea Bridge railway station – by 1890 an hydraulic engineering works had been established adjacent west, both close to the site of the modern Freeport. There was also a short lived brickworks north of the mere, and sand and gravel extraction also took place in the parish, as well as lime kiln activity. (see also § Geology.)

The sea front was also developed, the 1837 Marine Hotel was rebuilt in 1874, and again in 1900; gardens were added to the north in 1898; and the Imperial Hydro Hotel built 1914 on the Esplanade (demolished c. 1990). Between 1878 and 1880 a 1072 ft pier was constructed – it was damaged within a year after a ship collided with it during a storm, shortening it by 300 ft. In 1897 the pier was sold for demolition. The entrance building remained as an amusement arcade until the 1920s.

Other notable mid 19th century additions to the town include the two storey three bay vicarage on Newbegin; the stuccoed Pike and Heron public house (c. 1830); a Primitive Methodist chapel in the Market Place built 1864; a Gothic Revival style non-conformist Congregational church on Hornsea Cliff Road/New Road, built 1868; and the Wesleyan church and adjacent church hall on Newbegin, built 1870, replacing the one in Back Southgate.

By 1864 the population had risen on 1,685, then to 1,836 in 1881 and to 2,013 by 1891, reaching 2,381 by 1901.

20th century
By the early 1900s the old town centred on the Market Place had grown little, but new developments had been built near Hornsea Town railway station, specifically the new streets of Eastbourne, Burton, and Alexandra Road; additionally a new estate had been built at the sea front, north of the old road to the sea along Cliff Road – this included the (new) Marine Hotel, as well the promenade and gardens parallel to the new Flamborough Terrace Road and the new (1907) sea defences. The promenade and gardens (Victoria Gardens) were begun in the 1890s. The 'Floral Hall' was added to the seafront gardens in 1913 – both the gardens and hall were extended in 1928.

New sea defences were constructed c. 1907 following a destructive storm on the east coast in March 1906. The timber defences were destroyed or damaged by the storm with most of the beach swept away, and a large amount of cliff eroded exposing the underlying clay. The new defences at Hornsea were constructed north of New Road protecting the seafront at Marine Terrace and Victoria Gardens. The works consisted of four groynes plus a concrete sea wall reinforced by steel pile supports. The work was carried out by A. Fasey and Son (Leytonstone) under W.T. Douglas of Westminster. The sea wall was lengthened by 450 and 1240 ft to the north and south respectively in 1923, and extended south beyond the stream dike outlet of the mere in 1930.

Early 20th century additions to the town included a Church Institute built 1906–07; and the Pickering Almshouses (see Christopher Pickering) built 1908; both on Newbegin. A convalescent home, Gregson Court was built on Cliff Road in 1908–09. The early 20th century house, 'Farrago', on Wilton Road, built with a bolted steel frame with brick and stone dressing by builder David Reynard Robinson is now listed. Hornsea Golf Course was established a mile south of the town in 1910 to a design by Sandy Herd. (The course is outside the modern parish in Mappleton.)

During the First World War a seaplane base was constructed on Hornsea Mere, named RNAS Hornsea Mere, the base was used to operate submarine patrols in the North Sea. The base was abandoned after the end of the war.

By the 1920s the town had grown further, generally infill and fringe development, as well as housing further along Newbegin and Eastgate blurring the separation between the old town and the seaside resort. A park had also been built between the Eastgate and Newbegin filling the area formerly known as Hall Garths. Some housing had also been built in the area around Hornsea Bridge station.

Civic improvements in the interbellum included transfer of the fire brigade (est.1902) to a former lifeboat house (1924); reconstruction of the sewers and supply of water from Hull via a water tower at Mappleton (1927); and an electricity supply, via the  South East Yorkshire Light & Power Co. Ltd., with power supplied by Hull Corporation (1930). In 1927, the Urban District Council converted Elim Lodge into Hornsea Town Hall. In 1938 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council opened a school in Hornsea on the open air principle, the site was used by the Free French during the Second World War, and later returned to educational use.

During the Second World War Hornsea was fortified with numerous anti-invasion structures, designed to prevent a beachhead being established at Hornsea by invading forces – beach defences consisted of pillboxes flanking the promenade, whilst the beach was protected by anti-tank cubes and mines; at South Cliff 4.7-inch guns were installed. Beyond the beach any potential invasion was protected against by road and rail blocks, further pillboxes, and minefields, limiting routes through the town to three roads and the railway line – the road access was narrowed by the use of concrete blocks and protected by pillboxes – the fortification was intended to hold up or delay any invasion force landing at Hornsea.

Many of the predominantly reinforced concrete structures are no longer extant, the recorded defences include: coastal beach defence batteries, with 4.7-inch gun batteries, other gun emplacements, numerous pillboxes, road blocks and road and railway antitank obstacles, including extensive anti-tank cubes on the beach, Royal Observer Corps posts, weapons pits and/or infantry trenches, barbed wire protected trackways and Army camps and associated facilities, including a camp "Rolston camp", located east of the Hornsea Bridge suburb on ground now destroyed by coastal erosion, with associated infantry trenches, grenade ranges, strongpoints and minefields, some farm buildings were also fortified. Other Second World War structures also included air raid shelters, and 'Diver' anti-aircraft battery designed to destroy V1 flying bombs. By the middle of the 20th century Hornsea had continued to grow, with new housing built or under construction south of Hornsea Town station, and at the coastal resort. New schools had also been established.

Hornsea's population rose consistently through the 20th century, with growth averaging several hundred persons per decade – by 1951 the population had risen by nearly 3,000 from 1900 levels to 5,324.

Hornsea Pottery was founded 1949. In 1953 the business was moved to the former Wade brickworks (Marlborough Avenue), and the Hornsea Pottery Co. Ltd. established 1955. The company became a major local employer with 200 persons working by the 1960s. The Church of the Sacred Heart (Catholic) was built in 1956 on Southgate.

The Hull to Hornsea railway line was closed in 1964/5. Hornsea Bridge Station was later demolished. The railway line's closure led to some contraction of the tourist industry, and decline in the town.

Civic improvements in the second half of the 20th century included a new fire station on Southgate (1965); the closure of the gas works, and transfer to North Sea gas (late 1960s); and a new outfall sewer and pumping station (1970s). Small industrial estates were built off Cliff Road in the late 1960s, and near Rolston Road on former railway land in the 1980s. (Hornsea Bridge Industrial estate, Old Bridge Road)

Much of the post war expansion was around south of Hornsea Bridge station, and west of Cliff Road to the north. By 1970 Hornsea's urban expansion had reached near the level maintained until the end of the 20th century. Housing was expanded to the west of the town off the B1244/Westgate on Cheyne Walk and later Cheyne Garth after the 1970s. The estate south of the town was expanded with the addition of Tansley Lane c. 2000.

A museum, The North Holderness Museum of Village Life (Hornsea Museum) was established in 1978, on Newbegin. Hornsea Pottery entered receivership in 1984 and after several changes of owner production ended in 2000. A visitor attraction was built at the site – in 1994 'Hornsea Freeport', a shopping attraction, was opened at the site. The town gained a swimming pool at 'Hornsea Leisure Centre' in 1996.

21st century
In 2009 Tesco submitted and had accepted an application to build a large store near Southgate. The store opened January 2012.

By 2011, Hornsea's population was 8,432, increasing from 8,243 in 2001, and from 7,934 persons in 1991.

In 2012, a former Methodist chapel was converted for use as the latest incarnation of Hornsea Town Hall.

Hornsea Beck
53.91589°N, -0.15695°W

Hornsea Beck was a small village or hamlet close to the sea – it is recorded in existence as early as 1367, and had been completely destroyed by the coastal erosion by c. 1747. Losses to the sea of 38 houses are recorded from 1546 to 1609.

Hornsea Burton

 * See also § History

Hornsea Burton was located to the south-east of Hornsea Town. The present 'Hornsea Burton Road' leads east to the coast where it stops, but it once continued some half a mile further to Hornsea Burton village, now long since inundated by the sea. By 1840 the remaining western part of the village was depopulated.

Northorpe
53.92476°N, -0.17963°W

Northorpe was located north of Hornsea. The site was completely depopulated sometime between the late 1600s and 1809.

Southorpe
53.89991°N, -0.18527°W

The village was once a settlement at Southorpe, on the south side of the mere – the village was recorded by the Domesday survey, and existed until the 17th century. By the beginning of the 19th century the village had been abandoned.

Sport
Hornsea Cricket Club plays at the Hollis Recreation Ground. Notable former players include Johnny Briggs (England), and Tom Kohler-Cadmore (Worcestershire and Yorkshire).

Hornsea is home to Hornsea Rugby Union Football Club. They play at the Hollis Recreation Ground and are nicknamed the 'Hollismen'. They currently play in Yorkshire 4's South East division.

Hornsea Town F.C. is an amateur football team who also play at the Hollis Recreation Ground. Their nicknames include 'Town' or 'The Seasiders'. The club plays in the premier division of the Humber Premier League after gaining promotion by winning division one in the 2016–17 season. Hornsea Town has eight teams; including a first team (HPL Premier Div), reserves (East Riding County League), veterans (Hull & District Veterans Football League) and a Sunday team (Hull Men's Sunday Football League).

Media
Local news and television programmes are provided by BBC Yorkshire and Lincolnshire and ITV Yorkshire. Television signals are received from the Belmont TV transmitter.

Hornsea's local radio stations are BBC Radio Humberside, Viking FM, Capital Yorkshire, Greatest Hits Radio East Yorkshire, Nation Radio East Yorkshire, and community based station Seaside FM.

The Holderness and Hornsea Gazette and Hornsea Community News are the town's local newspapers.

Notable people

 * Johnny Briggs (1862–1902), former England cricketer played at Hornsea CC.
 * Edward John Eyre (1815–1901), English born Australian pioneer, son of a vicar of Hornsea.
 * James Opie Urmson (1915-2012), Oxford philosopher and classicist, born in Hornsea.
 * Sonia Dresdel (1909–1976), English actress, born in Hornsea
 * Winifred Holtby (1898–1935), writer, lived for a time on Cliff Road.
 * Sheila Mercier (1919–2019), actress, sister to Brian Rix.
 * Adrian Rawlins (born 1958), actor, lives in Hornsea.
 * Brian Rix (1924–2016), later given the title Baron Rix, of Whitehall, in the City of Westminster and of Hornsea in Yorkshire. He lived in Hornsea as a child, and married Elspet Gray in St Nicholas Church in 1949.
 * Joseph Sheard (1813–1883), Mayor of Toronto (1871–72), born in Hornsea
 * Edith Tolkien (1889–1971), wife of J. R. R. Tolkien, lodged at 1 Bank Terrace, Hornsea, while her husband was stationed at Thirtle Bridge
 * Roger Lonsdale (1934–2022), British literary scholar and academic. Elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1991, born in Hornsea

title: Hornsea


text:
Kirkby Lonsdale

Kirkby Lonsdale is a town and civil parish in the Westmorland and Furness district of Cumbria, England, on the River Lune. Historically in Westmorland, it lies 13 mi south-east of Kendal on the A65. The parish recorded a population of 1,771 in the 2001 census, increasing to 1,843 at the 2011 Census.

Notable buildings include St Mary's Church, a Norman building with fine carved columns. The view of the River Lune from the churchyard is known as Ruskin's View after John Ruskin, who called it one of the loveliest in England. It was painted by J. M. W. Turner.

Governance
Kirkby Lonsdale is in the Westmorland and Lonsdale parliamentary constituency; Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats is the current member.

In local government the town is within Westmorland and Furness. Until 2023 it was in the Kirkby Lonsdale ward of South Lakeland District Council and the Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale Division of Cumbria County Council. It has a parish council, Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council.

Early history
Early signs of occupation include a Neolithic stone circle on Casterton Fell and remains of Celtic settlements at Barbon, Middleton and Hutton Roof.

During the Roman period, a Roman road followed the River Lune, linking forts at Low Borrow Bridge near Tebay and Over Burrow, south of Kirkby Lonsdale. A Roman milestone unearthed in 1836 and described as "the best in the country" was re-erected on a hill near Hawkin Hall (SD 623 859), close to where it was found.

Kirkby Lonsdale developed at a crossing over the River Lune, where drovers' and pack-horse routes converged. It is one of few Cumbrian towns mentioned in the 1086 Domesday Book, where it is called Cherchibi (village with a church). An earlier church was rebuilt by the Normans, who erected an artificial mound or motte on nearby glebe land. A wooden tower or keep is thought to have surmounted the stronghold as a base for controlling the surrounding area.

In later years, the mound was used for cockfighting, hence the current name of Cockpit Hill. In 1093, Ivo de Taillebois (Baron of Kendal) granted the church at Kirkby Lonsdale to St Mary's Abbey in York, which held it until the Dissolution. Thereafter the abbey and its possessions, including St Mary's Church, passed to Trinity College, Cambridge, which retains the patronage to this day.

In 1227, the town gained a market charter and the right to hold an annual fair every September. Each week stallholders gathered in Market Street to sell their wares, as did horse traders in the Horsemarket and pig sellers in Swinemarket. Thursday was as now the scene of great activity. Kirkby has an annual festival called the Victorian Fair.

19th century onward
The weekly market and daily throughput of drovers and pack-horse carriers created a bustling town, with a total of 29 inns and alehouses, of which eight remain. By the early 19th century, the old market area was becoming too congested and a new market place was built in 1822.

The steep incline of Mill Brow with its fast-flowing, now culverted stream was the industrial heart of Kirkby Lonsdale, with several mills using water power for grinding corn, bark and bone, carding wool, manufacturing snuff, making bobbins and fulling cloth, and sawing timber.

The Keighley and Kendal Turnpike of 1753 passed through Kirkby Lonsdale and met there with a turnpike from Milnthorpe on the coast. In 1818, the two trusts were amalgamated. Kirkby Lonsdale railway station, 2 mi away in Lancashire, opened in 1861 and closed to passengers in 1954.

Today Kirkby Lonsdale remains a busy town with a market. The centre has a mixture of elegant 18th-century buildings and stone cottages huddled round cobbled courtyards and narrow alleyways, with names such as Salt Pie Lane and Jingling Lane.

St Mary's Church is an active Anglican parish church in the deanery of Kendal, the archdeaconry of Westmorland and Furness, and the diocese of Carlisle. Its benefice is united with those of six local churches to form the Kirkby Lonsdale Team Ministry. It contains Norman architecture and is recorded in the National Heritage List for England as a designated Grade I listed building.

Kirkby Lonsdale's Queen Elizabeth School in Biggins Road is a secondary specialising in the performing arts, sports and languages.

A two-day Victorian fair used to be hosted in the town each September. The streets were closed to traffic and filled with traders' stalls, craft demonstrations and entertainment, while visitors were encouraged to wear Victorian dress.

Motorbike enthusiasts meet every Sunday at Devil's Bridge.

Devil's Bridge
The town is noted for the Devil's Bridge (54.199°N, -2.59°W), which at one time carried the Skipton to Kendal road over the River Lune. It dates from around 1370 and is built of fine gritstone ashlar. Of its three spans, the western two measure 54.75 ft each and the eastern one 29 ft, or 45 ft from river to parapet. The piers are hexagonal, 60 ft round and extending upwards to provide pedestrian refuges. At the eastern end is a sundial in the form of a square block on an octagonal column. The bridge was probably built by monks of St Mary's Abbey, York.

Like many bridges of the same name, it features a legend that the Devil appeared to an old woman, promising to build a bridge in exchange for the first soul to cross over it. When the bridge was finished, the woman threw bread over the bridge and her dog chased after it, thereby outwitting the Devil. Several large stones in the surrounding area, including the Great Stone of Fourstones, are ascribed to the Devil's purse strings bursting open as he ferried masonry to build it. It was repaired in 1705 and repointed in 1829 using Roman-style cement. The eastern arch was repaired in about 1869.

The roadway on the bridge is only 12 ft wide, insufficient for modern traffic. As numbers increased the bridge was closed to vehicles in 1932. Traffic instead crosses the river by the Stanley Bridge, 150 m to the south, which was built in the 1930s. Devil's Bridge is a Grade I listed structure and a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

The river beneath Devil's Bridge is popular with scuba divers for its relatively easy access and egress, deep rock pools (about 16 ft in a low swell) and good visibility. The bridge also witnesses illegal "tombstoning" (bridge diving), which has caused at least one death, of a 22-year-old man in 2012.

Lee Child/Jack Reacher connection
One of the world's bestselling thriller writers, Lee Child, author and creator of Jack Reacher, was living in the town when he wrote his first novel, Killing Floor.

In 1994, Jim Grant was a television executive, recently made redundant from Granada Television in Manchester, when he decided, out of financial necessity, to become a thriller writer. He was living at 10 Abbotsgate, just off Mitchelgate, in Kirkby Lonsdale at the time -- his daughter Ruth was a pupil at the Queen Elizabeth School.

He chose the name 'Lee Child' as a pseudonym because it was short and would slip alphabetically between Raymond Chandler and Agatha Christie on bookstore shelves. He began writing his first novel with a modern knight errant as his hero, but he didn't have a name for his character. Grant came up with the name 'Reacher' on a shopping trip to Asda supermarket in Kendal.

Grant's favoured watering hole was the Snooty Fox in the centre of Kirkby Lonsdale. Once a week he, his American wife Jane and friends would form a team in the pub quiz at the Pheasant Inn at nearby Casterton. It was at the Pheasant that he received an enthusiastic phone call from a London literary agent on Thursday, 7 December 1995.

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

title: Kirkby Lonsdale


text:
An Enemy of the People

An Enemy of the People (original Norwegian title: En folkefiende), an 1882 play by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, followed his previous play, Ghosts, which criticized the hypocrisy of his society's moral code. The response included accusations of both Ghosts and its author being "scandalous," "degenerate," and "immoral." In An Enemy of the People, a man dares to expose an unpalatable truth publicly and is punished for it.

However, Ibsen took a somewhat skeptical view of his protagonist, suggesting that he may have gone too far in his zeal to tell the truth. Ibsen wrote to his publisher: "I am still uncertain as to whether I should call [An Enemy of the People] a comedy or a straight drama. It may [have] many traits of comedy, but it also is based on a serious idea."

Act I
Dr. Thomas Stockmann is the medical officer of a recently opened spa in a small town. The play begins with a dinner party hosted by Dr. Stockmann and his wife, Katrine. The dinner guests include Dr. Stockmann's brother Peter (the mayor) and Hovstad (the editor of the newspaper). Peter asks Stockmann about a rumor that Hovstad is about to print an article the doctor wrote regarding the spa baths. Dr. Stockmann is evasive about the nature of this article, and Peter leaves. Petra, Dr. Stockmann's daughter, brings in a letter containing lab test results confirming Dr. Stockmann's suspicions that the spa water is contaminated with bacteria, and Hovstad agrees to print Dr. Stockmann's article, although revealing the truth may force the baths to shut down, with negative repercussions for the town's economy. Dr. Stockmann has mixed reactions to these events but ultimately rejoices about preventing the harm that the contaminated water would have caused.

Act II
The next morning Morten Kiil, Dr. Stockmann's father-in-law, stops by to congratulate him on what Kiil believes is an elaborate prank, since Kiil thinks the notion that the baths are tainted is too ridiculous to be believed, especially not by the mayor. Hovstad and the printer Aslaksen visit to reinforce their commitment to the doctor and extend their gratitude; the newspaper wants to confront the government of the town and expose its corruption, and this opportunity is a good start.

Peter arrives and tells Dr. Stockmann that if he selfishly proceeds to publish this article, he will be partially culpable for the town's ruin. Peter urges Dr. Stockmann to think of the bigger picture, retract the article, and solve the problem in a quieter way. Dr. Stockmann refuses; Peter warns of terrible consequences for him and his family.

Act III
In the newspaper office, Hovstad and the sub-editor, Billing, discuss the pros and cons of running Dr. Stockmann's article. Dr. Stockmann arrives and tells them to print the article, but they begin questioning how valuable it is to expose the government in this way, concluding that printing this article will do more harm than good, because of its likely effect on the town's economy. Peter Stockmann appears with a statement of his own, intended to reassure the public about the safety of the spa baths, and the newspaper agrees to print it. Desperate, Dr. Stockmann decides that he does not need the paper to print anything and that he can fight this battle on his own. He decides to call a town meeting and spread the information that way. Although Katrine Stockmann realizes that her husband is risking his reputation, she stands by him.

Act IV
At a town meeting in Captain Horster's house, Dr. Stockmann is about to read his water report to the townspeople. Billing, the family, the mayor, Aslaksen, and Hovstad are there. Aslaksen, a respected citizen, is elected Chairman of the meeting. Permission for Dr. Stockmann's being allowed to speak is about to be voted on, when Dr. Stockmann says he has a different subject. He then winds up into a passionate oration about social evolution. He says that new, truthful ideas are always condemned, due to the "colossal stupidity of the authorities" and the small-mindedness of "the compact liberal majority" of the people, who may as well "be exterminated." The audience feels insulted by these accusations and anger rises. By the end of the meeting the audience has rebelled, repeatedly shouting, "He is an enemy of the people!" Dr. Stockmann tells his father-in-law, Kiil, that it is his tannery that is leaking most of the poisons into the baths. As the crowd is leaving, voices are heard threatening to break Stockmann's windows.

Act V
By the next morning, Dr. Stockmann's house, especially his study, has been badly damaged, for the town has turned against him and his family. The landlord is evicting them from their house; Petra has been fired from her job as a schoolteacher for having progressive opinions; Peter comes to the house with a letter from the board of directors of the baths that terminates his contract along with a resolution from the homeowners' association stating that no one should hire Dr. Stockmann in this town again.

Dr. Stockmann's father-in-law, Morton Kiil, arrives to say that he has just bought shares in the Baths with the money that he had intended to leave to his daughter and grandchildren. Kiil expects this will cause his son-in-law to stop his crusade, to ensure that the spa does not go bankrupt and his family will have a secure future. Dr. Stockmann rebuffs Kiil's threat and also ignores Peter's advice to leave town for a few months. Katrine tells Dr. Stockmann she is afraid that the people will drive him out of town. But Dr. Stockmann replies that he intends to stay and make them understand "that considerations of expediency turn morality and justice upside down." He ends by proclaiming himself the strongest man in town because he is able to stand alone.

Cast and characters

 * Doctor Thomas Stockmann, the medical officer at the new Municipal Baths and the protagonist.
 * Mrs. Katherine Stockmann, his wife.
 * Petra, their daughter, a teacher.
 * Ejlif and Morten, their sons.
 * Peter Stockmann, Doctor Stockmann's elder brother; he is the mayor of the town and thus Thomas' supervisor.
 * Morten Kiil, a tanner (Mrs. Stockmann's father), also known as the Badger.
 * Hovstad, editor of The Peoples' Messenger, the local paper.
 * Billing, sub-editor.
 * Captain Horster, a shipmaster going to America and a friend of Thomas Stockmann.
 * Aslaksen, a publisher (also a character in The League of Youth).
 * Men of various conditions and occupations, a few women, and a troop of schoolboys – the audience at a public meeting.

Themes
In An Enemy of the People, speaking the language of comic exaggeration through the mouth of his spokesman, the idealist Doctor Thomas Stockmann, Ibsen puts into very literal terms the theme of the play: It is true that ideas grow stale and platitudinous, but one may go one step further and say flatly that truths die. According to Stockmann, there are no absolute principles of either wisdom or morality. In this Ibsen is referring indirectly to the reception of his previous plays. For example, the commandment "honor thy father and thy mother" referred to in Ghosts is not simply either true or false. It may have been a truth once and a falsehood today. As Stockmann states in his excited harangue to his political enemies: "Truths are by no means the wiry Methuselahs some people think them. A normally constituted truth lives—let us say—as a rule, seventeen or eighteen years; at the outside twenty; very seldom more. And truths so patriarchal as that are always shockingly emaciated." Yet, Ibsen addresses in an engaging manner a number of challenges that remain highly relevant today, such as environmental issues (versus economic interests), professional responsibilities (of experts in policy debates) and, last but not least, the moral dilemmas and tensions involved in whistle blowing.

Background
As in any other plays, Ibsen derived names and traits from his relatives, including the name Stockmann, a real family in Telemark from which lbsen himself was descended; Ibsen was also born in Stockmanngaarden in Skien. Peter Stockmann, who in the Norwegian original holds the offices of byfoged (city judge/magistrate) and politimester (chief of police), was based on lbsen's uncle, Christian Cornelius Paus, who held the same two offices in Skien and who was also a descendant of the Stockmann family.

Reception
The play has gained renewed attention in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Critical reviews
Scottish drama critic William Archer, an early and contemporary advocate of Ibsen's plays, said the play was less sensational than some of Ibsen's earlier efforts, but was a strong drama with excellent dialogue and characters.

Adaptations
A Nazi adaptation of the play was Hans Steinhoff's 1937 film Ein Volksfeind.

This classic play was adapted by Arthur Miller in the 1950s in a production that opened at the Broadhurst Theater on December 28, 1950. It starred Academy Award winner Fredric March and his wife Florence Eldridge as well as Morris Carnovsky; future Oscar winner Rod Steiger was a "townsperson." Miller's adaptation was presented on National Educational Television in 1966, in a production starring James Daly. It was also made into a movie of the same name in 1978, starring Steve McQueen. The BBC then cast Robert Urquhart as "Tom Stockman" in their 1980 TV version, adapting the story and the cast names to reflect it now being set in a Scottish town. In the creation of his adaptation of Ibsen's work, several changes were made by Miller to make the play more accessible and accepting to a 1950s audience, as opposed to Ibsen's late 1800s audience. Many major edits not only included the transformation of speech and language, but changes were made to the character of Dr. Stockmann to avoid having him champion eugenics. Throughout the play, Dr. Stockmann acts as a Christ figure. Miller found it necessary therefore to change Ibsen's use of genetic and racial theories from the late 1800s to further Dr. Stockmann's standing as a champion of the lower classes as opposed to a scientist with a belief in racial determinism and the importance of eugenics for "improving" people. For example, in Ibsen's original, a portion of Dr. Stockmann's speech to the people contained: "The masses are nothing but the raw material that must be fashioned into the people. Is it not so with all other living creatures on earth? How great the difference between a cultivated and an uncultivated breed of animals!... Don't you believe that the brain of a poodle has developed quite differently from that of a mongrel? Yes, you may depend upon that! It is educated poodles like this that jugglers train to perform the most extraordinary tricks. A common peasant-cur could never learn anything of the sort—not if he tried till Doomsday... we are animals... there is a terrible difference between men-poodles and men-mongrels."

In Miller's adaptation, no such eugenics-positive screed is read. Miller keeps Dr. Stockmann's ideals as a character, and his dedication to facing down the hypocrisy of the aristocracy and governmental bureaucrats, but portrays him as more of a democratic thinker and socialist, while retaining some of the original character's ideas about the evolution of animals and humans, and the need to cultivate humane qualities in order to bring the masses to a more rational and educated level, so that they can fully participate in a democracy. In Miller's adaptation, part of the doctor's speech reads:

"I put in a good many years in the north of our country. Up there the rulers of the world are the great seal and the gigantic squadrons of duck. Man lives on ice, huddled together in little piles of stones. His whole life consists of grubbing for food. Nothing more. He can barely speak his own language. And it came to me one day that it was romantic and sentimental for a man of my education to be tending these people. They had not yet reached the stage where they needed a doctor. If the truth were to be told, a veterinary would be more in order."

A version was produced for Australian television in 1958.

The 1972 Greek film O ehthros tou laou (An Enemy of the People) is an adaptation of the play, taking place in Greece during the mid-1930s.

The play was the indirect inspiration for the blockbuster movie Jaws.

Satyajit Ray's 1989 film Ganashatru was based on this play. In 1990, PBS produced the play for their show American Playhouse, starring William Anton and John Glover.

In 2000 an adaptation of the play called Paragon Springs written by Steven Dietz premiered at Milwaukee Repertory theatre in Milwaukee Wisconsin, U.S.A. The play is set in "a small town in the American Midwest" in 1926.

An Enemy of the People (with the subtitle The strongest one is the one who stands alone), a Norwegian film released in 2004 and directed by Erik Skjoldbjærg, is an adaptation of Ibsen's play.

In 2007 Ouriel Zohar's troupe Compagnie Ouriel Zohar performed an adaptation for two actors only of An Enemy of the People, performed first in Paris, then Fréjus, Besançon (2008), Liège, Minsk, Valleyfield (Canada, 2009), and Porto Heli (Greece, 2010).

In early 2013, a stage adaptation entitled "عدو الشعب" (Arabic: Enemy of the people or A Public Enemy) was organized and directed by Nora Amin (who played Doctor Stockmann's wife, with Tarek El-Dewiri as Doctor Stockmann) in Cairo. It was translated into colloquial Arabic and featured a rock-themed soundtrack played live on-set. Jointly sponsored by the Norwegian Embassy in Cairo and the Ibsen Studies Center in Norway, it received various positive reviews at a time when Egypt was plunged into deep political turmoil.

A new adaptation by Robert Falls, based on a 19th-century translation by Eleanor Marx, was staged at Chicago's Goodman Theatre from March - April 2018.

In Autumn 2021, a new National Theatre of Scotland adaptation entitled simply Enemy, authored by Keiran Hurley and directed by Finn den Hertog, toured Scotland. The play is set in a fictional Scottish town, is written using contemporary language and makes use of innovative technical effects such as overhead projected Twitter feeds, social media comments, and video live streams.

In 2024 at Duke of York's Theatre, Thomas Ostermeier directed an adaptation he co-wrote with Florian Borchmeyer. It was first staged in 2012, but was translated from German to English by Duncan Macmillan for the London performance. Starring Matt Smith and Jessica Brown Findlay, the adaptation converts the Act IV town meeting into an audience participation event which allows contemporary issues to be aired.

A new adaptation by Amy Herzog on Broadway at the Circle in the Square Theatre previewed on February 27, 2024, with an opening night March 18. The production is directed by Sam Gold and stars Jeremy Strong, Michael Imperioli, and Victoria Pedretti.

Censored in Mainland China
An Enemy of the People, produced by Berlin's Schaubühne theater, was performed in Beijing from September 6 to September 8, 2018, but the subsequent touring of the show was cancelled due to its themes. The audience in Beijing reportedly showed overwhelming support for Dr. Stockmann, and allegedly shouted criticism of the Chinese regime during interaction parts. Even in subsequent censored performances, audiences yelled "for personal freedom!" The regime's censorship officers would not agree to any more touring unless the script was doctored in favor of the regime's thought on what a play should be.

title: An Enemy of the People


text:
Talk:Great Moravia

Titel of the Mojmirids
I think it is really important to use constitent titel for all rulers of the Moravian realm. In my opinion the best solution for this is the titel Knez. While the latin sources mention Moravian rulers by diffent titels (dux, comes and rex), the old church slavonic sources use without exception the term kъnędzь (Knez), like for example Boris I of Bulgaria. However, the different intepretations of this titel should be explained in a note, because some historians translate this titel as "King" (f.a. Goldberg, Havlík), others as "Prince" and others as "Duke". --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I think we should follow the usage in reliable sources written in English, according to WP:NOR. Do the majority of reliable sources written in English follows the above approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 * But the problem is that historians are discortand about the correct titulation, for example Goldberg and Havlík, two of the most important historians about this time, mention all moravian rulers as "Kings". Some others just refer to Svatopluk as King, while others mention all rulers as "princes", "grand princes" or "dukes". I think thats something we can not ignore. The Czech historian František Graus (Rex-dux Moraviae, 1960) and the Slovak historian Miroslav Lysý (Titul mojmírovských panovníkov, 2013) wrote articles about that. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Actually only the index to Goldberg's book mention all Moravian rulers as kings. For instance, Moimir I's title in the main text is "prince" or "supreme ruler" even if Goldberg adds that Moimir was "in essence a king" (page 138);  Rastislav is titled as "client ruler (dux)" (page 140, 244). We should avoid to introduce a title (kъnędzь / Knez) which has never been used in connection with Moravian rulers in the relevant literature (WP:NOR). I suggest that we should use a neutral title (ruler, monarch ....) if the exact title is not important, and apply the title which was used by the primary source if it is relevant (for instance, many historians think that the title "rex" used in connection with Svatopluk I by the pope is relevant, because it suggests that the Moravian ruler had been crowned king). Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Alright, how about the changes I have made in the article Mojmir I, is this acceptable for you? --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an excellent summary. My main concern is that it has almost nothing to do with Mojmir I (for instance, he was never titled as comes by any source and Old Church Slavonic sources make no mention of him). I suggest that the text should be copied into this article (for instance under the title "4.2 Monarch"). Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Remark:
 * "We should avoid to introduce a title (kъnędzь / Knez) which has never been used in connection with Moravian rulers in the relevant literature".
 * The title "kъnędzь" is correct for Great Moravian rulers. Not only theoretically, but it is also used in old Slavonic texts. See e.g. Pannonian Legend here, p. 12, the last paragraph, the 4th line, the 1st word. In the Cyrillic alphabet, it looks like КНѦӠЮ. The text describes how Cyril was sent to Moravia because Moravian "knez/knyaz" requested philosopher from Emperor Michael.Ditinili (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cause all Moravian rulers are caled kniaz (knieža, in english this title its earl, but it can posibly meant king, cause title kráľ from Karol I was not in that times most common in slavic countries, so they cannot use title that they dont know) but only Svätopluk I. was caled kniaz kniazov (earl of earls or king of kings) what meant that Svätopluk I. was Emperor, caus ehe ruled not only in Slovakia and Moravia but also Czech and Panonia too. So only emperor can rule in empire. Bynk178.41.196.119 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Püspöki-Nagy's concept?
Püspöki-Nagy's concept? Should we put here all strange theories? (from Czech or Slovak r. - I think hungarians will not like it). Pls hold wiki in real (main) science's stream.

Tomas

 * Please read WP:civility before distinguishing editors according to their nationality, and WP:NPOV. Püspöki-Nagy's concept of two Moravias is shared by other scholars as well (they are cited in the article - interestingly, only one of them is Hungarian). Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Could we at least rename “Further theories” to “Minority theories” or “Alternative theories”? With all due politeness, I would say there are many very weird theories (even official ones, the statue of “Svatopluk, king of Slovaks” in front of the Bratislava castle) with very unscientific foundations. Ceplm (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nitrava
Notice - This has been continued on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Great Moravia, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

, I understand that you want to prove "how ridiculous" Boba's view is. Even if this approach is quite unusual in our community, you are more than welcome when making edits in order to prove it. However, you should remember that we are building an encyclopedia here. (1) If there are articles dedicated to Nitra and the Principality of Nitrava, we should mention all relevant debates in connection with that town and polity in those articles. (2) The identification of Pribina's Nitrava with Nitra, and especially the development of the name is quite marginal in the argumentiation presented by Boba: he dedicate about 10 sentences to this issue in his long book. We should present his views fairly, without emphasizing points that he did not emphasize in connection with Great Moravia (I repeat that the same issue can be relevant in connection with the Nitra or Principality of Nitra articles). Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is probably not so "marginal" part of his theory, because some editors tried to use it as a serious (?!) argument against an identification of Nitra. It seems that some people really believe these pseudo-arguments, so it's better to describe this problem into more details. It's very important to make it clear, because we are talking about formation of the empire (Great Moravian empire, that's why it is here) and identification of one of its main centers. We all probably know that Boba is not an etymologist, Boba did not know (more or less) anything about archeology, Boba is not even a reliable source. But if somebody (not me) decided to cite him, we should explain it correctly.--Ditinili (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read my above remark: there are more than 100 pages in his work, and there are 10 sentences dedicated to this issue. As I have mentioned several times, his views of Nitra can be mentioned in the articles about Nitra and Nitrava. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Nitra article is about a real town, not about Boba's hypothetical location in "Hunnia-Avaria". Boba's theory is described here and this is a part of his theory, so it belongs here. Let's keep it on one place. Once upon a time, there were two editors, who cited and defended his opinon. Now, when it is clear how weak it is, one of them changed opinion a strated to believe that this is only a small unimportant part of his work.Ditinili (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. Would you refer to my (or other editor's) remark stating that it is an important part of his theory? I do not remember that I have whenever made such a statement. Would you refer to my (or other editor's) statement when I "defended" Boba's opinion? If you refer to the above debate, please read it more carefully: I tried to understand the quite strange argumentation about secondary and primary forms which were or were not adopted by the Hungarians or/and the Slovaks, etc. Sincerely, I am still convinced that you do not understand the Slovak scholars' view, but I do not (and did not) want to continue that debate, because I did not want to delete it from this article. On the contrary, I do not say that it should be hidden: I say it should be emphasized in the proper article (Nitra or Principality of Nitra). Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume that you are a rational human being and you did not waste so much time by unimportant statement. Or.. am I wrong? However, it does not matter. If not only wikipedia editors here, but for example Czech historian Dušan Třeštík considers topic important enough to analyse this Boba's argumentation in details (like also others historian) it obviously has some importance.
 * "I am still convinced that you do not understand the Slovak scholar's view". LOL. You who do not speak the language can understand it better? OK. :-) --Ditinili (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am pretty sure that you cannot understand the core of their argumentation although I do not understand the language. However, I have read many scholarly works written in languages I can understand. If my understanding is correct, you say that Boba's view of the development of the name of Nitra should be mentioned here even if he did not emphasize it, because his opponents dedicated many pages to prove that he is wrong in this respect. Interesting approach. All the same, the whole argumentation could properly be presented in the article about the Principality of Nitra. Borsoka (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am pretty sure that you cannot understand the core of their argumentation although I do not understand the language. LOL. OK. Sorry, I cannot take such statements based on your belief seriously. If you do not trust me, you can consult whatever I wrote here with the Czech editors, who speak the language on native speaker level (or to 98%). More, half of works referenced by me are from Czechs like Trestik, Havlik, Merinsky, etc.
 * "...because his opponents dedicated many pages.". I can disagree with your opinion that it is not important or emphasized part in Boba's work. But my opinion is not so important, because that's exactly the interest of respected scholars (respected ulike Imre Boba) which made it relevant from an encyclopedic point of view.Ditinili (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, read how 21st-century scholars refer to the debate: "healthy debate" (McCormick); the core problem which was adressed (the Franks seems to have been marching to the south from Pannonia when invading Moravia, according to the sources) by Boba "will have to be explained" (I refer to their works cited in the article). Do you think that such statements refer to a fringe theory? Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you speak about McCormic, you speak about general publication about an evolution of the European economy from an author who has never ever published a single work about Great Moravia and never (as far as I know) participated on any archaelogical research related to GM. I have no doubts that he is a qualified expert in his area of interest, but this is not the area where is not an recognized expert. Thus, he can hardly be some authority and "judge". "Healthy debate" and "growing number of scholars" literally means that in 1971 he was one (Boba) :-), and later other four historians (some Japanese, Puspoky-Nagy, Bowlus and Eggers) published similar works during 45 (forty-five) years. That's the team which can meet on a smaller archeological site or write one peer-reviewed collective work. Have you an idea about progress in archaeology since Boba work (outdated already in 1971)? Ditinili (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And Kristó (a leading Hungarian historian), and Miklós Szőke (a leading archaeologist), and .... Of course, you can be convinced that McCormic's and Machácek's remarks are not relevant. However, they were published in peer-rewied works. Consequently, their views are more relevant for WP purposes than yours or mine. Borsoka (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * machacek says that nitra is not nitra? Wow? Where and when?Ditinili (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Machacek does not say it and I did not state that he whenever made such a statement. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * so, which machacek remarks are allegedly "not relevant"?Ditinili (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The core problem which was adressed (the Franks seems to have been marching to the south from Pannonia when invading Moravia, according to the sources) by Boba "will have to be explained" (the whole text is quoted in the article). Interestingly, you cited his work in the article to prove that Boba is the representative of a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me cite Machacek properly, especially the part which you have left:
 * "No power centre has so far been found in those regions of the Carpathian Basin where Bowlus and Eggers placed the core of Great Moravia. Hungarian archaeologists have clearly shown that during the ninth century there was a conspicuous shrinking of the settlement network in the southern parts of the region between the Danube and the Tisza, with no new sites being established by immigrants from the south, as Eggers maintained. While some Avar-age sites may have continued into the 800s, so far no cemetery or settlement in the area has produced any evidence of a migration from the Balkans or from anywhere else. (...) The core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what is now the Czech republic." This is according to Machacek "unambiguous conclusion". In other words he explicitely confirmed that Boba's, Bowlus' or Egger's views are completely wrong, but he very tolerantly and rationally respects such trials (Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moravia else where within the Carpathian Basin.). It does not mean that we will cite such controversial works as something more than an alternative. --Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and "The serious problems of geo-graphical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east), which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained..." Borsoka (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are contradictions in written sources, all of historians known about them. That's why Boba's and company theories do not work - the written sources cannot be overestimated, the archaeology cannot be ignored and the sources cannot be used selectively (as you also do). Nevertheless, Machacek very clearly rejected existing southern theories.Ditinili (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Consequently, there are academic works which suggest or explicitly say that Boba, Bowlus and other scholars representing a similar view do not represent a fringe theory. Nobody stated that archaeology should be ignored. However, we should address all relevant contradictions between written sources and archaeological research (in accordance, for instance, with Machácek's approach). Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, that such works exists. You can cite them and we can evaluate them exactly as we did for McCormic. Ditinili (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. With whom did you evaluate McCormick? Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With you - according to rules of wikipedia, for example "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." While e.g. Marsina is recognized expert in the area, McCormic never published any specialized publication about Great Moravia and is focused in other, more general topics.Ditinili (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not evaluate him. Please read his book cited in the article: he wrote of the the economy of Great Moravia and the missions of Cyril and Methodius several pages. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Several pages about economy, etc (?!). Impressive. This makes him an expert in the field?Ditinili (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. He studied Great Moravia and his views were published by Cambridge University Press. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What does it mean "he studied"? Is it his primary area of interest? How many publications about GM he published (I do not mean "several pages" somewhere in another book)? Number of citations of these his dedicated publications about GM?Ditinili (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Source and WP:NOR before asking strange questions. That his views are relevant have been decided by editors of Cambridge University Press who published his work. We (WP editors) are not in the position to challange their decision. Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The questions like "is it his primary area of interests" or "how many publications about the topic he published" and "what is number of his citations related to these publications" are very relevant in the context of "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." It is fully compliant with WP:Source and has nothing with WP:NOR. Is GM his primary area of interest or not? His publications about GM ("not several pages somewhere")? Ditinili (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I sought community assistance on the relevant notice board to close this never-ending debate . Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Population - undue
"Middle-Eastern" character of the population is overemphasized. The sections looks like a compilation of several questionable statements written in a pursuit of sensation. I began to believe for a while that the country was not inhabited by the Slavs, but some Turkish people. "Middle Asian" animals like "horses, cattle and goats" are common everywhere in Europe, "Alanic stock" of the Moymirid dynasty is not supported by any written source. "Turbans" were not typical for the Moravian Slavs - primary sources should be used with caution. Juroslav (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, feel free to contribute to the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Some of my observations:
 * * Archaeological researches indicate that the Moravian population had ties with Iranian and Middle-Eastern territories. This is not so wrong but I miss some information that the influence of Iranian ethnic groups on Slavic ethnogenesis is considered in general. Had they more "ties" to the Middle-East than other Early Slavic tribes? It seems so from the article. Is it typical GM feature or just a general statement which can be applied to any other Slav of that time?
 * * The ornaments and motives of the jewelries originated from the Near East, similar analogies were found in Syria, Egypt and Iran. This is also a little bit misguiding. Are alleged Egyptian analogies more typical for Great Moravia than Carolinian, Central-Byzantine and Dalmatian? Definitely not.
 * The style of the abodes and types of domesticated animals, like horses, cattle and goats, were Middle Asian. See above.
 * Some hypotheses propose that the Moymirid dynasty was of an Alanic stock Is such theory widely accepted? Is it just a speculation? There is not any mention about other, maybe more relevant theories.
 * Surprisingly, there is not any mention about cultural ties to other Slavs. Only to Iran, Egypt, etc, what makes the text at least unbalanced.Ditinili (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the subsection is unbalanced, but definitely not undue. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pls, read: This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas... Ditinili (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Merehani
Since there are several views on Merehani, I have copied text from the article into Merehani.--Z oupan 05:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Transtheissia
What does "Transtheissia" (see File:Great Moravia Svatopluk.jpg) mean? Is it a territory across Tisza? --Djadjko (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ditinili (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Northwestern part of Hungary
Hello Trimnapaschkan and Borsoka, I would like to reopen the case of. In an archived discussion (Territory in the head line) we had a chat over the Great Moravia territories. Borsoka argued that neither the map presented by Spiesz, Caplovic (2006) on page 365, nor Kirschbaum (1995) on page xi present the territory south of the Danube in northwestern Hungary as part of Moravia (18:02, 24 September 2013 UTC). However, Anton Spiesz and Dusan Caplovic book "Illustrated Slovak History: A Struggle for Sovereignty in Central Europe" clealy shows it as a territory of Great Moravia in ca. 894, which can be seen for example: here or here. I do not have access to Kirschbaum`s book (1995), however as this is the same case as with the eastern Slovakia areas (look at 22:47, 28 September 2013 UTC), I think that if he is the only one, and all other scientific maps shows it included (well presented by Trimnapaschkan), I would say that this area can be mentioned as sure territory, same as we did with the eastern Slovakian area (01:37, 29 September 2013 UTC). What do you think? Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * German scholars would not agree with it. According to Pirchegger (or Wolfram): "Moravian territory never extended into Pannonia" (In: Charles R. Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788-907, p. 12). Fakirbakir (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bona also says that "historians have treated the reports in the Hungarian Chronicle about Svatopluk's reign in Pannonia as fact, however it is rather late tradition of questionable historical worth" (In: Istvan Zimonyi, Muslim Sources on the Magyars in the Second Half of the 9th Century: The Magyar Chapter of the Jayhānī Tradition, 2015, p. 302). Ergo, this topic "Moravian occupation of Pannonia" is (at least) disputed. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We are talking about contemporery sources, Hans Pirchegger lived in 1875-1973, also, your mentioned paragraph begins with: " Until recently, German-speaking schollars have been.." Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Jirka, would you please refer to pages in Spiesz, Caplovic, because I did not find maps on the front page of the book. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Page (as you said before) is 365. Can be found here, then go to 365. Looks like you was mistaken, or you meant another map.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above message. I did not mention Pannonia in connection with the above cited sources. I referred to the Great Hungarian Plain . Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I overlooked, that you were talking about two different areas. In that case, you was not contested areas south of Danube but the lands between the Danube and the Tisza? But look here (18:02, 24 September 2013 UTC) - "The above cited maps (Kirschbaum, and Spiesz, Caplovic) do not present any territories to the south of the Danube and the hills in northwestern Hungary" was your words. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for it. Yes, Spiesz et al presents Pannonia as a part of Moravia. However, I still maintain that it is a quite unusual claim. Could we write that 9th-century Hungary included Germany, France, Italy and Spain, because Magyars pillaged those territories for decades? Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a quite unusual comparison. Unlike to Hungarian raids to Spain, (Great) Moravians founded a political unit directly in the neighborhood of Pannonia, so you are comparing incomparable. It is worth noting that e.g. in Slovakia there are place names like Moravany nad Váhom, Zlaté Moravce, Hontianske Moravce and others reminding a political expansion of Moravia. There are similar names also in Hungary like (extinct) Maroczsiget, Morva, Morácz, Morócz tető, Moróczi földek, Marót, Pilis Marót, Puszta Marót, etc, often with Slavic place names with a military motivation in their neighborhood.Ditinili (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not know, but the Hungarians established a political unit directly in the neighborhood of Germany and raided Germany for about 5 decades. Why do you think that the above Slovakian place names show the political expansion of Moravia, instead of the well-documented arrival of Moravian colonists to present-day Slovakia? Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What do we think about it is irrelevant. The image was changed.Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The map is awful now. I am going to change it. Read the whole paragraph in Bowlus's book. Germans scholars do not agree with "Moravian occupation of Pannonia" nor Hungarian scholars. It's a dubious matter. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed that megalomaniac map to a better one. It's a reasonable compromise IMO. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are talking about contemporery sources. We agreed earlier on this map, new is awful.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your map is getting more and more megalomaniac. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO is getting more realistic. What do you want to propose? Change south of Danube territories to be more similar to your map ? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No consensus. Your previous map was a bit better, but this new one is ridiculous. I do not agree that the Frankish Principality of Lower Pannonia (Balaton Principality) was OCCUPIED by Svatopluk. German scholars DO NOT agree with it (I already mentioned). I even offered a compromise when I did choose to display user Hxseek's map. His map shows the northern territories of the ORIENS as part of Moravia. Stop Megalomaniac Moravia. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop being angry and please start to debate rationally. So again, do you want to argue that just northeastern part should be highlighted like here or here ? I guess it is because this map present just territories under Rastislav. If you want to contest rest of Panonnia you should present any contemporery source, as I said Hans Pirchegger lived in 1875-1973 and this paragraph begins with "Until recently". Please specify more your arguments. Thank you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When did Svatopluk occupy Pannonia? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regino states that in 884 Pannonia was held by Arnulf of Carintia. According to MacLain Arnulf held Pannonia until the mid 890s.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is quite vague, what does the mid 890s mean? As can be seen for example on Spiesz and Caplovic map (365) here, this is area in ca. 894. Also, the words are not that: Arnulf held Pannonia until the mid 890s, but that he was installed in Lower Pannonia (at the time), and this realm retained its cohesion and importance to the mid 890s. By the way, what do you proposing, to change southern (Lower) Pannonia under and around Balaton (scroll one page down at your source, or look here, or even your proposed map) into possible territories? Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked for primary sources yesterday. I demonstrated Regino's account (source is in the article) to you. According to him in 884 it was Arnulf who held Pannonia. In 892 Arnulf attacked Moravia successfully and some scholars even say that "others warn against conceiving of Moravia as a state with core areas or clear cut boundaries as it never achieved that level of development" So, I am asking again --> When did Svatopluk occupy Pannonia? What are the evidences for "occupation"? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC),
 * Szoke, a well-known scholar and expert of Frankish Pannonia states that "This comitatus (Balaton Principality) was never part of the Moravian Principality "p. 436 Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some scholars say is really a fantastic prove. Evidences are in presented historians books (source above or in archived texts and maps). I am asking you again, which area are you contesting: Balaton Principality - Lower Pannonia? Change as you have presented in Hxseek's map? Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * However, when I am looking at the Béla Miklós Szöke's work (p.411-412), according to articles and artefacts found here (and I know that he was conducting researches here since 90s), he clearly declares that they do not have to reflect Great Moravia expansion, and mentions that this comitatus (Pannonia was divided into several comitatus) was never part of the Moravian Principality. In that case, we have at least two (along with Kirschbaum) who denied to view this area as a Great Moravian territory. I would say, that we should wait what others say. But in my opinion this southern part of Pannonia should be marked as possible - as Fakirbakir proposed in another map (Hxseek). Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, it seems that you mix several problems:
 * * Had Great Moravia "clear cut" boundaries (in general)? No, and it is not something exceptional for early political entities.
 * * Did Svatopluk expanded to Pannonia? Yes, he did.
 * * Were these territories permanently joined to Great Moravia? No, they were not.
 * * Does it mean that these territories cannot be included in the map, if somebody want to present the maximal extent of the territories controlled by him? No, it doesn't.
 * Jirko, you are a native Czech speaker, check České země od příchodu Slovanů po Velkou Moravu II (Z. Měřínský). Ditinili (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * *When did Svatopluk expand his rule to Pannonia? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Svatopluk's control over the region of Northern and later Middle Tisza River in dated by some authors to 880-882 (Bulgarians definitely controlled territory around the mouth of Tisza in 886 and salt mines in Transylvania in 892. Where exactly did Svatopluk's power reach in this direction is not known, also what kind of dependency was between him and a local population). In 882, Svatopluk fought with Bulgarians, this event is generally localized to the region of Northen Tisza where both political units should have a common border. In 833-884, Svatopluk fought in Pannonia and get a military control over the territory. The sources do not say anything about leaving the entire territory south of Danube (nor about a permanent control of a concrete region). E.g. in 892, Arnulf's messengers had to choose a more complicated path to Bulgarians (following Sava), what might support an opinion that at least part of Pannonia was still controlled by Moravians. Another source is onomastic, see e.g. this map with reconstructed place names in Slovakia and Western Hungary [] - this rather supports an opinion about a longer presence of Moravians. This is only and example, e.g. Krajčovič analyzed the problem of Great Moravian military bases and trade routes vs. placenames in Pannonia in 21 pages.
 * I suggest to:
 * draw the core territories with some level of uncertainty (e.g. cross hatching)
 * draw the regions where the expansions were aimed + basic legend
 * describe the character of the each particular expansion in the article + relevant views --Ditinili (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Svatopluk fought in Pannonia and get a military control over the territory" What is the source for this statement? I think it's just speculation based on the Annals of Fulda ("Pannonia's being laid waste"). Regino's observation states "the contrary", he says that Arnulf held Pannonia in 884. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fakirbakir: "According to MacLain  Arnulf held Pannonia until the mid 890". The cited page does not contain such statement. What is really written there: "This evidence therefore suggests that Arnulf had been installed in this extended Lower Panonian realm which retained both its cohesion and its importance through to the mid-890 at least."
 * Fakirbakir: "Regino's observation states "the contrary", he says that Arnulf held Pannonia in 884" This is probably only another misunderstanding from your side. Regino's "Pannonia" obviously does not mean the whole Pannonia (as you interpret it), such interpretation is questioned also by MacLain (= your source) on p. 135.
 * (What is the source for this statement? My source is I am not a professional historian to check contemporary documents referenced by the author, he reconstructs events in several chapters.)
 * Wikipedia editors should not evaluate primary sources (they are not professional historians).
 * Instead of arguing about primary sources, I suggest to rely on professional scientists. Please, let me know if my proposal (06:19, 4 February 2017) is acceptable. Ditinili (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you assume that Regino did not write that Arnulf held Pannonia in 884? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't assume anything. I say that your own source says on p. 135 that Regino's term "Pannonia" cannot be interpreted so literally (as you do). I suggest you to not interpret primary sources and read WP:PRIMARY. Ditinili (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, when MacLain tries to interpret the political situation in Pannonia around 884 (based on Regino's account), he also mentions Duke Brazlavo and Margrave Arbo beside Arnulf of Carinthia, but do not mention Svatopluk. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This may or may not be interesting, but a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in some work (argumentum ex silentio) cannot be used anyway. I only noted that your statements are not compliant with your own sources. Instead of arguing about primary sources or who is right, let me know if my proposal is acceptable. --Ditinili (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "but he did not conquer or take possession of Pannonia"Zimonyi 2015, p. 298 Fakirbakir (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fakirbakir, I proposed 3x how to deal with this problem and how to reach a consensus. You did not react 3x, I am leaving the discussion. (Muslim sources??) Pls, read my previous comment about arguing who is right and my last sentence from 06:19, 4 February 2017. Ditinili (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Zimonyi is not a reliable source (a medievalist with an MTA doctor degree)? I will not accept any map which shows Pannonia as a Moravian-occupied/annexed territory ("proven territory"), because this matter is at least DISPUTED by specialists (e.g. Pirchegger, Wolfram, Bona, Zimonyi, Szoke, MacLain and a lot of others) If you don't understand this then you should really leave this conversation. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that you are not able to understand my proposal. Bye. --Ditinili (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is futile to propose anything because nobody will draw a new map based on this discussion. Actually this conversation is just an endless debate. If User:Jirka.h23 had wanted to take a neutral attitude on the matter he would have restored his previous less dubious map. But he didn't. I wonder why.... Anyway, Moravian control of Lesser Poland, Silesia, Eastern Austria, Transylvania, Banat, Vojvodina, Transcarpathia and the Hungarian Great Plain areas are also problematic but who cares.... Fakirbakir (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But this map is not dubious, the only one who it now contests is you. I would prefere to wait what others say (now we have just Ditinili's response and he disagree with you), I have expressed my position above already. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ditinili, thanks, Zdeněk Měřínský wrote, that when Arnulf sent his messengers to Bulgaria, informations mention Svatopluk traps, this proves that a large part of Pannonia to the river Drava, including the territory of the former ruler Kocel had to belong under the sovereignty of Moravian ruler, or it was at least under his control as its sphere of influence, and this was at least since 884 (p.891). His book "The Czech Lands from the Arrival of the Slavs to Great Moravia II." is the largest synthesis of its subject. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also posting his map of the Great Moravia presented on page 723. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "But this map is not dubious, the only one who it now contests is you"> What?...(facepalm). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only one who contests this map is you now. What do you do not understand on that? Ditinili disagree with you, Borsoka argued earlier with a map, which however proved to be different, Trimnapaschkan do not yet expressed himself. So let just wait what others say. By twe way, what do think about my last two comments? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Jirko, you are wasting your time. Simply describe all relevant views. You can definitely include the map in the article (not necessarily in the info box) with a proper description (e.g. according to x.y.). Ditinili (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, I still believe that I am not wasting my time, as we have spent quite a lot of work over this map already. I will wait for their answers (or from anyone interested in this manner). To include map with description according to x.y., is not a good idea as I guess that Fakirbakir will disagree with this anyway. Fakirbakir and Borsoka, what do think about my comments about Měřínský? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Borsoka. Your map is dubious. For instance, According to Szoke the comitatus of Mosapurc (Braslavespurch) was never a part of Svatopluk's Moravia. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Read Zimonyi pls, (or MacLain) before you say that Szoke is alone with his view. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, you convinced me. It looks like Borsoka is not going to comment these sources here in talk page (I am still not sure with Kirschbaum, as I do not have access to it), but according to me, I agree, I have changed the map to be more similar to your proposed map. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

... the Cyrillic alphabets as they are now known in Bulgaria, Belarus, Macedonia, Mongolia, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine
Why these countries? Either more should be listed or Mongolia removed since its script adoption was several centuries later and was not related to spread of Christianity.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Moravia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325040146/http://www.proglas.sk/Metod.htm to http://www.proglas.sk/Metod.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Leed
Unless someone object, I will be deleting the details about Cyril and Methodius from the lead. The article is about Great Moravia, not Glagolitic or Slavonic rites. The core of the article is where these details should appear. Drmab (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

PoVs, etc.
please read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV before editing. We are not here to present our own point of view, or push one of the relevant scholarly point of views, but to present a fair picture of a subject. Please also read WP:3RR carefully, because you will be blocked if you continue edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tekov, Bratislava, Zemplín, Moravian fortresses
"although the identification of Bratislava, Tekov and Zemplín as Great Moravian castles is not generally accepted"

This quote is simply false. SOME Bulgarian and Hungarian historians don't accept it, motivated by nationalism, but the prevalent opinion among all western and Czech historians is that they indeed were Moravian fortresses.

Brezalauspurc, located somewhere in the vicinity of Bavaria and Hungary, is composed of Brezala, probably Slavic Breslava, and purc, meaning city. Coins have been found in Bratislava that, up until the 12th century, referred to it as "Preslava" or "Braslava" civitas.

The fortresses at Bratislava, Starý Tekov and Zemplín were all built in the mid-9th century, akin to numerous other fortresses in modern Moravia and Slovakia, and the fact fortresses right next to them, in many cases southeast of them, closer to Bulgaria, like Devín or Nitra are explicitly mentioned in all Frankish sources as Rastislav's and Svatopluk's. Now, Nitra, right next to Tekov was the capital of the entire appendage of Nitra, and capitals were usually pretty central to countries in the Middle Ages, and was much farther to the east than Bratislava was, so why would the Bulgarians who barely expanded into eastern Pannonia in the late 9th century, have gone directly into Moravian territories and built castles that formed enclaves? Zemplín is the only one that could've realistically belonged to the Bulgarians.

But let's leave the fact these hypotheses are absolutely laughable, and focus on the fact they're only supported by a fringe group of historians in Hungary and Bulgaria. I don't see how that is in any way the "general opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotloAstro (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody says that historians who question the identification of the above fortresses represent a "general opinion". Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not like your arrogance how you are talking about other people and their opinion. After all, your presented concept is also largely based on manipulation and a large amount of guessing, occasionally some contemporary and non-contemporary sources that mostly do not provide clear geographical information (i.e. subject to interpretation). In fact, the entire wikipedia entry is largely presenting theories or guesses about the 'empire' (no contemporary source actually ever called precisely as 'empire' - or if you know it differently, please, quote it: I would be happy to learn) as facts, so it is impossible to distinguish/figure out what is just a large amount of guessing (in fact, the majority, I think), and what is based really, directly on contemporary sources (and which ones).Anyway, I do think that this kind of communication style helps - especially, when your own statements stand also on rather uncertain 'legs'. 94.44.247.129 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Lesser Poland is a late mediaeval term
"Lesser Poland, Pannonia and other regions were forced to accept, at least formally and often only for a short period, his suzerainty"

The terminology is achronological.

Lesser Poland as a term didn't exist until the Polanian/Polan Piast rulers solidified their grip on the land of former Vistulans' statelet - the earliest possible date being 1038, when Casimir the Restorer quelled the heathen rebellions in southern and eastern Lechitic provinces (Vistulans, Masovia) and started moving the state centre southwards to Kraków. Most likely the term Poland referred only to Greater Poland much longer.

Does anyone know when the term Lesser Poland and Greater Poland was in common use in terms of mentions in contemporary sources? Ralphhalgas (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Velkomoravska rise-ucebnice 1960.jpg

Only western borderlands of modern Slovakia was part of Moravian Empire
See the Moravia article Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Moravia

--Kivasalo (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The picture published at https://www.britannica.com/place/Moravia refers to current Moravia as a part/region of Czech Republic. This has nothing to do with the Great Moravia Empire. 195.168.78.3 (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Moravia