Talk:Kingdom of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
WP Former Countries - Things to do:

Contents

[edit] Extended rationale

I've created this page not just on its own merit, but also to be able to disambiguate various links from older texts. EB1911 seems to be riddled with subtle references to "Hungary" and "Hungarian" when it actually means people or things part of the old Kingdom, not the present meaning. Juro has noted that in the second paragraph of the Magyars page, which is where Hungarians points to, and subsequently the disambiguation page Hungarian. --Shallot 16:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A good idea ...Juro 01:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page needs an account of how Croatia and other lands joined the kingdom. The page itself should be a part of a History of Hungary series. Zocky 18:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page concentrates on the term Kingdom of Hungary, other details are in the History of Hungary...Juro 21:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] edits by 81.183.189.66

I have done some minor corrections on this page, especially concerning the territory of the Royal Hungary and the Transylvanian Principality, the autonomous nature of the Royal Hungary within the Hapsburg Empire (it wasn't part of the Hereditary Lands, it had their own parliament, institutions and constitution on the contrary with Steiern or Bohemia after 1620) and the end of the monarchy in Hungary in 1946. Please don't delete it!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.183.189.66 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 31 July 2005.

All (or at least most of) your edits are just factually completely wrong (too much errors for me to make just correcting edits). I will delete them until you present a correct version (which however is not necessary because the current version is quite OK). Juro 18:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong? Western Transdanubia wasn't part of the Royal Hungary? What about Győr, Veszprém, Sopron, Zala, Moson and Vas County? The present-day Slovakia wasn't called Felvidék in Hungarian (together with present-day Carpatho-Ukraine)? The Principality of Transsylvania didn't comprise parts of eastern Hungary (Bihar, Arad etc)? The Royal Hungary wasn't autonomus in the frame of the H. Empire? The Republic of Hungary wasn't proclaimed in 1 February 1946? These are facts... - Zello

I made some changes about the territorial extent of the Royal Hungary and Princ. of Tr., the government of Hungary within the Empire and so on. Probably there won't be more misunderstandings between us. I deleted the expression "small attacks" concerning the Ottomans because the Kingdom of Hungary was the main frontline of the Turkish Empire and the Europe. Half of the country was destroyed during the 16th century - it was anything but small attacks... - Zello

The situation was much more complicated then you describe it. The borders changed permanently at that time due to constant fightings, e.g. Carpatho-Ukraine was sometimes part of Transylvania and sometimes part of Royal Hungary, sometimes it was divided etc. Therefore the original version is the only correct one, unless you make a table with all the border shifts (which is virtually impossible, I assume). Felvidék (actually felvidék) is not and has never been an official term (therefore there is no reason to use in the first place, otherwise it would be necessary to analogously delete "present-day" in front of Slovakia and add that the Slovaks called the Ottoman Hungary "Lower Lands" etc., for which I see no reason), in addition, the term referred to eastern Slovakia and surroundings at that time- because that was "upper" Hungary at that time (since the "lower" Hungary was western and central Slovakia and Burgenland).

As for the "autonomous": read the whole sentence, clearly "autonomous" does not fit into it (based on the logic of the sentence), in addition, "autonomous" always implies a kind of special arrangement on "autonomy" (which was not the case)and finally the sentence clearly describes the situation, I do not understand why you want to change it at all.

And... are you sure that Hungary was "occupied by the Entente and Romanian troops" at the time in question?? I have no time to check that, but I doubt that that was the case at that time...

Juro 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Juro, check out the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Actually, the occupation took place during most of 1919, mainly by the Romanian army, but French troops were involved as well. (You can also see a nice edit war going on there, in case you're interested why I have no time to do useful things.) KissL 10:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed only the territory parts, I think it's more or less correct now and I admit that it's much more correct than my firts version. As for the other parts I think we reached an agreament.

Border changes: yes, because of the constant wars with the Ottomans there were lots of changes among the borders (for example Eger, Kanizsa, Fülek/Filakovo etc) but the core territories were the same in the 16-17th centuries. You cannot neglect western Transdanubia and the others. As for Carpatho-Ukrain: the so called Seven Counties were connected to Transylvania two times (1621-29 and 1645-48) but this didn't mean a change in the state-borders. The counties were the personal holdings of Prince Bethlen Gábor and I. Rákóczy György.

The terminus Felvidék meant more than present-day Slovakia, it includes the northern counties of present-day Hungary and Carpatho-Ukrain. It's practical historical and geographical term and I used in brackets. We can use Alföld (Lowlands) too, none of them is anacronistic. - zello

I removed the last sentence from the lead paragraph – I find it redundant. On the one hand, the rest of the article explains the same thing more precisely, and on the other, I think it is pretty self-evident that a state could not exist without the slightest change in its borders throughout almost a thousand years.

Zello, I think Juro's formulation "and adjacent territories" describes the situation adequately, leaving room for exactly as much inaccuracy as there were changes. I'd refrain from describing things in more detail here; see Juro's comment above: "This page concentrates on the term Kingdom of Hungary, other details are in the History of Hungary." As for the term "Felvidék", as it is (to my knowledge) not used in contemporary documents, it has no interest for the English-speaking reader, therefore I'd leave that out too.

I advise you to log in when you're here, this way you get the messages on your talk page. I left you one.

KissL 11:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'm new here. We can leave out the term Felvidék, but we can't leave out western Transdanubia. It's absurd to mention the little stripe of Burgenland and leave out a rich counties with big cities, fortresses and so on. What's more: the English reader can think that the Royal Hungary doesn't have any territorial connection with present-day Hungary. It's simply not true because approximately half of the present-day territory were under Ottoman occupation, not the whole... - Zello

Your current version is OK with me. Until you get used to signing "~~~~", everyone here will know on first sight that you're new :) But come, I've been here myself for just a little more than a month. And it's nice to have you, as opposed to those newcomers whose edits are virtually indiscernible from vandalism. KissL 12:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done some corrections (e.g. Alföld is a very ambiguous term, even today) and I am not going to react to everything said above, but let me remark once more that the sitution was far more complicated, the borders shifted almost every year and large parts of present-day eastern Slovakia were part of Transylvania several times (that's what my atlases show; I am not going to check whether this coincides with the counties given to Transylvanian princes, because I do not consider that so important) so it is generally better to keep the description general, otherwise it would be necessarily misleading and wrong. Juro 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Juro, are you sure we need "However, some of these areas were not part of the Kingdom of Hungary in certain historical periods." in the lead? I removed it on purpose, and also explained why (a few paragraphs above). KissL 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentence does not stem from me, but I thought that since it is correct I see no reason for deleting it. It is not self-evident that a country does not include all its historical territories over the whole time of its existence, especially not for a reader who hardly knows where Hungary is situated in Europe nowadays (which is the majority of Americans, for example). But if you insist...Juro 15:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the order of Transdanubia and Burgenland, because the Transdanubian parts of the Royal Hungary were larger and more important than Burgenland. And - anyway - I wrote the article about Transdanubia, so it's not an empty stub from that point :) Zello 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name in Hungarian

An anonymous editor has added the name in Hungarian recently, but I fail to see the benefit for the reader. Any objections against removing it? KissL 08:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Latin and Hungarian were the official languages of the KoH (before/after 1844), so we should indicate these two names as is accustomed in the wikipedia. Zello 03:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Magyar language was official only during a fraction of the existance of KoH, connected with compression of other nationalities. Latin and German lanugages were of much higher importance, so the name in the magyar language should not be listed as first. milanmm 08:15, 14 September 2005

[edit] Multiethnic

1. How many people with Slavic name lived in the country? 2. Above what percent a Country is considered multiethnic, in the Middle age? 3. Ethnicity was not an issue until the the 19th century at all. 4. Why only KoH article contains in its first line this multiethnic atribute? Pls check KoEngland article ... Wasn't so much a multiethnic kingdom? or KoFrance?? 5. Someone in the Hungary's population section stated that there is no evidence on the country's ethnic composition up to 1780 ... and an estimation of 80-20%, for Magyars and nonMagyars is not a NPOV. So I've considered this fact applicable here too.--fz22 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think almost every important Kingdom in the Middle Ages was multiethnic by present standards. It's really strange to emphasise this only in the case of Hungary and I'm sure this is only a reflection of the more modern conflicts between Magyars and their neighbours. Zello 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no kingdom, in which there were only 29% Magyar-"equivalents" in 1780 and 41 % in 1850 - that's the big difference. And in the 16th and 17th century the Magyar percentage was negligible, another big difference. Also, there is no question that the country was highly multiethnic in the Middle Ages, for the simple reason that it was only in the 10th century that the Magyars settled here (another difference compared to any western European kingdom). In sum, the attribute is just correct, whether it is mentioned elsewhere is actually not important. Secondly (to our "Hungarian animal" contributor :)))) ): ethnicity HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE throughout human history, the problem did not arise in the the 19th century, that's a modern myth. Fully official (often solved by the king) purely ethnic quarrels and legal disputes are evidenced in Slovakia as early as in the 13th century (between the Slovaks and Germans; from the 16th century between Slovaks, Germans and Magyars), both in towns and in the Diet. Not only is not it true that they did not happen, ethnic problems were even very frequent. Earlier disputes are unknown only because documents have not been preserved. Nationalism and racism ("we" as opposed to the "different" others) are the most fundamental human properties, peculiar to all primitive societies, despite the fact that some people try to suggest the opposite today. Once there is one single difference of one group compared to another (and the linguistic difference between Magyars and the others is quite evident, not to mention other differences in the 10th century), nationalism begins. It is that simple. Juro 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To be more accurate the proper value is 39%, not 29 ... And yes the first reliable imperial census was held in 1780 ... but we know nothing about the antecedent 700 years (On the secong thoughts is just the opposite). Talking about Slovakia in the 13th century, is quite suggestive :)
That is acceptable we are in short supply in historical documents, but from the numbers of documents about Cumans or Romanians we can also draw a conclusion.--fz22 08:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I said that there are no documents about disputes, but there are, of course, other documents (in churches etc.) and archeological estimates, which you can find in any expert text. The problem seems to be, however, that the Magyar and Non-Magyar estimates differ considerably, and I am personally unable to decide on what criteria I should decide which estimates are correct. One of the most recent estimate on the number of Magyars that arrived in 896 I have read (with an explantion) says they were not more than 100 000 (the number of inhabitants of Great Moravia was about 300000 - if I remember well), you say it was 400 000. If this is not clear, then any other estimates for the High Middle ages are like a lotto game. By the way, by coincidence, yesterday I came across an article on the German wikipedia (de:Neugriechen-These) saying that acording to Italian researchers the Hungarians actually have more Slavic genes then Poles (60% vs. 50%). If it is true, then it is the genetic proof of multiethnicity. Juro 21:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the always disputed numbers, I agree that the KoH was always multiethnic. The real question is why it is so important a fact that we should mention it in the FIRST sentence, in the definition. It suggests that this is the only important feature of this state - and I think this problematic. As I know there isn't any example for the same in the Wikipedia neither in the case of historical or present-day states. For me it's no problem to mention multiethnicity somwhere in the first part of the article. Zello 17:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OKJuro 21:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For me it is absolutely OK now! Zello 00:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is extremelly important to mention it was multiethnic in the first sentence. It is obvious that Magyars do not want that so I think somebody that is not Hungarian (no Magyar, Slovak, Serbian ...) should decide. Milanmm 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow this logic of 'not-related judge' sounds really pathetic.Szlevi 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds dumb. Virtually all kingdoms are multi-ethnic. I've been wasting my employer's time for months reading about history on this site, I don't recall a kingdom not being multi-ethnic, nor do I remember it being specifically mentioned.

[edit] POV

"Kingdom of Hungary" was Hungary, the Hungarian state of those times. As you can read on the map: "Magyarország" (country of the Magyars, founded by the Magyars, presentday Hungary is also "Magyarország" in Hungarian). Of course, it was bigger, it was not a republic but a kingdom, and it had minorities (less or more, depending on the given period, but always more then the presentday country). Having this separate article about Hungary before 1918 (19? 20?) reflects a clear Slovak/Romanian/Serbian POV, that holds that the Treaty of Trianon was not a partition of Hungary, but the creation of a "new" Hungarian state ("Hungarian Kingdom"??). The name of this "new" state, however, was the same as the old kingdom ("Magyar Királyság"). There's no separate article for Kingdom of France - it redirects you to France. The same should be applied here. Vay 13:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Kingdom of France and modern France's borders are broadly similar. Is it POV to have separate articles for the Austrian Empire and for Austria? For the Ottoman Empire and for Turkey? For Yugoslavia and for Serbia and Montenegro? --Jfruh 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is POV per se but I oppose merging. The History of Hungary article contains the whole history of Hungary since 896. This Kingdom of Hungary article shows a different aspect as the second paragraph clearly states. The KoH means not the same for the Magyars and their neighbours. For us it is our country in the former centuries of history like the Kingdom of France for the French. For the neighbours it is a historical state which ceased to exist in 1920. This article is strongly connected with the idea of a multiethnic natio Hungarica so it's not totally anacronistic. POVs have been different since centuries so we should accept this as a historical fact. As for Jfruh your examples are bad - there is a much more stronger continuity in the case of Hungary. Zello 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that merging wouldn't be a good idea after all: this "alternative" POV (well, at least compared to ours :) is to be here. But ours should be here as well, that's why I made this small remark. Vay 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

This copyright-panic is really crazy. I think this map was drawn by the Hungarian cartographer Manó Kogutowicz who died in 1908. Probably his rights became out of date... Zello 20:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If he died in 1908, then the map is public domain. Unfortunately, nobody has written that at the map page, the words "the copyright has expired" would have been enough I think. Juro 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture is from the Révai Enyclopaedia so I'm almost sure that it is a Kogutowicz-map (I should write at least a stub about him, he was a really famous cartographer). But the whole wikipedia copyright-mania is absurd in a time when pictures freely circulating on the web. Zello 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not fully absurd, because theoretically some copyright holder could sue the wikipedia, which, unlike many dubious pages, is a clearly identifiable counterparty. Juro 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand this but the result is absurd: I'm not ready to read through a picture tutorial which seems longer and more difficult than the Corpus Iuris Civilis. Zello 00:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand that, a very pertinent comparison :))) ...The short version of the tutorial: either you made the picture yourself (and you write it below the picture) or the author is death for over 70(?) years (and you write it below the picture) or you have a permission of the author (and you write it below the picture)...Juro 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhoria

I would like to hear some reactions on the new term Uhoria, which should distinguish multinational (nations are equal) Uhoria (1000-1867) from Hungary as a part of Austria-Hungary (1867-1918), where Hungarians tried to denationalize all non-Hungarians and make pure Hungarian nation. I see a great difference between Uhoria and Hungary in the principles and bases of state and therefore I think word "Hungary" refering to Kingdom (1000-1867) in English is misused.

In Serbian language, name Ugarska (same as your Uhoria) is used for the Hungarian state between 1000 and 1918, and after 1918 the name is Mađarska. In English, it is Kingdom of Hungary for the state between 1000 and 1918 and simply Hungary for the state after 1918. PANONIAN (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply: absurd and I hope never will be accepted. It is on the verge of simple vandalism Zello 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i am trying to distinguish Uhoria as a multiethnical Kingdom 1000-1867 from what is commonly mistaken as a one thing - Hungary. Kingdom of Hungary is a part of Austria-Hungary, where ethnic Hungarians tried to denationalise non-Hungarian nations. Therefore, it was broken into various states after WW1.

But what I am saying is that you have wrong years here. Term Uhoria cannot refer to 1000-1867 period, but to 1000-1918. That is main problem. PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The "main problem" is that no reliable international source call the KoH "Uhoria". It is simply a recent creation from the Slovak name Uhorsko Zello 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zello, I agree with you, but I am only trying to explain that Uhorsko/Ugarska in Slovak and Serbian refer to 1000-1918 period, not to 1000-1867. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I think it is the dot on the "i" :) Zello 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont find it vandalism, because I dont want to destroy or damage anything. I want to refer, that the English word Hungary is misused. The English language name contemporary Magyarország Hungary. Unfortunately, they wrongly name the multiethnical kingdom in Middle Europe with the same name. Not only the name Uhorsko (Czech, Slovak)/Ugarska(Serbo-Croatian) means "By the mountain" (from Old Slavonic, before Old Magyars settled in Pannonia), its just wrongly understood, that there is the continuity from Kingdom of Uhoria to Hungary since 1867. I believe Kingdom of Uhoria (the translation from Slavonic languages into English) wont be confused with Hungary as a contemporary national state. It would be fair from all of the nations who lived togeter under St. Stephens crown in Uhoria. I used year 1867 to distinguish national tollerance before and national oppression afther, but I also wont disagree to name the Kingdom "Uhoria" until 1918 (with 2 periods concerning national tollerance between Hungarians and nn-Hungarians 1000-1867, 1897-1918). I think that the distinction between the Kingdom (Uhoria) on one side and Hungary (Magyarország) on the other side is the best way how to put in order relations between contemporary Hungarians and Slovaks, Rusyns, Serbs, Croats, Rumunians.

I believe most of inteligent non-Hungarians living in former Kingdom of Uhoria appreciate common history in this state. I personally accept Uhorian history as mine history, not the only Hungarian history. Although I respect Hungarians and have also Hungarian frinds, I must say, that naming the Stephens Kingdom "Hungary" is simply wrong and unfair, because it wasnt only Hungarians who lived there, but also Serbians, Croatians, Slovaks, Rusyns, Jews, Germans and so on - St. Stephens idea was multiethnic kingdom, not the one Hungary nation kingdom.

Wikipedia is not about personal historical conceptions. If English people call it the Kingdom of Hungary then you should accept it because this is the English wikipedia.Zello 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!!! :) Luckily naming a country is not a "custom-tailored service" ... Some other analogy: lets call medieval "Croatia" Totland/Tautland ... to distinguish from present day democratic Croatia ... funny? IMO Hungarians have nothing to do how Croatia is called in English historical terminology ...--fz22 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is cool. I know Slovaks call the Kingdom of Hungary this way, but as far as I know, this is the English Wikipedia. (?) --KIDB 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
And please discuss things before you "Uhorize" the Stephen I of Hungary Article.--KIDB 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please notice the paragraph, hopefuly nobody will deete it, because I find it neutral. The original article contains his personal view about how Magyars approach the Kingdom of Hungary (it was primarily kingdom of Magyars), what may other readers find biased. Therefore, I add explanation, so please dont trash the whole thing. However, Wikipedia is open to editing. Thank you. Igor N. Barilik The contemporary name Hungary (The Republic of Hungary) is generaly misused referring to the historic Kingdom of Hungary. The historic Kingdom of Hungary was built in Pannonia and surrounding Carpathians and consisted of various nations: Magyars, Slovaks, Rusyns, Croatians, Romanians, Germans, etc. During raids of Old Magyars/Hungarians (from Onogurians), the Great Moravian Empire consisted of Moravian Region, Principality of Nitra, Pannonia, Bohemia and Silesia. The eastern region was also called Uhory lands (from Old Slavonic "U Hory", what means by the mountains - Carpathians). Saint Stephen was the prince of Nitra Principality and in year 1000, he became a king of the whole kingdom - not only the king of nomad Magyars/Hungarians, but also the King of other nations, much more developed than Old Magyars/Hungarians in that time. It is said, that he preferred the company of Old Slavonic Christian knights rather than Old Magyar pagans. He insisted on not using Old Magyar language on his court and instead he preferred latin language as the unifying symbol of various Christian nations under his realm. For instance during long period of Ottoman expansion, the historic Kingdom of Hungary was situated on Slovakia, not Hungary and the Capital was Pressburg (recent Slovak capital Bratislava). Therefore, it is much more accurate to talk about historic Kingdom of Hungary until 1867 - when the Habsburg Austria-Hungary was created. The treat between the Emperor and Hungarian delegates started huge oppression of ethnic non-Magyars in the Kingdom of Hungary, which, as ethnical Magyar leaders thought was suppossed to be “purified” from ethnic non-Magyars and turned into one Magyar nation Hungary. Contemporary Hungarian Republic in English is the same as Magyarország in Magyar language. Using name “historic Kingdom of Hungary” and Latin geographic terms should distinguish multiethnic Latin-Christian basis kingdom from ethnically homogeneous Hungarian/Magyar Kingdom and Hunrarian/Magyar republic of 20th century.

What nation are we talking about? Slovakian nation, Rusyns, Romanians in 1000AD? Are you kidding?
Situated in "Slovakia" ? Old-Slavonic knights? ... ok I know the answer ... I have to read more history :)))--fz22 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

exuse me, I said all of he users are free to edit. This was my contribution and if you dont mind, I would like to have it there, because the wikipedia is open to editing. If you think there wasnt Slovak nation in 11th century, feel free to change it into Old Slavs (Slovaks were distinguished from Old Slavs exactly in the 11th century). I dont see the purpouse in trashing it all out. The article is not about Magyars see the history but how it was and other nations were also VERY IMPORTANT part of historical Kingdom of Hungary. If you want to glorify Magyars, do it on hu.wikipedia.org or anywhere else. If you want to write an article you dont want to be changed, put in your blog. WIKIPEDIA IS OPEN TO EDITING. I will work on it more and also put there links, so dont worry...just dont vandalise my work. Thanks

but you also should observe the rules: expose your thoughts, justify, and if there was no objections add them to the article. So I think your contribution should be reweritten because contains a lot of simplification, gross error ... Regards, --fz22 15:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

all right...i am new here, so i have probably messed up a little bit, but i hope this contribution is acceptable. definitely, improvements should be always made, but referring about topic common to lot of nations shouldnt be biased, but there should be also other views. I will put my new contributions into discussion first next time, but it seems to me there is no problem in deleting the new paragraph. thanks for your opinions.

The overview part is clearly a mess and contains a great deal of anti-Hungarian bias. First of all, during the Ottoman period, the so-called Royal Hungary consisted not only of today's Slovakia but also of Transdanubia and Croatia. The capital was indeed Pozsony but it had a much more diverse ethnic structure than today, so any overemphasis of the "Slovak" role here is clearly POV.

I don't see the point either ... this is my favourite: "Hungary was situated on recent Slovakia, not Hungary". What do you try to express through your comments as a whole?? --fz22 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

if you see something biased and untruthful, please edit the sentence, not the whole paragraph. otherwise, what you are doing can be called censorship of information you dont like to hear, but it is not my problem. there are no historic fictions and if so, correct them. thank you

I think that Slovaks should remain with their edits in Slovak history which encompasses about a little bit more than ten years, they should not mess with our millennial Hungarian history.

-- Now that's really a kind of "neutral" comment... waiting for some more jokes :)

[edit] Absurd claims

Ok, then I present why your paragraph is absolutely unacceptable. You are right that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multiethnic state but this is explained in the first sentence of the article. On the other hand the Magyar Királyság in 1920 was a legal successor of the Magyar Királyság (KoH) existed before even by the Treaty of Trianon. The situation is more obvious in 1867 when the consitutional laws of 1848 were restored with some modification. So there is a clear LEGAL continuity between the present Hungary and the state of István. Your attempt to cut this continuity is against the valid laws of Hungary, the WHOLE Hungarian historical literature and common sense. We are speaking about so basic facts and principles that no Hungarian will accept this text.

Examples for serious fatual mistakes and Ant-Hungarian bias: István as the Prince of Nitra???? Where did you find this bullshit?

Magyars were not a nomad people after they settled in the Pannonian Plain. They were half-nomad even before

Latin was the language of the church and state in medieval kingdoms, István only followed Western-Europen examples

Hont and Pázmány were German knights from Svabia according the medieval chronics (pl. Simon Kézai)

As others already said: Royal Hungary was not only on the territory of Slovakia, but Western-Transdanubia and present-day Northeast-Hungary

Pozsony-Pressburg was a German-speaking city until the 20th century. There was hardly any Slovak population in the 16-17th century there. (This statement is absolutelly incorrect. Milanmm 13:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC) )

Are you sure? There has always been significant slavic population in Bratislava. Show me demographics of this city from 16.century...(wosa)

So there is hardly any sentence that I’d be able edit – the whole paragraph is agressive Ant-Hungarian propaganda. Zello 05:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name issue

Well, about this name Uhoria made from Slovak name Uhorsko, it is interesting that English name Hungary in fact have same origin as Slovak name Uhorsko, thus name Hungary already is Uhoria. English language in fact does not have its own word for Magyarorszag/Mađarsko, but it use word for Uhorsko/Hungary instead. Fact is that these names (Hungary, Uhorsko, Ugarska), have origin in Latin language, while other names (Magyarorszag, Mađarsko, Mađarska) have origin in Hungarian. The English language have no its own word based on the Hungarian name variant. PANONIAN (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one similar example in English - Germany for Deutschland. In Hungarian the situation is the same with Germany again (Németország) and Italy (Olaszország). Zello 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have missed a lot of fun here :))) Well, as far as Uhoria is concerned (allegedly derived from U hory :))) ), I must say I rarely hear such a nonsense, the user Ig... seems to be very "innovative"...But on the other hand, Zello, you are wrong as far as Hont and Poznan are concerned as well as far as St. Stephen is concerned. Juro 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The dispute whether Hunt-Pazman were slovaks ot not is a long standing. The same as the origin of Diveky family. Simon Kezei wrote: they were of Swabian origin ... I found this book on the net: Roszkowski, Jerzy M.: Rod Divékych - Węgrzy, czy Słowacy? = Historické štúdie 41. Bratislava, 2000. 151-161. p. --fz22 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from Hont and Pázmány, do you really think that Stephen was the Slovak Prince of Nitra??? I hope you don't! Zello 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I have not read carefully: prince of Nitra, of course, however not Slovak, of course.Juro 17:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Steinhubel offers some illuminating readings :)
- http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_2002_02/cikk.php?id=1161
- http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_2000_02/cikk.php?id=285 --fz22 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the author speaks about the "dukátus" ie. the semi-independent pricipality of the younger brother of the King in the early Árpádian age. The two centres of the principality were really Nyitra and Bihar. But this was a kind of division of power in the Árpád family, similarly that the Capeting kings of France gave territories to their brothers (Anjou, Burgundy etc). Zello 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prior to and in the 19th century, the term Hungarian often referred to any inhabitant of this state, regardless of his or her ethnicity.

i suggest to replace inhabitant with noblemen. The term Hungarian Nation/Universis nobilis (Hungárus in Hungarian) and ethnicity is somehow mixed here ... You just said Juro "ethnicity HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE throughout human history, the problem did not arise in the the 19th century, that's a modern myth. " and every historical record indicate a clear distinction between the subjects of the King ("Universis Saxonibus, Syculis et Olachis in partibus Transiluanis"). Eg a Romanian serf was never called Hungarian ...--fz22 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this sentence is important enough to be kept in the English Wikipedia. Inhabitants of Hungary were called in Hungarian: magyar, tót, oláh, rác, stb. How were these people called in English? I doubt people in England, or in America were too much concerned about the ethnic composition of Hungary. I would delete the sentence. --KIDB 06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The term Hungarus really had wider meaning before appr. 1848 to denote all the inhabitants of Hungary regardless their ethincity. I don't think there is any problem with this sentence. Zello 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Werboczy (Tripartitum) the Hungarus is a latin speaking privileged person, subject of the Holy Crown regardless of ethnicity ... all inhabitant? nothing like that.
Other meaning of Hungarus: any student from the Hungarian Kingdom in western-european universities
Unquestionable these terms should not be mixed: Hungarus, Hungarus-consciousness (loyalty and patriotism above etnic origins), Hungarian (Political) Nation, Hungarian, Magyar. So using Hungarian without further explanations is a simplification and mislead the english-speaking readers --fz22 06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
In this case we are talking about Hungarus and not Hungarian. One sentence is too short to describe the real situation to foreigners reading this. And a full paragraph would be boring. --KIDB 06:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Hungarus originally meant mostly the nobles because in the old KoH only the nobles constituted the Hungarian political nation (together with other smaller groups). Peasants regardless of their ethnicity had a subordinate role in this conception. Zello 22:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence bellow until:
1. Juro bring us any documentaru evidence dated from the middle Age or later when a non-Magyar, Hungarian subject was refered as Hungarian in "English or any other language"--fz22 06:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

(You do not have to go to history: [1], see third was a Hungarian, Alajos Szokolyi. Milanmm 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

???What??? The country was called Hungary, therefore the inhabitants thereof were called Hungarians. How can you deny such an obvious thing - in Hungary, you are applying the term Magyar on exactly the same grounds to Slovaks etc. until today. And the same holded for German, English, French, even for Slovak in part, and the same holds even today, so it is you who has to provide evidence that it was NOT the case, because this is the normal case of how adjectives are created in the world (and this is obvious to any person using its brain, actually). Do you think that a text in the 19th century was saying: XY, the Slovako-Magyaro-Germano-Romano-Serbo-Ruthenian minister or what???Juro 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what kind of new information wants to transmit this sentence? And why is so important? i can repeat myself: why this "pattern" is not inserted in every article about former kingdoms of Europe, just here in this article?!?! Why don't we add a sentence saying " Prior to and in the 19th century, the term Frenchmen/Romanian/Serbian often referred to any inhabitant of this state". Sure, every nobleman traveling around Europe was called Hungarian ... and so what?--fz22 18:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence just states a fact. The difference between France and KoH is above all, that KoH split into several modern states and normal foreigners do not realize that it was ALSO (not only) "usual" to call say present-day Slovaks Hungarians in the past (and it still usual today in Hungary, see Magyar Eletrajzi Lex. as an example). That is the information and it is very important. E.g. a certain percentage of Slovaks who emigrated to the USA around 1900 was registered as "Hungarians" there (the rest as Slovaks) due to lack of better information. Also, in the Austrian part of the monarchy, it was a rule to call all the "easteners" Ungarn, "of course", and actually it was not wrong at that time from a certain POV. Juro 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
this is why I've asked you to present here a document which confirm your POV ... BTW Habsburg, the inhabitants (even after 1867) of the AHM were considered austirans ;). USA immingration statistics: they also counted the ethnic division of immigrants from Hungary ...
Magyar Eletrazji lexikon: this is current not just for present day Hungary ... but this is not a reason to add such a sentence in every article.--fz22 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you deny that what the sentence says is wrong? - you cannot; and you yourself say above that it is correct. Have you understood what I have written above? I hope so? So what are we talking about? Don´t you want evidence from me for the fact that 1+1=2? There is nothing to add. The sentence is obviously correct per se (and the analogy with France is completely wrong, but the sentence would hold irrespective of what holds for France). In addition it could be proven by quotes, of course, but since this is such an elementary thing, open any relevant 19th text and do not be childish and ridiculous....And the Magyar Eletrajzi Lex. is very relevant because contains pure Slovaks classified as "Magyars" (i.e Hungarians) even today - actually that should be evidence enough. Juro 00:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that the sentence is too obvious. Why don't we mention in the same time that the inhabitants of the former KoH consisted mostly of men and women plus a considerable number of children. ;)
Sure I know I know any analogy with the KoH is wrong.
there are many person in history whom are conseidered Magyar and eg Romanian in the same time, just think on Matthias Corvinus (considered to be one of the great Magyars but is also appear in the Romanian National Anthem) and if you ever read a Romanian book you should know that he was the biggest "Romanian King" :) --fz22 06:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the sentence in question formed a part of the discussion of the multiethnic nature of the Kingdom of Hungary. The Kingdom of France was built as a nation state (in fact one of the very first nation states in the world). This is the reason why this sentence is not included in France yet is in Kingdom of Hungary. I am sorry, but I do not see any reason why to "resolve" the ongoing dispute about one word (all inhabitants vs. privileged class) by deleting the whole sentence. In my opinion, both points of view (the kingdom as a predecessor of modern Hungary and as a multiethnic entity) should be mentioned. Tankred 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
First, in France more then half of the population did not speak french at the time of the French Revolution. Second, this isn't explain why sentences like: "Wallachian often referred to any inhabitant of Wallachia", or after 1878, and even today "Romanian often referred to any inhabitant of Romania" are not present in the dependent articles ... plus in Western-Europe the term Nation-state has a completetly different meaning ...--fz22 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the present version of the article (with the old sentence as well as the new paragraph included in the overview) is clear, well-balanced, and satisfactory. Tankred 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I still doubt this sentence is important to be included. On this basis, we could include in the Slovakia article that "foreigners unaware of the ethnic situation of this country, often use the term Slovakian referring to any inhabitant of this state, regardless of his or her ethnicity", or we could include a similar sentence in the France, Hungary, Romania or many other articles. I suggest to delete. --KIDB 08:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. We wrote our oppinions in more than 100 lines but we made no progress at all ;). --fz22 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Hungary from 1000 to 1918?

As far as I know the Kingdom existed till the end of the 2nd world war. In 1918 the kingdom was abolished, but later it was restored. Why do you think that the pre 1918 kingdom and the post 1920 kingdom was two separate state?


I send you a joke, wich was actually a historical fact (it means, that this dialouge happened word-by-word in real life):

Dec. 12, 1940: László Bárdossy tells the US ambassador to Hungary, that Hungary declares war on the US. The next dialouge followed it:

  • Ambassador: Hungary is a republic, right?
  • L.B.: No, its a kingdom.
  • A: So, you have a king?
  • L.B: No, we have an admiral.
  • A: So, you have a naval fleet.
  • L.B.: No, because we don't have access to any sea.
  • A: You have any proposals?
  • L.B: Yes, we have.
  • A: Against the US?
  • L.B: No.
  • A: Against England?
  • L.B: No.
  • A:Against Russia?
  • L.B: No.
  • A:Then against who?
  • L.B: Against Romania
  • A:So, you'll declare war on Romania also?
  • L.B: No sir, we're allies.

It cleares a lot of stuff, from what is intresting here I've bolded. Hope you got it. --VinceB 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope you got this: After the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the Hungarian Democratic Republic was proclaimed. That even marked the end of the Kingdom of Hungary. The rulers of the republic were aware that Hungarian state will be punished for starting WWI, so they (rulers of Hungary) claimed that this republic is a NEW state that do not have continuity with the formed Kingdom to avoid this punishment. After the Treaty, when new Hungarian borders were defined, the rulers of Hungary changed story. Since they saw that story about discontinuity will not help them to achieve their political goals (we all know what were such goals), they now claimed that Hungarian state have continuity with the former Kingdom. They also named new coutry a kingdom, but it was a NEW kingdom created after the collapse of the old one. And guess what? It is already explained in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary#After_the_first_World_War PANONIAN (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another section for clearing, thanks for pointing that. Does not collapsed, it was simply cut into parts, by the winners of the war (aka Antant). What goals? I don't know. --VinceB 05:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The above transcripted conversation was not between Bardossy and the US Ambassador to Hungary, but between Franklin Roosevelt and Cordell Hull, his Secretary of State. See The Hungarians, by Paul Lendvai, Princeton Univeristy Press, 2004. 66.108.4.183 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

[edit] History of Hungary template

The History of Hungary template is obviously something it is right to include in this article, since continuity or not, the KoH was a state founded by the Hungarians, and the only place where the Hungarians lived. Feel free to initiate a poll or an RfC if you think it is inappropriate (though I'm puzzled as to how it could be so), but removing it without a clear consensus is not something I can accept. KissL (don't forget to vote!) 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The History of Hungary has something to do with the KoH. The KoH was a state founded by the Hungarians, but there is no eveidence that they were Magyars. All the documents are in Latin. The KoH is the only place where also other people lived, even full nations. More than a half of the template has nothing to do with KoH: FLAG The Inter War Years Hungarian Soviet Republic Treaty of Trianon Hungary in World War 2 Vienna Awards Tripartite Pact Arrow Cross Party After WW2 Treaty of Paris Communist Hungary People's Republic of Hungary Hungarian Revolution Modern Hungary Republic of Hungary

It is there only to make an illusion that Hungary is continuing state after KoH what is definitelly not. Milanmm 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has a dinamic contradiction in terms: No evidence, that hungarians were magyars. Also no evidence that any of your statements are true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.20.99 (talk • contribs).


So now it turns out the Magyars didn't even exist until about the 19th century? :) Funny. Maybe it's generally accepted in Slovakia, but it's not in Hungary. I suggest mention both opinions in the article (as there's already been attempts to do similar things), and leave the template in the article. An alternative solution: create a merged template that includes historical articles of all nations affected by the Kingdom of Hungary, a little like in Chinese historical articles. Peace, anybody? chery 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to deal with this, its pure and perfect sophism. --195.56.20.99 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"More than half of the template has nothing to do with the KoH" - that's because it's the History of Hungary template which lists articles pertaining to the history of Hungary, in chronological order. Coincidentally, it appears on these (and afaik exactly these) articles. This is in no way a valid reason to remove it. Also, this is the first time I hear that "it is not for sure that the founders were Magyars" - what's your source? KissL (don't forget to vote!) 15:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The KoH was founded not long time after Magyars came to this region. It is obvious that at this time it was a mixture of several nations, and, as we know, at this time a nationality played no role. All documents are in Latin. Some sources claim the mother of the first king was Polish. etc. I can accept a general statement "KoH was a state founded by the Magyars", but not as an argument in these discussions. Milanmm 16:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also replace {{totallydisputed}} with {{NPOV}}, since nobody has contested anything factual in the article. KissL (don't forget to vote!) 15:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, find me another page on Wikipedia, where the first thing listed is a panel with Contents of some other page. I find it completelly misleading. Milanmm 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The template doesn't list the contents of any other page, but rather contains links to a group of articles sharing some common point (in this particular case, the fact that they are relevant to the history of Hungary). There exist loads of similar templates – Template:History of Slovakia and Template:History of Vojvodina, which you have just tried to add, are perfect examples, but so are Template:Politics, Template:Islam, or Template:Communism, to pick a few at random. Wouldn't the correct solution to your problem be to change the top of the template to say "Part of the series on the history of Hungary" rather than just "History of Hungary"? KissL (don't forget to vote!) 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious what is a problem. The article has a tendency to emphasis the role of modern Hungary as a successor of the Kingdom of Hungary. Probably it is considered so in Hungary, but is completelly not acceptable in other successor states. The dissolution of the empire is stated in the treaty of Trianon. We all agree that any efforts to deny the treaty cannot be accepted. - Milanmm 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Having that said, how about a common, merged template for the history of the Carpathian Basil? chery 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article used to contain the "History of..." templates of all successor states (History of Hungary, History of Slovakia, History of Romania, etc.), but some editors argued that it was too much. I think it would be a good compromise to include all those templates in this article. No one will be able to argue that the article is biased after such a decision. But I certainly do not agree with deletion of the History of Hungary template. Tankred 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual vertical templates really should be too much for this article. Isn't an all-in-one construction possible? Although horizontally built versions could nicely fit at the end, like in the case of Ulysses S Grant, those are quite out of sight, and thus a little impractical. chery 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinamic (in fact perfect) contradiction

==Continuity issue==

Magyars tend to emphasise the continuity of the Hungarian state and consider the Kingdom of Hungary one phase of its historical development. The continuity is reflected in national symbols and holidays and in the official commemoration of the millennium of the Hungarian statehood in 2000. According to their point of view, the Kingdom of Hungary was primarily a country of the Hungarian people, not denying the presence and importance of other nationalities.

In contrast, according to the point of view of the other nationalities living on the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary, such continuity does not exist because the Kingdom of Hungary was a common state of several peoples since its formation, and therefore it is different from modern Hungary, which is a nation state of the Magyars. In the Croatian, Serbian and Slovak languages, there are different names for modern Hungary and the Kingdom of Hungary.

There is a dinamic (in fact perfec) contradiction in terms between the "Continuity issue"'s oppose section, and statements on the Magyarization page about the same era. In fact, they say "A" in here and "B" there, but "A" is the perfect opposition of "B". And its rather an ethnic issue (a funny and sad number war between nationalist from both side)--195.56.20.99 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is an issue that Hungarians and others will never agree upon. I as a Hungarian see a continuity, NOT because only Magyars lived there (I recognize it was a multi-ethnic state, at a time when religious affiliation mattered a lot more than ethnic affiliation), BUT because Magyars founded the Kingdom of Hungary. Arpad was the leader of the Magyar tribes, Stephen the founded the kingdom as a member of the Arpad house. There are plenty of ancient sources mentioning the nomadic Magyars. Interestingly many Turks I know of look at Ataturk (the father of Turks) as the one who established their state. Yet, many people from the Balkans, mention Ottoman and Turk as if it were the exact same thing. Those same people, who see the ancestors of modern day Turks as the Ottoman aggressors, are the ones who refuse to recognize the continuity between the Hungarian nation state and the kingdom. Ultimately, it's a question of opinion, depending what ethnicity are you. What I'm asking though is don't be a hypocrite. Evaluate the differences between Hungary and similar cases, and act by a precedent where applicable. (I think the Ottoman Empire was similar in that it was a multinational state, bound together by Islam.) Wikipedia should be about facts, not opinions, so if none of us can reach a common ground (something which is almost impossible regarding the continuity question) than don't include it in the article.

[edit] The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed

I put 'The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed' mark as I consider the article biased and partially incorrect. - Milanmm 14:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To KissL

Please, I asked you several times: without a reason, do not delete any content to a version what you think is correct. Maybe you are wrong.--195.56.224.220 13:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the one who wants to change a consensual status quo, you are required to provide explanation, not me.

Still, since you insist, here is a list of problems with the paragraph that you're trying to force into the article:

  1. the spellings of the words "centures", "buts", "hungarians", "Hapsburgs";
  2. ad nauseam repetitions of "again", "but", "abolished";
  3. the expressions "one of the pride of", "last and for all";
  4. the repeated removal of a paragraph which was consensual among Hungarian editors as well as editors from other successor states;
  5. the addition of a paragraph which contains details that are irrelevant to the Kingdom of Hungary itself, and covered in the History of Hungary article.

And in case you were about to, please don't tell me I could go ahead and fix the spelling, grammar, and style problems, because per the last reason, there is no point to do so. Instead, maybe you could detail the advantages of having a paragraph like this. KissL (don't forget to vote!) 14:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider the current version of the article to be a status quo. Many important parts of it were changed just recently. I definitely support 195.56.224.220 to remove the 'Continuity issue' paragraph. Milanmm 01:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


To KissL:

  • I didn't find that consensus you mentioned. On the other hand, I didn't find any kind of wiki-policy that a question/section/article can be discussed only once in life (on wikipedia).
  • As I already said twice: The section is called overview, wich means áttekintés/összefoglalás in Hungarian. The section in its current form is not an overview, it's content (absolutely) does not match to it's title name.

To Milanmm:

  1. yes, correct the spelling.
  2. and? There are several other words repeating also. If you don't like it, change them to their synonyms.
  3. and what's the problem with them?
  4. wasn't consensual, I didn't found any consensus, and, as you can see above, it is disputed.

Both of you: Of course I insist you to write down your problems, becuse you insist to your versions strongly. --195.56.231.17 02:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Kissl in this issue. There is only one user (195.56.231.17) challenging the long-term consensus reached and maintained here. Since none of other frequent editors of this article have found his/her arguments convincing, I am somewhat unable to find any reason why we should change the well-written and neutral content of this article. Tankred 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity issue revisited

The current version states that prevailing consesus in non-Magyar successor states is that there is no continuity between modern Hungary and KoH. That would be harsh and I would like to assure our Magyar coeditors and friends that it is not so. We - non-Magyar "Uhri" - just oppose Magyar exclusive continuity, which in our opinion is shared.

To be a bit emotional :

Not even many Slovaks know that the man who was by Magyars of his age considered the gravest danger to Hungarian statehood, Ľudevít Štúr, was in fact patriot of multietnical Hungrary. I was really moved to read his words, that "it is truly a respectable fact, Slovak nation in Hungarian fatherland" and "anywhere in this country you can see the monuments of our life".

I (being a northern Slovak, a real Carpathian :) ) am really proud of my Hungarian fatherland, of its saints, kings, nobles, burgers and common people. Not least because it managed to be really a ethnically tolerant state. I would like to envite everybody to northern Slovakia, to cities and castles in the mountains that resisted Turkish invasions, to the last strongholds of christian Hungary for long 200 years. There you can see "monuments of our life", and I really wonder who could deny any continuity of Magyars, Slovaks, Rumunians, Serbs, Croats and Germans, any peoples whose granfathers lived and died for our common Hungarian fatherland.

You may then ask why do we not live together. The answer is : since 1830's our ethnical identity had been so endangered that our grandfather chose live separately.

So I would like to change the "Continuity issue" accordingly--Rachotilko 13:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you Milanmm 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Very nice indeed - highly evocative. I have just returned from a trip to northern Slovakia and I was charmed by the history. But. I do not see this kind of emotion will contribute to an objective and unbiased discussion. In purely objective terms Rachotilko's sentiments fit well into the second paragraph of the 'continuity issues' - which In fact -could- be further fleshed out by stating the successor state's emphasis on non-Magyar cultural elements, eg. the strong Slavic myth that has percolated since the 19th century.

The 'continuity issues' article is balanced and fair - one might wrangle about the fact that the first (and therefore major) paragraph is about (god-forbid) modern Hungarians. But to an English speaker this is more obvious than a lamp-post, and he equates the KoH with modern Hungary as a matter of course.

It is quite reasonable to believe that the most important ethnic element in setting up the KoH -were- Magyars. It suffices a quick glance at medieval texts on the origins of the KoH (Gesta Hungarorum, Dubnicza Chronicle, Smon de Keza, etc etc) that the Hungarians prided themselves (almost inordinately) of their hot-blooded warrior origins - and even if 'foreign' magnates helped them in their efforts (eg. of course, Hont and Poznan - incidentally they -are- believed to be Slavic -)this reality was covered up already in the 13th century to perpetuate the sweet legent of the pure tribes of Hungary. Latin was used as a matter of course, especially since (just like with Central European lands now) the new kingdom had to appear a part of the Christian West - and so therefore the prevalence of ultra-Christian diatribes in the above-mentioned texts.

I hope this helps a little - I am a Slovak myself, though my family were Hungarians for a couple of centuries, and so I am not biased in favour of any particular nation. I simply think that English-speaking readers should get an objective view of the KoH - and by objective I mean the generally agreed stance of top current historians and, naturally, the historical documents themselves.

--Levomir 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to correct the formatting of your paragraphs above, so that the text becomes more comprehensible. Second, I would like to ask you to rephrase it a bit, so that your point is clearer. Maybe my comprehension of sophisticated written English is poor but I didn't get clear picture of your position.
My most important objection against your objection is that you don't distinguish my edit of the article and my discussion paragraph above. The purpose of the "continuity issue" was not to bring the most accurate and neutral judgement of the continuity issue, but to document the prevalent views in modern Hungary and other successor states.
On the other hand, my edit here in the discussion was emotional (and expressed my personal point of view on continuity issue), since whole discussion here is emotional. Possibly my message to Hungarian wikipedians (which I intended to be a very peaceful and reconciliating) was not appropriate here on Wikipedia, but much of the discussion here is inappropriately emotional. And I am rather inappropriately reconciliatory than controversial.
I would also like to remind you that there is no generally agreed stance of top historians on the issue, since unfortunatelly both Magyar and non-Magyar historiography is plagued by conformance to nationalist demands of respective cultures. The best we can provide to English-speaking readers is to present those biased views. But I am insisting on presenting both of them.
Anyway, the name of the document you wrote, "Dubnicza Chronicle" (that supposedly proves that my point of view is Slavic myth) is ironically so terribly Slavic sounding (compare Russian "Dubna", Bulgarian "Dubnitsa" for example). However, I agree with you that the non-Magyar nobility gradually identified itself with Magyar culture throughout the centuries (but that did not happen in case of common people making the vast majority of the population).--Rachotilko 18:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Your article was understood, and apologies are in order. One - formatting. Believe me, I did my best to put that sentence in order but something went wrong. Two - your view explicated the contemporary situation in central-europe, around which the whole of cultural and historiographical life revolves. As such it is invaluable to the understanding of views of current eminent historians as well as the public at large, and therefore it was quite wrong of me to criticise such an openly subjective (yet illuminating) angle.

The meat of my last article was not a reply to you, but to an earlier article suggesting that Magyars were not at the centre and the major force in the creation of the Hungarian state - and instead of simply hurling sweeping generalisations across the borders, I wished to add some sources to the debate. But of course they are generalisations also.

Which leads me to the Dubnicza Chronicle, and as it is one of my favourite tracts I cannot resist but give a little information. The name is indeed very Slavic, and is after the Slovak town Dubnica nad Vahom. However the reason for this name is that the manuscript belonged to the library of Counts Illeshazy on their Dubnica estate. The chronicle is from the mid-14th century, from the reign of Louis I, though the book itself was made at Matthias Corvinus' court in the 1480s.

As a further point of interest, there were signs of non-Magyar ethnicity amongst prominent nobles till the 18th century, amongst families thought to be pure Magyar. And so wills, decrees and various property documents were written in SLovak by members of families such as the Revay and the Szent-Ivanyi. --80.176.91.55 09:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am really happy to read your reply. There was no need for apology, since I should have myself stated more clearly that I am fully aware of how subjective my "exhortation" was. I would have probably prevented the misunderstanding.
Regarding the generalizations and various biases: I am convinced that every sound historian agrees with the fact that Magyars were the initiatiors of the existence of KoH as well as a major ethnicity in Hungary. However this doesn't contradict the multiethnical character of the Kingdom and sharedness of the Hungarian heritage.
But now we are talking about one interesting point: the ethnicity with respect to the stratification of Hungarian society. To state it simply: there were many poor peasants from all ethnical backgrounds, Magyars, Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Germans. Among the burgers, the Germans were prevalent. The substantial part of nobility were Magyars, and non-Magyar nobles were inclined to identify themselves with the symbolism of founding Arpad dynasty, including their ethnicity. The royal superstratum of the society was originaly Magyar (Arpads), later Czech, Polish, German, etc ....
I don't think we should base our heritage claims on ethnicity of the least numerous social strata. How many of millions of contemporary Magyars, Slovaks, Vallachs, Serbs, Croats have royal or at least upper noble ancestors ?

[edit] References on "creating history"?

Since nobody who reverted these changes gave a justification, let me mention that I checked all three references and only one (the PDF) seems to talk about such a point. Aside from its occasionally poor English, it's an interesting paper, but does not draw the conclusion that "Slovak history is invented", rather mentions legendary and unconfirmed elements of what is generally considered history by the average Slovak. However, this phenomenon is common to most peoples, as made clear by the same paper (in case common sense wouldn't remind someone about the legend on Hunnish-Hungarian connection, or the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, and all that stuff).

On a side note, the wording "it is clear that ... seems to be ..." seems to be a clear sign of really badly disguised POV-pushing, to me at least... :)))

In short, this version was badly biased, and I would also have reverted it.

KissL 09:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Hungary

1. Ottoman Hungary never existed. This term suggests that there was another Hungarian state under Ottoman tutelage. (partialy true, but it was called Transylvania) The Hungarians use the Subjugated Territories (Hodoltsag) instead

I agree that Ottoman Hungary never existed and Serbs use term Ottoman Empire instead. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don`t know what is it exactly that you don`t understand. It`s clear as daylight that the term "Ottoman Hungary" does not imply that "there was another Hungarian state under Ottoman tutelage." (←your words). The article has been made according to common sense, and by using pre-existent guidelines (see Ottoman Greece, Ottoman Bulgaria, History of Ottoman Serbia, etc.). I really don`t see what`s the problem. Should there be a sign or something, with big letters writing "ACHTUNG! This article is not about a Hungarian state" for the challenged ones to understand what the articles is about? Avaring 12:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2. De facto these lands were part of the ottoman Empire, but de jure the Habsburgs, as king of Hungary, never renounced to the lands of the Holy Crown: "Nos Maximiliamus secundus, dei gratia electus Romanorum imperator, semper augustus, ac Germaniae, Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Sclavoniae, Ramae, Serviae, Galliciae, Lodomeriae, Cumaniae, Bulgariaeque ete. rex; " ... --fz22 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

By the Ottoman laws, former territories of the Kingdom of Hungary were both, de jure and de facto part of the Ottoman Empire. By the Habsburg laws...well, let just say that even Jerusalem was "de jure" part of Habsburg monarchy according to those laws, which only show how ridiculous were those Habsburg claims what "rightfully" belong to them. PANONIAN (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


And one more interesting thing about Habsburg laws: when Habsburgs pushed out Ottomans from the Pannonian plain, despite this "king of Hungary" stuff in the Habsburg title, they did not treated those lands as "liberated Hungary" but as "new conquered lands" so that they do not have to use Hungarian laws in those lands. PANONIAN (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the Habsburgs set up the Neoacquistica Commissio with the help of which they were able to influence the development of different regions in Hungary according to their own interests. But this is another story... --fz22 14:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


The territories occupied by the Ottomans integrated to the Ottoman Empire and organized into pashaliks. BUT the annexation was never recognized by the Kingdom of Hungary. These counties had seats in the Diet and payed tax. (Though because of the special circumstances they payed only half of the normal tax.) And yes the Habsburgs treated the territories as newly conquered lands, which was a part of their money acqusition plans, was totaly unconstitutional and eventually led to the kuruc rebellions. Bye, László

They did not exactly "payed" those taxes, but Hungarian "hayduks" in their invasions into Ottoman territory forced local population to "pay taxes" to them. A classic excuse for classic robery. And regarding the fact that Kingdom of Hungary did not recognized something, should we also claim that Northern Ireland is not part of United Kingdom because Ireland does not recognize that? The reign of one country over one territory is recognized and sovereign if MOST (but not necessary all) other countries recognize it. Ottoman Empire was recognized by most other countries as owner of those lands, thus if ONLY ONE country disputed this, it was simply not enough to undermine Ottoman sovereignty. PANONIAN (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Naturally there were difficulties to collect those taxes. What is your point anyway? It is crystal clear that there was a territorial dispute between the two powers (Habsburgs and Ottomans) and the history of the parts under Ottoman occupation is clearly a part of Hungarian history. Bye, Laszlo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.182.180.193 (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
"he history of the parts under Ottoman occupation is clearly a part of Hungarian history" - So what else do you want? Avaring 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Habsburgs renounced their claims in subsequent peace treaties like the Treaty of Edirne 1568, Zsitvatorok 1606 and Vasvár 1664. Hódoltság was de iure and de facto part of the Ottoman Empire, regardless the fact that many Hungarian never gave up the hope for liberating them and many Hungarian still lived there. Zello 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed?

This article is tagged as disputed, but there is no ongoing discussion on its talk page. I wonder if there is anyone really disputing neutrality of the article or we can remove the tag. If you think the article is not neutral, please state your arguments here, so we can improve it. Tankred 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/Talk%7EKingdom_of_Hungary_56d6.html"