Talk:Louis I of Hungary

GA

I think this is an awesome article. I have nominated it for the Good Article status. It should now appear on this list. --Simboyd (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

from 1911 EB

Here's the big chuck of info from 1911 EB related to Louis. Use freely User:kt2

It was reserved for the two great princes of the house of Anjou, Charles I. (1310?342) and Louis I. (1342?382), to rebuild the Hungarian state, and lead the Magyars back to

House of

civilization. Both by character and education they Anjou. were eminently fitted for the task, and all the circumstances were in their favour. They brought from their native italy a thorough knowledge of the science of government as the middle ages understood it, and the decimation of the Hungarian magnates during the civil wars enabled them to re-create the noble hierarchy on a feudal basis, in which full allowance was made for Magyar idiosyncracies. Both these monarchs were absolute. The national assembly (Orszflggyules) was still summoned occasionally, but at very irregular intervals, the real business of the state being transacted in the royal council, where able men of the middle class, ~~i7S of principally Italians, held confidential positions. The lesser gentry were protected against the tyranny of the magnates, encouraged to appear at court and taxed for military service by the royal treasury direct—so as to draw them closer to the crown. Scores of towns, too, owe their origin and enlargement to the care of the Angevin princes, who were lavish of privileges and charters, and saw to it that the high-roads were clear of robbers. Charles, moreover, was a born financier, and his reform of the currency and of the whole fiscal system greatly contributed to enrich both the merchant class and the treasury. Louis encouraged the cities to surround themselves with strong walls. He himself erected a whole cordon of forts round the flourishing mining towns of northern Hungary. He also appointed Hungarian consuls in foreign trade centres, and established a system of protective tariffs. More important?in its ulterior consequences to Hungary was the law of 1351 which, while confirming the Golden Bull in general, abrogated the clause (iv.) by which the nobles had the right to alienate their lands. Henceforward their possessions were to descend directly and as of right to their brothers and their issue, whose claim was to be absolute. This ?principle of aviticity ?(osiség, aviticum), which survived till 1848, was intended to preserve the large feudal estates as part of the new military system, but its ultimate effect was to hamper the development of the country by preventing the alienation, and therefore the mortgaging of

lands, so long as any, however distant, scion of the original owning family survived.i Louis’s efforts to increase the national wealth were also largely frustrated by the Black Death, which ravaged Hungary from 1347 to 1360, and again during 1380?381, carrying off at least one-fourth of the population.

Externally Hungary, under the Angevin kings, occupied a commanding position. Both Charles and Louis were diplomat ists as well as soldiers, and their foreign policy, largely based on family alliances, was almost invariably successful. Charles married Elizabeth, the sister of Casimir the Great of Poland, with whom he was connected by ties of close friendship, and Louis, by virtue of a compact made by his father thirty-one years previously, added the Polish crown to that of Hungary in 1370. Thus, during the last twelve years of his reign, the dominions of Louis the Great included the greater part of central Europe, from Pomerania to the Danube, and from the Adriatic to the steppes of the Dnieper.

The Angevins were less successful towards the south, where the first signs were appearing of that storm which ultimately swept

~ k~ h away the Hungarian monarchy. In 1353 the Ottoman in~a~ons. Turks crossed the Hellespont from Asia Minor and

began that career of conquest which made them the terror of Europe for the next three centuries. In 1360 they conquered southern Bulgaria. In 1365 they transferred their capital from Brusa to Adrianople. In 1371 they overwhelmed the Servian tsar Vukashin at the battle of Taenarus and penetrated to the heart of old Servia. In. 1380 they threatened Croatia and Dalmatia. Hungary herself was now directly menaced, and the very circumstances which had facilitated the advance of the Turks, enfeebled the potential resistance of the Magyars. The Arpâd kings had succeeded in encircling their whole southern frontier with half a dozen military colonies or banates, comprising, roughly speaking, Little Walachia,2 and the northern parts of Bulgaria, Servia and Bosnia. But during this period a redistribution of territory had occurred in these parts, which converted most of the old banates into semi-independent and violently anti-Magyar principalities. This was due partly to the excessive proselytizing energy of the Angevins, which provoked rebellion on the part of their Greek-Orthodox subjects, partly to the natural dynastic competition of the Servian and Bulgarian

Th tsars, and partly to the emergence of a new nationality,

Vi;chs. the Walachian. Previously to 1320, what is now

called Walachia was regarded by the Magyars as part

of the banate of Szorény. The base of the very mixed and evershifting population in these parts were the Vlachs (Rumanians), perhaps the descendants of Trajan’s colonists, who, under their voivode, Bazarad, led King Charles into an ambuscade from which he barely escaped with his life (Nov. 9?2, 1330). From this disaster are to be dated the beginnings of Walachia as an independent state. I\’Ioldavia, again, ever since the 11th century, had been claimed by the Magyars as forming, along with Bessarabia and the Bukowina, a portion of the semi-mythical Etélkdz, the original seat of the Magyars before they occupied modern Hungary. This desolate region was subsequently peopled by Vlachs, whom the religious persecutions of Louis the Great had driven thither from other parts of his domains, and, between 1350 and 1360, their voivode Bogdan threw off the Hungarian yoke ahogether. In Bosnia the persistent attempts of the Magyar princes to root out the stubborn, crazy and poisonous sect of the Bogomils had alienated the originally amicable Bosnians, and in 1353 Louis was compelled to buy the friendship of their Bar Tvrtko by acknowledging him as king of Bosnia. Both Servia and Bulgaria were by this time split up into half a dozen principalities which, as much for religious as for political reasons, preferred paying tribute to the Turks to acknowledging the hegemony of Hungary. Thus, towards the end of his reign, Louis found himself cut off from tile Greek emperor, his sole ally in the Balkans, by a chain of bitterly hostile Greek-Orthodox states, extending from the Black Sea to the Adriatic. The

i Knatclzhull-Ilngessen, i. 41.

That is to mv the western portion of \Valachia, which lici between the Aluta and the Danube.

commercial greed of the Venetians, who refused to aid him with a fleet to cut off the Turks in Europe from the Turks in Asia Minor, nullified Louis?last practical endeavour to cope with a danger which from the first he had estimated at its true value.

Louis the Great left two infant daughters: Maria, who was to share the throne of Poland with her betrothed, ‘Sigismund of Pomerania, and Hedwig, better known by her Polish name of Jadwiga, who was to reign over Hungary with her young bridegroom, William of Austria. This plan was upset by the queendowager Elizabeth, who determined to rule both kingdoms during the minority of her children. Maria, her favourite, with whom she refused to part, was crowned queen of Hungary a week after her father’s death (Sept. 17, 1382). Two years later Jadwiga, reluctantly transferred to the Poles instead of her sister, was crowned queen of Poland at Cracow (Oct. 15. 1384) and subsequently compelled to marry Jagiello, grand-duke of Lithuania. In Hungary, meanwhile, impatience at the rule of women induced the great family of the Horvâthys to offer the crown of St Stephen to Charles III. of Naples, who, despite the oath of loyalty he had sworn to his benefactor, Louis the Great, accepted the offer, landed in Dalmatia with a small Italian. army, and, after occupying Buda, was crowned king of Hungary on the 31st of December, 1385, as Charles II. His reign lasted thirtyeight days. On the 7th of February, 1386, he was treacherously attacked in the queen-dowager’s own apartments, at her instigation, and died of his injuries a few days later. But Elizabeth did not profit long by this atrocity. In July the same year, while on a pleasure trip with her daughter, she was captured by the Horváthys, and tortured to death in her daughter’s presence. Maria herself would doubtless have shared the same fate, but for the speedy intervention of her fianc? whom a diet, by the advice of the Venetians, had elected to rule the headless realm on the 31st of March 1387. He married Maria in June the same year, and she shared the sceptre with him till her sudden death by accident on the 17th of May 1395.

King of Slavonia?

Slavonia was not yet a separate kingdom in the XIV. century. It was a part of Hungary with a special status.

Titles of Louis (no king of Slavonia):

1350:Ludovicus, Dei gratia Hungariae, Jerusalem, Siciliae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Ramae, Serviae, Lodomeriae, Galiciae, Cumaniae, Bulgariaeque Rex Princeps Salernitanus et honoris montis sancti Angeli dominus.

1374: Lodovicus, Dei gratia Hungarie, Polonie, Dalmatie, Croatie, Rame, Servie, Gallicie, Lodomerie, Comanie, Bulgarieque rex, princeps Sallernitanus et Honoris Montis Sancti Angeli dominus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.2.156.29 (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

This information should be incorporated into the article. Srnec 06:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Latinisation?

He founded the first university in Hungary[1] in the city of Pécs and made general efforts at Latinisation in the kingdom.

What is meant by "Latinisation"? Top.Squark (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

King of Sicily?

I was reading through the articles of the kings of Hyngary and I'm lost with Louis being the king of Sicily. There is an article of another Louis of Sicily who also is said to rule the kingdom from 1342. Is this article wrong? --83.33.122.40 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He was king of Naples-Sicily

For better understand:

Conflict between the Hohenstaufen house and the Papacy led in 1266 to Sicily's conquest by Charles I, Duke of Anjou. Opposition to French officialdom and taxation combined with inciment of rebellion by Aragonese and Byzantine agents led in 1282 to the Sicilian Vespers insurrection and successful invasion by king Peter III of Aragon. The resulting War of the Sicilian Vespers lasted until the Peace of Caltabellotta in 1302.

The Peace divided the old Kingdom of Sicily in two. The island of Sicily, called the "Kingdom of Sicily beyond the Lighthouse" or the Kingdom of Trinacria, went to Frederick III, who had been ruling it, and the peninsular territories (the Mezzogiorno), contemporaneously called Kingdom of Sicily but called Kingdom of Naples by modern scholarship, went to Charles II, who had been ruling it. Thus, the peace was formal recognition of an uneasy status quo. --Celebration81 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He lost the Battle of Sırpsındığı in 1364

He wanted to capture Edirne... He fought against the Turks in 1364 (The Battle of Sırpsındığı = "Rout of the Serbs", near Edirne). He lost this battle! Please read this: :Stanford J.Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume I http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=E9-YfgVZDBkC&pg=PA18&dq=Battle+of+Maritsa+1364&hl=tr&ei=c8bUTNK4KIG2vwPC7PDQCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Maritsa%201364&f=false Böri (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

However he won decesive battle after it. Therefore he won the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.134 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He enlarged the church of Mariazell Basilica in Austria for the moment of decisive final victory over the Turks. The Hungarian Chapel in the Cathedral at Aachen was built to commemorate this victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.134 (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The first clash between Turks and Hungarians was at 1364 at Sırpsındığı and the Hungarians and their allies were utterly destroyed by an avangarde of the Turkish army numbering 10000 against 30000. The battle of Nicopolis was fought at 1396 under Sigismund and was a decisive Ottoman victory. There are no decisive battles between Turks and Hungarians recorded during Louis I exept Sırpsındığı.109.187.231.109 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This battles were between Hungarian Magnates and their armies and the Ottomans. Therefore not every battle was fought between Hungarian kings (the royal army) and Ottomans. Contemporary Ottoman armies were defeated by the Hungarian state (the royal) amrmies, however Ottomans were successfull against the vassals (Báns Voivodes) of Hungarian kings.

File:Louis role.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Louis role.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph

He spent much of his reign in wars with the Republic of Venice. He was in competition for the throne of Naples, with huge military success and the latter with little lasting political results.

What does it mean? Bazuz (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph

He spent much of his reign in wars with the Republic of Venice. He was in competition for the throne of Naples, with huge military success and the latter with little lasting political results.

What does it mean? Bazuz (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Style of government

The Style of government" section was copy-pasted from http://mek.niif.hu/01900/01949/html/index1.html. This text needs to be rephrased in order to avoid copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.164.62 (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Hungarian 19th century map and the alleged domains of Louis in the South

I have founded here: http://books.google.pt/books?id=gGKsS-9h4BYC&pg=PA658&lpg=PA658&dq=louis+dushan+hungary+serbia&source=bl&ots=Dsi3jRNzOp&sig=ruSPB2j498uDlGKeuGggD9AM5SM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F0JVVKfYGMjzau7mgogN&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=louis%20dushan%20hungary%20serbia&f=false (Concise Encyclopedia of World History, by Carlos Ramirez Faria, pag. 658) the statement that Louis has expanded as far South in the Balkans as Belgrade. So that pretty much makes the map wrong and the fact is that Louis and Czar Dushan of Serbia fought two wars but at the end they signed a peace treaty and all I am finding are texts mentioning how Louis only ruled the Northern parts of Bosnia and Bulgaria and Dalmatia. No mention of Serbia, specially not at mid-14th century at the zenith of the Serbian Empire. FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the debate about the exact borders of Louis's realm began on Wikimedia Commons (here [1]). Actually, we would need experts to decide whether Homolka's map([2]) is accurate or not. I tend to agree that Homolka's view is a bit "national romanticist" because I have not found (yet) reliable source for the vassalage of southern Serbian territories. However, there are many modern maps with very similar contents to Homolka's view: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Borsoka Could you please express your opinion? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand why Stephan Dusan of Serbia is mentioned in this debate. He died in 1355 and his empire collapsed. Louis I became King of Poland in 1370 and the map depicts Louis's realms after the latter date. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the map says "mid-14th century" (which means at the period of Dushans Empire, and the map shows Louis ruling over entire central Balkans, something never happened, and because the map has Bosnia and Serbia totally wrong. I will bring the entire problem and sources soon. I beleave the map has too many problems and innacuracies to be used. FkpCascais (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its title is wrong. However, the anchor in this article says clearly refers to the 1370s. Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Fine, Tvrtko I of Bosnia and Lazar of Serbia accepted Louis I's suzerainty in 1357 and in about 1373, respectivelly (Fine, John V. A., Jr. (1994). The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-10079-3. pages 369, 385.) Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Did Lazar rule the whole territory of Serbia when he was regarded as a vassal of the Hungarian king? According to Engel, Lazar did not have control over southern parts of Serbia. [9] According to this source [10] Louis considered himself king of Serbia, king of Cumania etc. however his political goals (e.g. permanent control) were not achieved in spite of his military campaigns. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Lazar only ruled the northern parts of Dusan's Serbia. For instance, he did not rule in present-day Albania, Macedonia, Thessaly. The second sentence does not refer to Louis, but to the kings of Hungary, and is followed by sentences of Louis's attempts to realize this claim. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So, the map seems to be reliable. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Which map, the one we are discussing? FkpCascais (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I see all of you decided to ignore the issues I brought and you restored to many articles an exaggerated map completely different from most of the other maps showing Hungarian borders at that same time. Here, you can all read how he only ruled Northern Serbia, made one of Serbian princes his vassal (Lazar) and regarding Bulgaria Louis only ruled over Vidin, a small area in the extreme North-west of Bulgaria. Not to mention that if any of you went to see the borders of Bosnia you could all see how Homolka augmented it 3 times. So the map is very inaccurate, the actual borders Louis ruled are much Norther and Homolkas romanticized map from 19th century cannot be used as fact and presenting Louises borders. Please remove it from all articles. FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais, the problem with your interpretation is that you are assuming that Lazar of Serbia was just a prince. Actually, he was king of Serbia. Borsoka has already cited a reliable source (Fine) which claims that Lazar accepted Louis's suzerainty twice. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

He was king of one part of Serbia. I am very sad that you are all pushing a nationalistic dilussional map... So what if he ruled Boka? It is like saying "He ruled Szeged when wanting to demonstrate that someone ruled Budapest. Louis ruled Dalmatia including Boka, but tha map presents far more than that. FkpCascais (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Serbia shown on the map is much larger than the Lazars realm. Bosnia was way shorter. And Bulgaria was not Louises vassal, only Vidin for a brief period was, and that is just a small region of Bulgaria. Most sources talk about Louises desire to put Balkans under his control, but he failed on that. And this map is just a silly fantasy, intentional or not, I don't know. I also found sources saying that Lazar only ancknolledged Sismunds rule, and it was all later. Don't insist on a map which just ads fuel to nationalist expansionist ideals. Hungary or Louis did not ruled Bulgaria, neither Serbia as down as Macedonia as shown in the map, neither Bosnia which has ridiculous borders. Why are you so desperately triying to keep this map and use it as a fact? Oh I know, because the map is unique and shows your country much more expanded than it really was. One can only use the map with the mention that is a romanticized map, an illusion, a dream of Homolka or whoever. Using it as historical fact is disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the pages 164 and 165 of this book. I already presented many sources which prove my point. Also, pick a map from Hungarian maps from the Middle Ages and you will see none even aproximatelly matches this one. So please revert yourself or otherwise I will report you. FkpCascais (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the map: [11]. This territory was regarded as "northern Serbia" (Lazar's Serbia) in the 14th century. I do not understand why you disregard reliable sources (Fine). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you see the difference between that map and the map we are discussing? FkpCascais (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here it is that same map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Central_balkans_1373_1395.png What Homolka did was putting all Serbian kingdoms under Louis only because he heard Lazar became his vassal, and included Albania and Zeta to Bosnia, something never happened, and included entire Bulgaria when Louis only had Vidin under his rule for a short period of time. The difference is vast. FkpCascais (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No I do not see the difference. For instance, Novo Brdo (present day Kosovo) belonged to Moravian Serbia (Lazar's Serbia). The depiction of the territories of medieval Bosnia seems to be correct, too. [12]. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_history_of_Hungary_in_the_Late_Middle_Ages and the maps showing similar borders to this one are the two Hungarian old maps which basically seem to be the copy of Homolka one with same incorrections. Also, by time Lazar became vassal, I doubt he even had that much territory, the Serbia shown at Lazar map you added here was shortly after Dushans death, but they all begin loosing territory in the South to the Ottomans every year. I saw sources that say Lazar ruled only the North by the time he became vassal and even the vassal relationship was weak and he even receved Macva and Srebrenik (not Srebrenica as one other source claims) from Hungary. I will bring all sources one by one here.

Oh you don't see the difference... I guess neither you see the difference between the Tsardom of Vidin and the entire Bulgaria showed in the map, or between the maximal extension of the Kingdom of Bosnia and the Bosnia showed by Homolka... Yes, really no difference, just 1000 kilometers at least. FkpCascais (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Moravian Serbia reached its largest extent in 1379...... Fakirbakir (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"He ruled with the tacit consent of his father for around ten years until 1365 when the Hungarian king Louis I, who styled himself King of Bulgaria among the other titles, demanded that Ivan Sratsimir acknowledge his suzerainty and become his vassal. When the Bulgarian ruler refused, Louis I marched from Hungary on 1 May 1365 and captured Vidin on 2 June after a brief siege.[9] The rest of the Vidin Tsardom was conquered in the next three months. Ivan Sratsimir and his family were captured and taken to the castle of Humnik in modern Croatia and the region of Vidin was placed under direct Hungarian rule governed through a Ban appointed by the King of Hungary.[6][7] Ivan Sratsimir spent four years in honorary Hungarian captivity and he and his family were forced to accept Catholicism. The Hungarians also sent Franciscan monks to convert the population of the Vidin Tsardom to Catholicism." Ivan Sratsimir of Bulgaria Fakirbakir (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, northeast Bulgaria was not controlled by Louis, but I am unsure. I am looking for secondary sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you are right in connection with Bulgaria. This map:[13] (Source: "Knight kings: The Anjou- and Sigismund age in Hungary (1301-1437)") depicts more accurately Louis's realm. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not wanting to show-off, but I was right about all 3 states. It was just Vidin Tsardom, not entire Bulgaria Louis ruled, it was Lazar Serbia, not also southern Serbian kingdoms as Homolka map shows, and Bosnia was way too enlarged and Homolka included in it Southern Serbia, Albania and Montenegro which were never part of Bosnia neither Louises vassal states.

I saw your new map, much better and way more accurate. FkpCascais (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Now this is the phantasy wrong maps provide an why we need to take them out of the articles and properly add their errors in the description otherwise "map experts" reinsert them again in articles as historical fact. FkpCascais (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Louis I of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be giving this one a review over the next few days. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review. I think this is an amazing article and I believe it really deserves this nomination. Also, Hungarian history is awesome. --Simboyd (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article is fully cited.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Taking good faith on all citations as they're offline (as well as some which are foreign language sources too).	Pass
(c) (original research)	As previous.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No issues here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No stability related issues.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No problem with any of the images.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No problems with the captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

• General
  • Sorry about the delay with this review - I've completed a few basic checks and found that there are quite a few duplicated wikilinks within the document. The easiest way to find these is to use User:Ucucha/duplinks.
  • You also need to double check the citations in the article to correct the order in which they appear (as some of them don't appear numerically).

• Childhood and youth
  • "often delivered him on his shoulders" - can you clarify this? Are you referring to him getting rides on a knights shoulders? It is just that the him on his part lends confusion as to which one you're referring to.

To be honest, I took no part in writing this article and I'm not sure what is meant by that. It probably refers to the fact that the knight carried Luis on his shoulders.

• • "but he did not administer his province" perhaps "but he did not administer the province" instead?

I'll fix it.

• More to come. Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being so useless for all this time. I didn't really know all of this was my responsibility. Also, could you please clarify what you mean by "double-checking the citations for their order"? Are you saying they should be put in an incremental manner like this and not like this? --Simboyd (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's right. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There, I think I rearranged all of them where it was necessary. --Simboyd (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why?

I am afraid your edit contradicts WP:NOR. Which WP allows us to translate both variants of his name to multiple languages, especially if he is known in Hungary, Croatia and Slovakia as Louis the Great, and in Poland as Louis the Hungarian? Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I see no “contradictions” of any sort that you described. What was was simply added was the Polish translation for “the Great”. Nothing wrong with this, given he was King of Poland as well and had an influence and is part of Polish history. Please do not engage in edit warring and blatantly removing material to suit your own POV. Thank you. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you refer to a WP policy allowing us to translate names? The Polish translation of the Polish version of his name is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorporated?

@Borsoka:,

my concern is the word in the subject...if I check the map there is Poland, Hungary (with it's classic borders), Galicia and Lodomeria is part of Poland. The Polish and Hungarian crowns were held by the same king, but he two countries was not joined together, neither any territory was annexed or incorporated wholly or partially to each other (and/or to (Kingdom of) Hungary proper). But it is not just about the map, but the historical knowledge, such is not known. Nevertheless, if we write that Lodomeria and Galicia became the part of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown - that is not identical with Kingdom of Hungary, may be viable...please solve this somehow.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. What is your concern? Would you refer to reliable sources? We are in the 1370s. What was the difference between the government of Galicia, Lodomeria, Slavonia and Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am surprized you don't understand my concern, initially let's head until mutual understanding. Galicia and Lodomeria was not incporporated to the Kingdom of Hungary (see borders, or the map attached to this article, the corresponding territories are part of Poland). To your second sentence, the difference is that some were part of Hungary proper, some just the Lands of The Hungarian Crown (that was broader than the Kingdom of Hungary). Clear now?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not understand your above message. Please read my above message. What was the difference between the government of Galicia, Lodomeria, Slavonia and Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's still amazing...I already answered your question ->the difference is that some were part of Hungary proper, some just the Lands of The Hungarian Crown (that was broader than the Kingdom of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

I think you misunderstand both the term "Hungary proper" (which does not include Galicia, Lodomeria, Transylvania, Croatia and the banates) and the "Lands of the Hungarian Crown" (which includes all realms claimed by the Hungarian monarchs). You have not answered my above question: what was the difference between the government of Galicia, Lodomeria, Slavonia and Transylvania from 1370 to 1396? I was writing about four realms, you were writing about "some". Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I am surely not misunderstanding Lands of the Hungarian Crown, since I share your description about it. Regarding Hungary proper, the term may be interpreted in a twofold way, the classic Kingdom of Hungary without Croatia, and/or after 1526 the remainder Kingdom of Hungary without Transylvania. To your question again, it may be depend from which adminsitrative level we observe it. Until Louis' death, all the four was under his rule. However, if you check the map the Galicia and Lodomeria is part of Poland, while the other two is part of the Kingdom of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not understand your answer. Do you think Louis I died in 1396? Borsoka (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see to what map you are constantly referring to. It is not a correct map and it is not a reliable source (especially, because its source refers to the year 1360 when Louis was not the king of Poland and Naples). I asked Fakirbakir to fix the map: [14]. Sorry, but I did not imagine that you are referring to a WP map to verify your edit. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not think Louis died then. As I said, primarily I sought factual & accurate and mutual understanding at first glance on the details, however I'd have involved Fakirbakir as well if we would not have succeeded.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC))

Louis I's birth image

The article states that File:Ludvik1Uhersko.jpg depicts the birth of Louis. The categories on the Commons file suggest that the file depicts his wife and daughters, which would conflict with it being a depiction of his birth. Can one of these be corrected? Pinging Borsoka. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The picture from the Illuminated Chronicle depicts Louis's birth. Thank you for your message. I deleted the wrong categories. Borsoka (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lords of Međimurje

@Silverije: why do you think that the article about King Louis the Great should mention that Louis granted possessions to Lackfi? As Louis granted possessions to many peoples, the emphasis on his grant to Lackfi contradicts WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)