Talk:Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Talk:List of historic counties of Hungary

Contents

[edit] 15th century counties in .hr

It somehow doesn't make sense to call Križevci, Dubica, Vrbas, Sana, Varaždin, Virovitica and Zagreb "Slavonia" when at the same time have Vukovar, Szerem and Požega are in Hungary proper. Juro, are you sure you copied this correctly? --Joy [shallot] 21:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is correct, exactly as you wrote, the latter three were part of Hungary proper, but the region was known as Slavonia. The others were both the part of the region and of Kingdom of Slavonia (K. of Croatia was south of Gvozd mountains until the name slowly migrated north in 16th through 18th century for the sake of continuity of the name and since people fled after Turks conquered almost all of what was known as Croatia by then): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.53.230 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I made the greatest efforts to copy this correctly. The problem is that parts of later Croatia-Slavonia were part of Hungary (apparently those in eastern Slavonia) and others not and this seem to have been constantly changing or so. There are similar problems with Transylvania. What is definitely missing in the Wikipedia and in the entire internet is a page that would exactly say for the 1000 years: from the year X to the year Y this territory was in this relation to the Hungarian crown and this border region was part of Hungary proper from X to Y and so on. I was desperately trying to find something like that, but without success. And actually I am more confused now about these things than I was before I have written this article...Juro 22:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Közép-Szolnok, Belső-Szolnok

I just found a map of the Transylvanian counties before 1876: [1]. I think you need to check the Szolnoks again, because it's pretty complicated. There is of course the town Szolnok in present Hungary (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok), the county Közép-Szolnok that became part of Szilágy (together with Kraszna) and the county Belső-Szolnok, that became Szolnok-Doboka (together with Doboka). Közép means central/middle, Belső means inner/interior. Markussep 12:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I know that ... so what is the problem with respect to this particular article? Juro 17:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a problem, I was just a bit confused about all the Szolnoks, especially the two Szolnokiensis'es around 1074. I found this list of Hungarian counties: [2]. I think you'll find the first list (around 1090) interesting, since you indicated that you were not so certain about the counties in those days. I guess your Szolnok II had Doboka as capital? Then probably there was no Kraszna county then, unless it had some other name/capital. And Szolnok I was divided into Kunság and Jászság lateron? Markussep 15:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not me who is not certain, it is the sources (by the way, I have allowed for the above web-page too, but note that it shows the 1090s not 1074). As far as I remember the two/three Szolnoks were not among the problematic counties. In most cases, nobody can tell today with certainty which castle was the capital in the 11th century (there are usually virtually no written texts from such a distant period). I guess Szolnok II had Dej as "capital", but I will have to check it. Anyway, Szolnok should have something in common with the Szolnok-Doboka county. And as for Cumania (Kunság) and Iyzygia (Jászság), these were among the various privileged territories, which are always a very complicated case in the Kingdom of Hungary - so I will try to find something but I do not expect to succeed. I can assure you, however, that I had very similar questions when I was setting up the lists.. Juro 22:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't order any hungarian beer. I don't even like it.

[edit] Naming issues

I have so far taken care of the list of city names in the 1867-1918 section and translated everything back into Hungarian, since this is an article on the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary, in which the city names should be in Hungarian.

One thing that I found is that some of the counties now in Slovakia redirect to pages with non-Hungarian names. Example: Since Abaúj-Torna was a Hungarian county, I feel that the article should be titled Abaúj-Torna and not Abov. It specifically states that it is a county of the former Kingdom of Hungary and it continues on to mention that Abov is only an informal designation of the current territory in Slovakia. Incidentally, this issue of naming pre-Trianon Hungarian counties in other languages does not occur with the counties now in Croatia or Romania, so I will be changing the Slovak titled ones back to Hungarian. If anyone wants to help out, feel free. --Hungarian83 07:33, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

I agree it's not very consistent now. There have been more discussions about this, for instance at Talk:List of historic counties of Hungary#Hungarian or Slovak/Romanian/Croatian names and Talk:Uzh county. See also Talk:Gdańsk and Province of Posen for how to deal with historic names. Before you put a lot of effort in moving, which someone else will revert, let's have a discussion. Some of the arguments I saw:
The territories of the counties are now in Slovakia, Romania etc. so their articles should have Slovak, Romanian etc. names.
The official language in the Kingdom was Hungarian or Latin (before 1867?), so the articles should have Hungarian names (or Latin?).
The inhabitants of the counties spoke mainly Slovak, Ukrainian, Romanian etc., so the articles should have Slovak, Romanian etc. names.
The articles are not only about the Kingdom of Hungary county, but also about the present region, so the articles should have Slovak, Romanian etc. names.
The county only had a Hungarian name, the Slovak, Romanian etc. names are just the names of the corresponding river, town etc., so the articles should have Hungarian names.
Abaúj-Torna is a special case, since Abov/Abaúj is only part of that county. I guess it should have its own article, at Abaúj-Torna or Abov-Turňa. Personally, I agree with moving the counties to Hungarian names. Maybe that means that the Slovak traditional regions should get separate articles. Markussep 09:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The official language in of the Kingdom of Hungary was NOT Hungarian until the 1860s (i.e. for some 900 years) - any other comment is not needed because the fact that the country was called the "Hungarian" kingdom does not imply that its official language was Hungarian. And as far as I remember those counties that are predominantly in Hungary now are in Hungarian. Also, the counties were largely not inhabited by Hungarians, continued to exist in Czechoslovakia and are now officially used as regions for tourism and similar purposes. The articles also clearly say what their Hungarian, German and Latin name was and mention all connections with Hungary. I do not see the least reason in changing the current state, besides what is called Hungarian nationalism even in such ridiculous things. Juro 16:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Independently of the current debate, legally speaking, Hungarian became the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1844. Adam78 17:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

But was replaced by German 4 years later...Juro 02:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

To be sure, if the articles in question were solely about the KoH county, I would be for naming them in Hungarian, but they aren't. On the other hand, it is OK that this article is naming them in Hungarian (when speaking of times after 1867), so thanks for that update.

This means that I'm against moving the pages. The cleanest solution would be to separate the info about the old county and the current region, but I for sure have insufficient time and enthusiasm to do that... KissL 07:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Juro, you'll have to admit that Slovak was never an official language of the kingdom. I can imagine you wouldn't accept the whole Liptov or Spiš article to be under the Hungarian name, I agree that would be silly. However, I would suggest to give Abaúj-Torna and Gömör-Kishont separate articles. Markussep 07:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the point is that Slovak, German etc. was as much/little the official language as Hungarian was - there is absolutely no difference. I understand that the fact that the country is called Hungary is misleading in this context. But in reality, each group, county etc. used it's own language and the official language - the esperanto - was Latin (later also German for some years). And note that the kings were Austrians (speaking German) since 1526. Other examples: Laws were issued ALSO in Slovak (Slovakized Czech) in the 15th century for example and there were even propositions on the part of Hungarian deputies to make Slovak the official language of the Kingdom in the 18th century, etc. etc. The most important point however is that the regions are alive in Slovakia and people/tourists live and visit Liptov (not Liptó, which after all is lingustically only a distortion of Liptov), which is 100% identical with the historical county and considers itself a continuation thereof - i.e. this is not the same case as with modern Romanian counties, for example. Abaúj and Torna can be under the Hungarian name of course (if they are not already), but not Gömor and Kishont, because they are among the still live terms and were predominently Slovak in history and are almost exclusively in modern Slovakia. Finally note that the user who initiated this discussion also tried to rename an island(!) in Slovakia into a Hungarian name in an article, so his true aim should be clear...Juro 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you must be referring to my modification in the article entitled "Komárom county". The article in which it says "was a historic administrative county (comitatus) of the Kingdom of Hungary". I should note that my addition of the island name "Csallóköz" is not something I made up. That is what it is called in Hungarian. I should also note that Komárom county had and still has a significant (I believe current majority) Hungarian population. Your comment "do you want me to rename islands in Hungary into Slovak names?" in the history section is quite irrelevant. I should note that I made my change in the Komárom county article (dealing with HUNGARY), and not the Komárno article (dealing with SLOVAKIA). I am only making changes to articles about HUNGARY. I am not going to go change the Slovak articles. There is no logic to that. What I find interesting though is that you totally deleted the Hungarian name of the island in the Hungarian article. One more comment: "so his true aim should be clear..." Really...what is that?--Hungarian83 19:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Interesting...I just checked the 2001 Census data from the website of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/english/census2001/tab/tab3a.htm). The district of Komárno has a total population of 108,556 and a Hungarian population of 74,976 (69.07%). --Hungarian83 19:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
You may be right, for the KoH before 1867. After that, the only official language was Hungarian, wasn't it? I've been in Liptov and Spiš, so I know it would be silly to rename them. Same probably for Gemer (I've seen several place names starting with Gemersk), but are you sure "Gemer-Malohont" is still in use now? I made a separate article Abaúj-Torna. Markussep 17:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course, but that are "40 years" as compared to "900 years or so before that + above all the last 100 years after that"...And it is not known as Gemer-Malohont, but as "Gemer" and as "Malohont"...Of course it is in use: for example, the government has special investment plans for "Gemer" (currently one of the poorest regions of Slovakia ) etc... Juro 01:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
51 years, and a lot closer to present than the 15th century. I totally agree that "Gemer" should stay where it is, but what I meant is whether the combination Gemer-Malohont is still in use or not. I guess not. Markussep 07:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes 50 of course...but 10th instead of the 15th century and the 20th century is closer to present than the late 19th century...Just to be precise.Juro 03:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've refrained from either renaming county articles for .hr or commenting on this issue because in their case it was pretty clear that the article spoke of the counties created in the 19th century, and I made it clear in their articles that they were part of the autonomous part of KoH rather than the whole (this makes it much cleaner than the Slovak and Romanian case). I didn't complain about the normalization of references to them here, because it doesn't make much difference either way. A case could be made for not using Hungarian if for example the Croatian counties were proclaimed by the Croatian ban, or if they had Croatian or other language names that were used instead of Hungarian, or if some similar legal ground exists for renaming them. I'm not aware of any at this time, so I'm not touching it. --Joy [shallot] 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My one true aim in the corrections I was doing was to create some consistency. To me it does not make sense to have most article titles in Hungarian and some of the article titles not in Hungarian, when they are solely about the county in the former Kingdom of Hungary. I should also note that I am completely for the idea of including the names of the counties/cities in both languages. This is especially the case if 1.) the predominant language or culture was not Hungarian, and 2.) the city is now located outside of Hungary. However, being that these are articles on Hungarian history, it is in my opinion that the Hungarian name be the first/primary name in the article (when dealing with counties/cities/districts, etc.). What astonishes me is that certain users are accusing me of doing this in the name of Hungarian nationalism. I feel this from comments in this discussion like, "I do not see the least reason in changing the current state, besides what is called Hungarian nationalism..." and "rename an island(!) in Slovakia into a Hungarian name in an article, so his true aim should be clear...". This is ridiculous. I first of all did not rename the island. 1.) Csallóköz is the Hungarian term; 2.) I made the change to the article "Komárom county" (article on historical Hungary) and not the article on "Žitný ostrov" (article on modern-day Slovakia); 3.) I simply added the term Csallóköz and kept the Slovak name of Žitný ostrov; 4.) The user who is accusing me of "renaming" the island, actually went on to delete the Hungarian name of the island from the article on the Hungarian county! (yet supposedly I am the one with an agenda!). I would assume that the term Csallóköz is actually used more by residents of that island than the Slovak term, being that the two Slovak districts that occupy most of the island are Dunajská Streda, and Komárno. Incidentally, these two districts have the highest proportion of Hungarians anywhere in Slovakia: Dunajská Streda (83% Hungarian), Komárno (69% Hungarian). These figures are from the 2001 Census from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, and I will gladly leave the link...again: http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/english/census2001/tab/tab3a.htm. Frankly, I am not going to spend much more time pursuing this since my aim is being blown out of proportion, and the logic of consistency is lost on this issue. --Hungarian83 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Regarding counties from former Croatia-Slavonia, I think that their names should be in Croatian. Croatia-Slavonia was autonomous within Kingdom of Hungary and Croatian language was official there + population there was mainly Croatian and Serbian and their territory is now in Croatia and Serbia. If the names of the counties from the territory of present-day Slovakia are in Slovak (and Slovakia was not autonomous like Croatia-Slavonia neither Slovak was official regional language like Croatian), then names of the counties of Croatia-Slavonia should be in Croatian. I propose these names for the articles: Varaždin (now Varasd), Križevci (now Belovár-Kőrös), Požega (now Pozsega), Virovitica (now Verőce), Srijem (now Szerém), Zagreb (now Zágráb), Modruš-Rijeka (now Modrus-Fiume), Lika-Krbava (already have this name). Srijem could be named Syrmia instead since the article about present-day Croatian county is named Vukovar-Syrmia, not Vukovar-Srijem. Opinions? PANONIAN (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lands belonging to the Hungarian crown (1000 -1918) ??

This is POV fork. Bonaparte talk 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's history. ;-) bogdan 17:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Your joke doesn't fit here Bogdan. Actually there are many periods of time when it wasn't like this. Just to remind you 1599-1601 :) and Transylvania was most of the autonomous. Bonaparte talk 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
So actually what I noticed here is that reading this one may believe that for 918 years Transylvania "belonged to the Hungarian crown". That's false. Even Hungary was under Turkish rule for many years meanwhile Transylvania wasn't. There were also the Habsburgic Empire, Austro-Hungary, and other forms of ruling... Bonaparte talk 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Most county articles have their own demographics section, so there is no reason that we writte demographics here too, especially not simplifistic one. We really would have a problem to choose which census year we will present here. It is well known that number of Hungarians in these counties much increased between 1715 and 1910, thus should we use here data from 1715 or from 1910? The proper manner would be to use for both years (and for all other years), but then this article would be too large. So, let just keep demographics in county articles, which are proper place for it. PANONIAN (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)