Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Random header
I stick to my former version because
- not only the nortwestern part of Transdanubia belonged to the Royal Hungary but all the western half of it (the historical counties of Zala, Vas, Sopron, Moson, Győr, Komárom, Veszprém)
- I do not know what you are talking about, any map you look at clearly shows that it was the northwestern part, not the western - unless you are considering Burgenland part of Transdanubia, but than the text has to be changed
- almost all the present Northern-Hungary region was part of Royal Hungary ie. Borsod, Abaúj, Zemplén, Heves, Nógrád counties + Szabolcs, Szatmár and Bereg
- it is very weird to use the very modern term "Northern Hungary" without any addition in this context and since this is so evident, I see this as a deliberate attempt of deception, actually
- the Royal Hungary had its own parliament, the Hungarian Diet and institutions, the Habsburg kings were elected by the Diet and they should take on oath on the constitution of the Kingdom of Hungary - this is more than enough to say that the Royal Hungary wasn't a province but a de iure independet kingdon in personal (and partly real) union with the Habsburg Monarchy. Zello 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- And what do you think the situation was say in Bohemia and other "provinces" (that's what the word is supposed to mean and it does not stem from me) of the Habsburg Empire??? Which other "provinces" do you think are meant by the sentence??? "Autonomy" is a wrong term, because it implies some "technical" arrangement. And, irrespective of this, the degree of "autonomy" (in your sense) was by far the lowest out of the "provinces" of the Empire, because the territory was very small and because it was in constant conflict with the Turks. Juro 08:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Bohemia had the same degree of independence until the Czech Uprising in 1620 when it was abolished. Hungary wasn't part of the "hereditary lands", and theoretically only the person of the King connected it to the provinces. Of course in the 16-17th centuries personal union always meant real union in some degree. Zello 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The point was: Bohemia, just like (I assume: any) other land ("province") of the monarchy had its own diet and its own authorities, even if some powers were repealed in 1627. What you are talking about are formalities of the royal title arrangement, the real situation is or rather should be what matters in retrospect. The Hungarian throne was de-facto also "hereditary" after 1526. Juro 01:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This is what the Habsburgs thought when they tried to put away the obligations of the Hungarian constitution. There were several attempt to do this but every time an uprising followed (Bocskai, Bethlen, Rákóczi György, Thököly, Rákóczi Ferenc) and they should accept the former status quo. This is really different than the fate of the other provinces that never resisted to the Absolutist intentions of the Habsburgs or they had a catastrophal defeat as the Czech Uprising. Of course the relative success of the Hungarians were mainly due to the help of the Transylvanian Princes in the 16-17th century. Zello 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This is correct, but technically this was not topic. The issue was not to what extent the individual parts of the monarchy resisted or tried to resist Habsburg centralism. Juro 00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Tired
I am tired of attacks by hungarian users on article about Croatian history. Because I do not want to play defensive any more, maybe is time to solve few questions about Hungarian history:
- Source is not saying:"Royal Hungary was the name of medieval Hungary "
- Revisionist statement:"Habsburgs were recognized as Kings of Hungary" When by Who ? From my history knowledge hungarian parliament has not elected Habsburgs, but only minority of nobles (rebels ?)
- "Emperors addressed their possession with the name of "Kingdom of Hungary" where is source ?
- "took an oath on the constitution of the Kingdom of Hungary at the coronation". Source please ?--Rjecina (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Type "Royal Hungary" in google and click on Britannica link. Habsburgs were always crowned as kings of Hungary and sometimes as Kings of Bohemia.
- Btw, there wasn't democracy at that time to elect a king as if to elect a government.--Bizso (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I miss here the important information on how the Habsburgs became hereditiary kings of Hungary (the compact concluded by old Vladislav Jagiello with the Habsburgs) and the refusal of Zapolya to respect this treaty. And that the death of Vladislav's only son Luis II virtually and legally transferred the country to the hands of the Habsburgs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.135.240.254 (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Time-frame
According to my sources (Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002), term "Royal Hungary" was used from 1538 to 1699. Which source claim that it was used from 1699 to 1867? PANONIAN 11:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Kingdom of Hungary (1538-1867)
We should expand this article to 1867 because Royal Hungary was only the first part for the era of Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, the second part of the Habsburg era lasted from 1699 to 1867. This expanded article is the missing link between Royal Hungary and Austria-Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I moved this page because, I had seen an admin(Dbachmann) tried to do something with this page and the aim was the same like mine.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
Merger proposal
I think page of History of Hungary (1700-1919) belongs to this article. We could read the entire interval from 1538 to 1867 in one article. I also suggested a 'split' there because of the period of 1867-1919.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to do the merging, however I am going to put the period of 1867-1919 to the page of Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, instead of page of Austria-Hungary (my earlier split proposal), because the text is specifically Hungarian theme.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- In this period, especialy till 1699 was not term "Kingdom of Hungary" in offcially usage. Territory of older "Kingdom of Hungary" was divided to Royal Hungary and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (later Principality of Transylvania). And it exists article about "History of Hungary during Ottoman administration". So I think it would be better to make separate article about Royal Hungary and rename this article to: "History of Hungary during Habsburg administration" or "Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary".. --Samofi (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Habsburg Hungarian kings were elected and crowned by the Hungarian nobles from 1526 to 1916. Royal Hungary was ruled by Habsburg Hungarian kings. Royal Hungary was an "official" kingdom and was not part of the Holy Roman Empire (nor Kingdom of Hungary in the 18th century). For instance, Royal Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary was ruled by Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor from 1655 until 1705. Leopold's title was also King of Hungary. There was no other kingdom before or after 1699 just only one (Kingdom of Hungary). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you and I think that Royal Hungary deserves own article. This article is about history of Hungary during Habsburg administration. Royal Hungary has special administration (Captaincies), special capital town, diet and so on. Its one from the sucessor entities to which the Medieval kingdom was divided (eastern HU kingdom, transylvania, royal hungary, budin eyalet, egri eyalet, principality of upper hungary and so on..). Almost each of these entities has an own article. --Samofi (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, Fakirbakir, I do not understand well your proposal. Do you suggest moving/merging some sections of the History of Hungary article here? What would happen to that article then? Should we replace the text with some brief summaries? And what do you mean by also suggesting a "split" there. In the History of Hungary article? Why should we split it? That article already has a section on the period 1867–1918. Apologies if I am a bit slow. :-) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Koertefa, This was an old proposal. The merge was done in last October. There was a page "History of Hungary (1700-1919)" and I did split that. Its first part -until 1867- merged into this article (and I also expanded the period of this page to 1867 , because previously the page covered only the term of "Royal Hungary", 1526 (1538) - 1699)) and its second part -from 1867 to 1919- merged into the page of Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen because I think it was more logical.
- Recently, I have only responded to User:Samofi's new suggestion, because he wants a separate article about Royal Hungary again. I think there was only one Habsburg Hungarian Kingdom from 1538 (1526) to 1867 (1918).
- This section (above) was my first idea before the merge. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ohh, I see, thanks. It seems that I am not just slow, but blind, as well. I did not notice that it was an old proposal, sorry. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, Fakirbakir, I do not understand well your proposal. Do you suggest moving/merging some sections of the History of Hungary article here? What would happen to that article then? Should we replace the text with some brief summaries? And what do you mean by also suggesting a "split" there. In the History of Hungary article? Why should we split it? That article already has a section on the period 1867–1918. Apologies if I am a bit slow. :-) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you and I think that Royal Hungary deserves own article. This article is about history of Hungary during Habsburg administration. Royal Hungary has special administration (Captaincies), special capital town, diet and so on. Its one from the sucessor entities to which the Medieval kingdom was divided (eastern HU kingdom, transylvania, royal hungary, budin eyalet, egri eyalet, principality of upper hungary and so on..). Almost each of these entities has an own article. --Samofi (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Habsburg Hungarian kings were elected and crowned by the Hungarian nobles from 1526 to 1916. Royal Hungary was ruled by Habsburg Hungarian kings. Royal Hungary was an "official" kingdom and was not part of the Holy Roman Empire (nor Kingdom of Hungary in the 18th century). For instance, Royal Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary was ruled by Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor from 1655 until 1705. Leopold's title was also King of Hungary. There was no other kingdom before or after 1699 just only one (Kingdom of Hungary). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- In this period, especialy till 1699 was not term "Kingdom of Hungary" in offcially usage. Territory of older "Kingdom of Hungary" was divided to Royal Hungary and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (later Principality of Transylvania). And it exists article about "History of Hungary during Ottoman administration". So I think it would be better to make separate article about Royal Hungary and rename this article to: "History of Hungary during Habsburg administration" or "Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary".. --Samofi (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Fakirbakir told: "I think there was only one Habsburg Hungarian Kingdom from 1538 (1526) to 1867 (1918)" any source about this? I agree with term Habsburg Hungarian Kingdom like a term covering history from 1538 (1526) to 1867 (1918). But I see the name of the article: "Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)" As I know medieval Kingdom of Hungary was divided to Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (later Translyvania) and to Royal Hungary. Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was not a Kingdom of Hungary? According to Erwin Fahlsbusch: realm was trippled to Ottoman region controlled by Turks, Habsburg region (so called Royal Hungary) and Eastern Hungary with Transylvania [1].--Samofi (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with Samofi. The period 1538-1570 is problematic, because the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary was competed by the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. I thing we should create an article named Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary or Royal Hungary that would cover a period including those years Bzg1920 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Iaaasi Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see the problem with the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, still I think that the title and the covered period of this article are fine, since Royal Hungary can be seen as the continuation of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary [2]. This article should, of course, mention and link the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom article, as well, and talk about the partitioning of the medieval kingdom (e.g., Battle of Mohács, Treaty of Nagyvárad). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- KœrteFa pls can you cite, what exactly is written in that book? I can cite books which talks about partition of medieval Kingdom of Hungary: Vera Zimányi calls this region "historical Hungary" what means region of "medieval Kingdom of Hungary after partition between Ottoman, Habsburg and Transylvanian rulers" [3]; Carina L. Johnson (Cambridge) "Hungary was further divided to Habsburg Hungary, Ottoman Hungary and Transylvania" [4]. Sources about loss of continuity: Levente Tattay "KoH was slowly restored only after reoccupation of Buda" [5]; [6] or that Transylvania has continuity with KoH [7] [8]. Hungary as "Habsburg region" [9] and so on. Royal Hungary is well established term for "kingdom" and this article covers "History of Hungary during Habsburg administration", there is no direct continuity with Medieval Kingdom. --Samofi (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not find any claim in your sources that would deny the continuity of Royal Hungary with respect to the medieval Kingdom of Hungary (KoH). None of us argued against the fact that the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (and later Transylvania) also had some continuity with KoH. Nobody denied that KoH was under Habsburg control in the period covered in the current article. The article that you cited about the "restoration" of the KoH only talks about the restoration of its state structure. And, of course, "Royal Hungary" is a well-established term. So what's the point of your references? Anyway, we can come back to the point of having a separate "Royal Hungary" article if someone (preferably without topic ban [10]), comes with strong arguments. So long and thanks for all the fish, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- If sources says that Kingdom was divided and only Transylvania retained a something like continuity? We have a lot of sources which says that Transylvania has continuity with KoH. So why its not mentioned in this article? Or why its not mentioned here Eastern Hungarian Kingdom? Kingdom was divided. Vera Zimányi calls this region "historical Hungary" not Kingdom of Hungary (1538-1867), its synthesis. Its no google.book search for this: [11]. I am topic banned from Slovak/Hungarian national and ethnic disputes. This is about terminology. Its 5 880 hits for "Royal Hungary" and term "Kingdom of Hungary" is used very rarely this period. Find a 5 sources which says that Royal Hungary has continuity with medieval Kingdom of Hungary. --Samofi (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not find any claim in your sources that would deny the continuity of Royal Hungary with respect to the medieval Kingdom of Hungary (KoH). None of us argued against the fact that the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (and later Transylvania) also had some continuity with KoH. Nobody denied that KoH was under Habsburg control in the period covered in the current article. The article that you cited about the "restoration" of the KoH only talks about the restoration of its state structure. And, of course, "Royal Hungary" is a well-established term. So what's the point of your references? Anyway, we can come back to the point of having a separate "Royal Hungary" article if someone (preferably without topic ban [10]), comes with strong arguments. So long and thanks for all the fish, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- KœrteFa pls can you cite, what exactly is written in that book? I can cite books which talks about partition of medieval Kingdom of Hungary: Vera Zimányi calls this region "historical Hungary" what means region of "medieval Kingdom of Hungary after partition between Ottoman, Habsburg and Transylvanian rulers" [3]; Carina L. Johnson (Cambridge) "Hungary was further divided to Habsburg Hungary, Ottoman Hungary and Transylvania" [4]. Sources about loss of continuity: Levente Tattay "KoH was slowly restored only after reoccupation of Buda" [5]; [6] or that Transylvania has continuity with KoH [7] [8]. Hungary as "Habsburg region" [9] and so on. Royal Hungary is well established term for "kingdom" and this article covers "History of Hungary during Habsburg administration", there is no direct continuity with Medieval Kingdom. --Samofi (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see the problem with the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, still I think that the title and the covered period of this article are fine, since Royal Hungary can be seen as the continuation of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary [2]. This article should, of course, mention and link the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom article, as well, and talk about the partitioning of the medieval kingdom (e.g., Battle of Mohács, Treaty of Nagyvárad). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Successor(s)
Why are both of Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen and Austria-Hungary mentioned as successor entities in the infobox? It is kind of redundant, because the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen were a part of Austria-Hungary Bzg1920 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- In my oppinion Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen were successor of the Habsburg realm Habsburg Hungarian Kingdom, in the same time these Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen made a dual monarchy with Austrian empire so they became equal with Cisleithania in newly formed Austria-Hungary.--Samofi (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Synthesis, problems with continuity of medieval Kingdom
Article deals with "History of Hungary under Habsburg administration". Official name of "historical Hungary" (Vera Zimányi) in 1538-1699 was Royal Hungary and not Kingdom of Hungary. Its continiuity COULD preserve or continuity was "SYMBOLIC" as sources says. De facto it was domain of Habsburgs [12] p. 66. and real name almost for a whole period was Royal Hungary with capital city Pressburg. --Samofi (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Were there Habsburgs kings in Royal Hungary? Answer, Yes. Were there legal continuity? Answer yes. It COULD preserve its legal continuity.[13] So, What is the problem with continuity?? There were elected and crowned kings. Were there coronation ceremonies? Answer, yes. Maybe it was symbolic, however the country was not part of the Holy Roman Empire! It was a separate kingdom under the control of the Habsburg kings.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- There was no difference between Royal Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary after or before 1699. The legal system and the government were the same. The territory of Hungary got bigger, the Kingdom of Hungary ruled by the Habsburg kings got bigger. That is all. Pressburg was the capital from 1536 to 1783.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Habsburg Kingdom alias Royal Hungary was one of the successor states of the medieval Kingdom the same as Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (the latter Principality of Transylvania).Fakirbakir (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- See page of Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), it is very similar to this article in connection with the period. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- So why the official name was Royal Hungary? Answer: because Kingom of Hungary was divided to Eastern Hungarian kingdom, Ottoman empire and Royal Hungary (Habsburg empire).[14] Find academical sources wich call this era (1538-1867) with term "Kingdom of Hungary (1538-1867)". The name of the article is misleading. Do you know what COULD means? COULD is "used with hypothetical or conditional force" [15]. So maybe "hypoteticaly" there was continuity and maybe not. Maybe it was only symbolic continuity and maybe no. But its POV. Fact is, that regular name was Royal Hungary. "Königliches Ungarn" is Hungary belonging to king (Royal Hungary). "Königreich Ungarn" means Hungarian kingdom or Kingdom of Hungary. About Croatia, official name was "Königreich Kroatien" - Kingdom of Croatia. Continuity was broken. So we can make 2 articles about Royal Hungary (1538-1699) and about Kingdom of Hungary (1699-1867). --Samofi (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have just found a source what states that the title "kingdom of Hungary" was also used in that era. I inserted that into the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The sentence "It could preserve its legal continuity" is not conditional in this case. It refers to past tense...... (Past tense of can).....Fakirbakir (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay but source says: "The Royal Hungary could preserve its legal continuity only on a small area." Its legal continuity of Royal Hungary and not continuity with Hungarian medieval kingdom. Past tense of "can" change nothing. If there would be written "The Royal Hungary preserved its legal continuity only on a small area." It will be fact. But word "can" make an assumption from this. Also its different to say "Royal Hungary" = "King´s Hungary" (territory belonging to king [16]) and "Kingdom of Hungary" (political unit - Kingdom). Royal power is symbolized by the crown but it does not necessary have to be a kingdom. It was territory under the royal power symbolized by crown (crown of saint stephen). --Samofi (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I can not follow you. "It could preserve" means "It was able to preserve". It is not assumption. They (the Hungarian nobles) defended the Hungarian interests (laws, legal system etc). When the Habsburgs started to disregard them (the laws, legal system etc) they usually met with serious resistance (Thököly Uprising, Kuruc Wars, Bocskay uprising, 1848 etc..) thus, the Habsburgs always had to withdraw their antagonistic regulations. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and they (nobles) were Transylvanian princes - Transylvanian nobility. Btw 1848 has nothing to do with Royal Hungary. Royal Hungary was Habsburg province with no continuity to medieval KoH. --Samofi (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting weird. Please, do not waste our time if you do not know what you are talking about. Can you provide at least one scholarly source which claims that there was no continuity between the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Hungary under Habsburg control? We already provided sources which claim that there was an obvious continuity, since one of them explicitly states: "It could preserve its legal continuity" [17]. Please, come back after you have read some history books and have a strong argument backed up by sources. Otherwise, I do not see the point of this discussion. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- This was ad hominem personal attack and it was reported. Source say: "Royal Hungary could preserve its legal continuity" ROYAL HUNGARY. There is nothing about continuity with medieval KoH. Its about symbolic legal continuity of Royal Hungary and I agree with this. On the other hand we have a sources which says that "Transylvania has a direct continuity with medieval KoH". You have no arguments so you are attacking, its scruffiness.. --Samofi (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting weird. Please, do not waste our time if you do not know what you are talking about. Can you provide at least one scholarly source which claims that there was no continuity between the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Hungary under Habsburg control? We already provided sources which claim that there was an obvious continuity, since one of them explicitly states: "It could preserve its legal continuity" [17]. Please, come back after you have read some history books and have a strong argument backed up by sources. Otherwise, I do not see the point of this discussion. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay but source says: "The Royal Hungary could preserve its legal continuity only on a small area." Its legal continuity of Royal Hungary and not continuity with Hungarian medieval kingdom. Past tense of "can" change nothing. If there would be written "The Royal Hungary preserved its legal continuity only on a small area." It will be fact. But word "can" make an assumption from this. Also its different to say "Royal Hungary" = "King´s Hungary" (territory belonging to king [16]) and "Kingdom of Hungary" (political unit - Kingdom). Royal power is symbolized by the crown but it does not necessary have to be a kingdom. It was territory under the royal power symbolized by crown (crown of saint stephen). --Samofi (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- So why the official name was Royal Hungary? Answer: because Kingom of Hungary was divided to Eastern Hungarian kingdom, Ottoman empire and Royal Hungary (Habsburg empire).[14] Find academical sources wich call this era (1538-1867) with term "Kingdom of Hungary (1538-1867)". The name of the article is misleading. Do you know what COULD means? COULD is "used with hypothetical or conditional force" [15]. So maybe "hypoteticaly" there was continuity and maybe not. Maybe it was only symbolic continuity and maybe no. But its POV. Fact is, that regular name was Royal Hungary. "Königliches Ungarn" is Hungary belonging to king (Royal Hungary). "Königreich Ungarn" means Hungarian kingdom or Kingdom of Hungary. About Croatia, official name was "Königreich Kroatien" - Kingdom of Croatia. Continuity was broken. So we can make 2 articles about Royal Hungary (1538-1699) and about Kingdom of Hungary (1699-1867). --Samofi (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I totally agree with Koertefa. You should be ashamed for that report. Bzg1920 (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Iaaasi Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bzg1920, much appreciated. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
1538 vs 1540
According to this source[18], there was only one country ruled by 2 crowned kings until John I's death (1540). We know about the secret agreement of Nagyvárad in 1538 where they divided the country and Zápolya was recognized as King of Hungary, while Ferdinand was recognized as heir to the Hungarian throne. "Officially" there was only one kingdom until 1540? Shall we re-name the article as "Kingdom of Hungary (1540-1867)"? Whether it means that the medieval kingdom was ceased in 1540 "officially"? In this case we should rename and correct pages of medieval Hungarian Kingdom and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom as well. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:If I understand correctly, it was something similar to the Korean War. The conflict was interrupted for 2 years (1538-1540), from the Nagyvarad / Grosswardein accord to the election of John II as King, but was resumed (1540-1570).
PS Is this article: Hungarian campaign of 1527–1528 useful or it should be merged / deleted? Bzg1920 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Iaaasi Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)- [Updated Comment]: I think that we can indeed draw a parallel between the Koeran War (and the two Koreas) and the conflict between the two kings of Hungary (and later the two Hungarian kingdoms) in the 16th century. This latter was also a civil war [19] that resulted in splitting a country. Tough the two resulting countries both had continuity with the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, but after the Treaty of Speyer [20][21], only the Habsburg king was acknowledged as the king of Hungary. Because of this and since the Habsburg part of the Kingdom of Hungary could keep its original legal traditions, it is justified that this article focuses on the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary. As for the "Hungarian campaign of 1527–1528" article, in my opinion, it should be merged to the "Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages" article. It should simply be a section of that article. It can be briefly summarized in this article, as well, in the history section. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Shouldn't we retitle the article to Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary redirects here, and the Habsburg rule over Royal Hungary started in 1526. The kingship dispute started in 1526 when Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor was proclaimed king too Bzg1920 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC). This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Iaaasi Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- The current starting period is 1538 because of the Treaty of Nagyvárad [22], but you have a valid point that Ferdinand was already elected as the king of Hungary by (some of) the nobles in 1526 [23]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::I know that the year refers to the T. of Varad. However I don't know very clearly which was the status of Royal Hungary according to that treaty. Was it considered an integral part of the unitary KoHu and only under the administration of Ferdinand until the death of Zapolya? If so, there was no EHK between 1538 and 1540, but only a single Kingdom with the western part administrated by the Habsburgs. Bzg1920 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Iaaasi Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is an interesting question indeed and I admit that I do not know the precise answer. As I understand, Habsburg Ferdinand did not abdicate from the title "king of Hungary" (any reference that he did?) in 1538, but he and Zápolya agreed about the succession [24] and "the two kings formally recognized their territorial rights" [25]. This would also mean that 1538 should be given as the establishment date of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- There were two rival rulers, two coronations, however nobody questioned the integrity of the medieval kingdom and its rightful boundaries until 1538. The treaty of Nagyvárad was the first treaty where the rivals determinded new boundaries. We can not talk about 2 kingdoms "legally" before 1538 in my opinion. (And actually Zápolya had bigger support among the nobles, the Habsburgs were lucky enough to keep the western counties)Fakirbakir (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Another thing. Habsburg kingdom of Hungary continued the Hungarian legal traditions, however Hungarian historiography assumes that the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and the latter Principality of Transylvania also preserved the legal continuity. All traditional Hungarian law continued to be followed scrupulously within the principality's borders[26], moreover Zápolya's state was protestant!Fakirbakir (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is an interesting question indeed and I admit that I do not know the precise answer. As I understand, Habsburg Ferdinand did not abdicate from the title "king of Hungary" (any reference that he did?) in 1538, but he and Zápolya agreed about the succession [24] and "the two kings formally recognized their territorial rights" [25]. This would also mean that 1538 should be given as the establishment date of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::If the split and the creation of two kingdoms was ratified in 1538, which was the designation of the western Kingdom? Sources say Ferdinand recognized John "as king of Hungary", not "as king of Eastern Hungary". Which was the title by which Ferdinand ruled his part? I doubt that the was called King of Hungary too and that they agreed that both are Kings of Hungary Bzg1920 (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Iaaasi Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- This source [27] claims that: "Each recognized the other as king of Hungary". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::OK, but if we consider this criterion (the birth year of the EHK is determined by its recognition by the Habsburg side), we should consider that it lasted for only 2 years (1538-1540), because after the coronation of John II it was not recognized anymore Bzg1920 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Iaaasi Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was. No consensus to move. Lynch7 18:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) → Kingdom of Hungary (Habsburg) – Reason -> the consistency with Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). It's clear and recognizable, finely disambiguated. Jaro88slav (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The Habsburgs were kings of Hungary both before and after 1867, or am I missing something? In fact, Hungary was more of a kingdom post-1867 since this is when separate parliaments and so forth were created. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good remark! There exists the page Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary (some kind of disambigation). What do you say about the title Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)? Jaro88slav (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the current title ("Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)") is perfect and adding the term "Habsburg" would be superfluous. With that logic we could create an article called "Árpád Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)". The current title is concise and right to the point. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with Koertefa. In this case we should deal with Árpád Kingdom of Hungary or Anjou Kingdom of Hungary (1308-1382) or Luxembourg Kingdom of Hungary (1382-1437) etc. in separate articles. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the current title ("Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)") is perfect and adding the term "Habsburg" would be superfluous. With that logic we could create an article called "Árpád Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)". The current title is concise and right to the point. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good remark! There exists the page Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary (some kind of disambigation). What do you say about the title Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)? Jaro88slav (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Koertefa. The current title is right to the point. Also in the lead it is mentioned the Habsburg Monarchy. Adrian (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1538
Is there any reliable source stating that 1538 was a turning point in the history of the kingdom? The peace of Nagyvárad was concluded in this year, however, it did not change either the de facto situation (the kingdom had been divided into two parts since 1526) or the de iure position (the kingdom was deemed to be one state). The peace even confirmed the idea of the unity of the kingdom by stating that even the lands ruled de facto by John Szapolyai would be inherited by his opponent, Ferdinánd I. The turning point is 1541, the fall of Buda to the Ottomans, when the medieval kingdom was divided into three parts. For further details, I refer, for instance, to László Kontler: Millenium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary (Atlantisz Publishing House, 1999, ISBN 963-9165-37-9) pp. 139-142. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I am very unsure how we could handle these "de facto"/"de iure" positions. My concern is we can not demonstrate the exact territorial division between 1526 and 1538 (there was no division, I can imagine if there was a map about supporters of John I and Ferdinand before 1538 in Kingdom of Hungary that would look like a jigsaw puzzle), and the nobility thought this king/antiking situation was just a temporary problem. We can draw "borders" after 1538 but even if the country was partitioned into three parts in 1541 the "de iure" position lasted until 1699 when the "old" borders of Kingdom of Hungary were re-established in my opinion. However I can agree in the reality the turning point was 1541 when the Turks seized the actual power relations. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The period 1526 - 1541 is a period of civil war [28]. 1538 is just the year of Varad acord, when the de facto division that started in 1526 was officialized (the agreement lasted for only 2 years). I support the title Kingdom of Hungary (1541–1867). Probably the article Hungarian Civil War should treat the 1526-1541 period 79.117.206.105 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The idea of a separate article on the civil war lasting from 1526 to 1538 is not the best idea, because its content could be the a version of the articles on the two kings, Ferdinánd I and János Szapolyai. Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The period 1526 - 1541 is a period of civil war [28]. 1538 is just the year of Varad acord, when the de facto division that started in 1526 was officialized (the agreement lasted for only 2 years). I support the title Kingdom of Hungary (1541–1867). Probably the article Hungarian Civil War should treat the 1526-1541 period 79.117.206.105 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Why till 1867?
The more I am thinking of the issue, the more I am convinced that the article should be splitted into at least three parts: Royal Hungary (1541-1699), Kingdom of Hungary (1699-1848) and Kingdom of Hungary within the Austrian Empire (1849-1867). Moreover I could imagine a further split (instead of Kingdom of Hungary (1699-1848): Kingdom of Hungary (1699-1790) and Kingdom of Hungary (1790-1848). I think the mentioned periods significantly differ from each other. Between 1541 and 1699 the kingdom was a slim borderland, but its nobility could easily maintain its special status with external assistance. From 1699 to 1790 the kingdom which had regained a number of its medieval territories was a peaceful realm of the Habsburgs where only Rákóczi's uprising (at the beginning) and Joseph II's reforms (in the last years) caused conflicts. The period between 1790 and 1848 is characterized by the emergence of Croatian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovakian national consciousness. Finally, between 1849 and 1867 the kingdom was fully integrated into the Austrian Empire. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your idea does make sense. The reason why I created (more accurately "extended") page of Kingdom of Hungary (1538-1867) was that there was a gap (circa 168 years) between page of Royal Hungary and and page of Austria-Hungary. We had a page "History of Hungary 1700 – 1919" but its time scale was quite inappropriate in my opinion. I did split it and merged its parts into the appropriate sections of the existing articles. My only concern is we already have lots of article about Kingdom of Hungary. Moreover, the main page of Kingdom of Hungary is a fork, perhaps we should reduce its size drastically. We do have two pages about Austria-Hungary (Austria-Hungary and page of Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. Actually we had had three pages about it but I merged Transleithania into page of Land of the Crown....). So I support to create those new articles, but we should do something with the old articles as well. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think this article could be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am not against it if you have time to reorganize its theme into new articles. But that is an awful lot of work.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am not entirely sure that we should split the article into many little ones. What is the problem with having the periods that you have mentioned discussed in separate sections of this single article? Why would it be important for these periods to have their own articles? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am not against it if you have time to reorganize its theme into new articles. But that is an awful lot of work.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think this article could be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)