Talk:Kingdom of Hungary

Croatia was only in Personal Union with Hungary

I don't know how you people can say it was part of Hungary when a document named Pacta Conventa, made by king of Hungary, says that it was personal union...You can read it also - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Pacta_Conventa_(Croatia).jpg - Part od the textgoes : How and wich agreement Croats surrendered to the King of Hungary!--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Languages in the infobox

Can someone explain under which criterion are the languages mentioned? Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the facts, Kingdom of Croatia and K. of Slavonia, initially also K. of Dalmatia were part of the lands of the holy crown of st. Stephen. In the Croatian parliament there was Croatian spoken if I am not kidding. Besides, all the documents pertaining to the Croatian crown and land were written in Croatian. Why is Croatian language omitted? There are more reasons to put Croatian and remove German if someone doesn't like seeing four spoken languages for what ever reason that be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer of Habsburg (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Province vs Kingdom of Croatia and other issues

I am drawing raeders attention to the following. In legal science in the sphere of unitary or centralised states (what Kingdom of Hungary was, plus being a monarchy (proof on its own)) provinces are subordinated to the central government. That means that the center of the country or power can create or abolish them. This was not the case in the case of Kingdom of Croatia. Another instance is that official name of Croatia was Kingdom. It was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary but part of the Lands of the holy crown (what is the full and proper name of the entity shown on the map). This is easy to see e.g. in the censuses done in the Kingdom of Hungary where Kingdom of Croatia was not included. In the case of "province" it would have been done. But K. of C. hat its own legislation regulating census and its financing (like many other laws) independently of the other kingdoms that were subject to the same king. I really don't see reasons for naming this article K. of H. and including K. of C. in it. In all the documents ever issued by the King, in any language (be it Croatian, Latin or Hungarian, the term province was not used even once. So much about trustworthiness of the article. I believe this written here some may not like, but being encyclopedic >we have to reffer to proper sources (plenty of official ones from the time of both kingdoms) and not some vague web-sites and ideologicaly driven books. I also suggest to rename the article to the Lands of the holy crown and to create a new article about the kingdom of Hungary (proper if you like). The name of the teritory shown in the map was never Kingdom of Hungary >this is way out of misleading and falsificating. Even the article itself states thet Kingdom of Hungary was not the name of what is discussed, so the article title should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer of Habsburg (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuous independence?

I find it odd that this article states that the Kingdom of Hungary existed from 1000-1946. I don't know what consensus was reached on this matter here, but I think we need to make a difference between the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and the 20th century state, since they were far from the same. IMO it'd be best to have the the article say that the medieval kingdom exists from 1000 to 1541, where the arrowlinks point to Royal Hungary, Ottoman Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania rather than having them point directly to the Hungarian Democratic Republic. The point is here that this article makes it seem like the Kingdom of Hungary existed continuously from its creation till the foundation of the republic, when it was partitioned between two/three states. That's as if one would completely ignore say, the Partition of Poland, and claim it to exist from 1386 to 1918.

My point is, the article should be split between an article about the medieval kingdom and one about the 20th century state. Nederbörd (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how good your English is, but there seems to be a contradiction in what you are writing, existence is not the same as independence. For example certainly the city of Paris exists and yet it is not independent from France, so it's not a contradiction at all to state that something existed in a certain period even if there was no complete and full independence during all of the period. Take another French example did the country of France exist in 1939, yes and also in 1940 as well even though it was not independent at the time the country still existed the exact circumstances are well explained in the article body. Such as here with the Kingdom of Hungary (unofficially called Royal Hungary during that time) and their relationship to the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom(later renamed principality of Transylvania) and Ottoman Hungary (occupied) was complex. So in this period there were 2 kingdoms one in the east one in the west (so the situation is similar to east-west Germany and not the partition of Poland) and one area ottoman occupied. But this can best be explained if you look at the King of Hungary. There was always a King or regent of Hungary while the Kingdom of Hungary existed in the past. The King sometimes ruled over bigger territories, sometimes smaller as was the case with every other state. During the period you mentioned he only ruled parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as the rest was occupied / split. So yes there was a period where Kingdom of Hungary was unofficially called Royal Hungary but still the form of Government remained the same: Monarchy. Hobartimus (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

rename page

For reader's usability and scientific reasons, I think this article should be renamed Kingdom of Hungary (terminology), and include an overall presentation of the historical use of the term "Kingdom of Hungary": the medieval kingdom, the Habsburg one, the one part of the dual-monarchy and, finally, the interbellum one (I am thinking of something in the lines of Macedonia (terminology)...). Please present your views on this initiative, and vote. Thank you. 85.122.25.226 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as initiator. 85.122.25.226 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose apart from being an obvious sock, well versed in wikipedia editing code and such, on first edits, (but thanks for revealing one of the IPs that you use this will be very useful for later), your hoax articles that you were trying to "create" by simply copying content from elsewhere were already deleted such as Kingdom of Hungary (medieval). Besides this "proposal" cannot even be proposed as a rename, because it would fundamentally alter and thus delete the whole content of this article, this can only be achieved at Afd. So no it won't happen as a "rename". Hobartimus (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Neither of these two nor others[citation needed] were able to create a lasting state in the region until the freshly unified Hungarians led by Árpád settled in the Carpathian Basin"

The above is not true. I tried to fix the error myself but obviously I did something wrong as my fix was deleted by an editor, probably. What I did was expanding the invalid part of the article as follows:

The Hungarians led by Árpád started to settle in the Carpathian Basin in 895 after their move towards Western Europe was stopped by Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor in Battle of Lechfeld. In the Carpathian Basin the Hungarians conquered an existing Slavonic state of Great Moravia weakened after the death of king Svatopluk I. Parts of Great Moravia kept a certain level of independence but were gradually incorporated into the Hungarian state. This helped the cultural exchange and the settlement of previously nomadic Hungarian tribes.

Please note that the above is not my opinion but historic facts supported also by Wiki articles on Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, Battle of Lechfeld, Great Moravia and Svatopluk I. I am opened to suggestions, but even if there were objections to the wording of my correction it is still much more accurate than the misleading current information "Neither of these two nor others[citation needed] were able to create a lasting state in the region until the freshly unified Hungarians led by Árpád settled in the Carpathian Basin"

Thank you in advance

Here is the text in Wiki format: "The Hungarians led by Árpád started to settle in the Carpathian Basin in 895 after their move towards Western Europe was stopped by Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor in Battle of Lechfeld. In the Carpathian Basin the Hungarians conquered an existing Slavonic state of Great Moravia weakened after the death of king Svatopluk I. Parts of Great Moravia kept a certain level of independence but were gradually incorporated into the Hungarian state. This helped the cultural exchange and the settlement of previously nomadic Hungarian tribes. The force led by Árpád is estimated at about 400,000 people, consisting of seven Hungarian tribes, one Kabar tribe, and other smaller tribes."

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Declined Consensus is against the move. Hatnotes have been applied to disambiguate the two pages. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Hungary → Kingdom of Hungary (896–1918) — There already exists a similar article named Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), so this article could treat only the pre-WWI Kingdom. It is a little strange that the second Kingdom (1920–1946) has it own page, while the one which existed continuously for more than 1000 years (896–1918) does not. This naming method is also used for:

• the French empire: French Empire (1804–1815) & French Empire (1852–1870)
• the Kingdom of Italy: Kingdom of Italy (medieval), Kingdom of Italy (medieval) and Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)

(Iaaasi (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose as nonsense. Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) was created much later as this article as such cannot be used as an argument for move. This is the main article since 2004 and will remain so unless wikipedia gets into the habit of destroying main articles of topics for example moving Romania to Romania (1989-present). As such, this is not a valid move request. Hobartimus (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support An extra reason: in the current form, it is difficult to specify the succesor states of the Kingdom in the infobox. At this moment the article treats the K. of Hun, between 1000-1946 (the both periods of existence: 1000-1918 and 1920-1946 - also known as the Regency) so it is anachronistic to present the Hungarian Democratic Republic (1918-1919) as the succesor state. The comparison with Romania (1989-present) is not appropriate, because, unlike it, Kingdom of Hungary is a former country.(Iaaasi (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
• Comment This is not a valid request. What it is is a deletion request for this article and creation of a different one. You are free to nominate for Afd if you feel that the article needs to be deleted. But it is simply not possible to delete articles like this 7 years after creation outside of Afd. Your canvassing is also noted and will be discussed at the appropriate venue. For example notifying users who never in their life edited the article in question. Based on what? Very interesting. Hobartimus (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: To keep this article, where to keep sections 1, 3, and other general information and to create a separate article named Kingdom of Hungary (896–1918) that would contain the subsections 2.1, 2.2,... 2.8 of this article (Iaaasi (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose both What the heck?! First you propose a rename, then something completely different to split the article?! I'm sorry but I can't agree with this for two reasons: your second proposal breaks the KISS principle (makes the article even harder to manage than it already is) and due to the fact that even your first proposal is nonsense. You see from Hungary as a state's point of view there hasn't been any change in the form of government up until 1918, or only temporary (e.g. in 1848). Therefore there's no need to create separate categories for it as in case of France. Also, if KoH's mentioned, everyone thinks of the state before 1918, even Slovak editors........ Italy's not a good example either, because it didn't exist until 1861, while nobody has questioned Hungary's existence ever since 896. CoolKoon (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, I fully agree with CoolKoon and with Hobartimus.--Nmate (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above comments.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per arguments presented by Hobartimus and CoolKoon. Adrian (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per arguments presented by Hobartimus and CoolKoon. Just to precise the time-frame: 1000-1946. The form of the Hungarian, Kingdom of Hungary, was over the centuries continuously traced back to Stephen I snd its continuity was not broought in question. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ahem, there isn't even an incoming redirect here from the requested new title. This article seems to be the primary topic for the title, so a simple disambiguation hatnote might be what's really wanted here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Joy, you are completely and totally right. :))) oppose this move, we dont need that wast redirect process in vain. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

My recent edits

I create this thread because I am interested in the objections of User:Hobartimus and User:Nmate regarding these edits:

• What is wrong about adding the Today part of section? It exists also in other articles (e.g. Austrian Empire, German Empire)
• The article is about the Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1918 and 1920-1946), but the Hungarian Democratic Republic (1918-1919), the heir of the first Kingdom (1000-1918) is presented as a successor state (somehow anachronistic). And even leaving this aside (supposing that is not wrong), why shouldn't we include Greater Romania, First Republic of Czechoslovakia, West Ukrainian People's Republic and State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as successors too? (Iaaasi (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

So is this the reason you want to rename the whole article? CoolKoon (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason is that as long as we have an article about Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), this article could treat only the pre-WWI Kingdom (Iaaasi (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Well, there are numerous other sub-articles about the individual eras of the history of KoH. What I'd suggest instead is merging the article of Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) with Hungary between the two world wars, since they both deal with essentially the same period (or maybe merge the latter with the first along with the other related articles of that time). CoolKoon (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that, but the issue about the successor states remains (Iaaasi (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

The article is titled 'Kingdom of Hungary'. It has also existed in 1920-1946, so the article should cover that period too. I support the merge. As for the successor states, I think only Hungary considers itself the successor state (or rather the same country with a different form of government), for example with all the previous symbols (coat of arms, flag, anthem) etc. Qorilla (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I thnik you confuse two notions: heir and successor. For example:

- the heir of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but he successors are the all the countries listed here: [1]

- the heir First French Empire is Kingdom of France (1814–1830), but the successors are the ones listed here: [2]

- the heir Kingdom of Romania is Communist Romania, but the successors are the one listed here, in the infobox (Bulgaria, Ukrainian SSR etc): [3] (Iaaasi (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)) (Iaaasi (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Truth be told, the notion itself is quite ambiguous in case of Czechoslovakia as well, because the flag, coat of arms and the anthems were the only things which weren't reused from Austria-Hungary. Otherwise everything else was a direct copy of the former A-H items: the currency (the "crown" - koruna in Czech/Slovak, korona in Hungarian and kronen in German), the constitution (minus the part about the monarchy), the civil law, the educational system (the way grades are given, the way universities work etc.), hell even the MEPs (the Czech MEPs of the new Czechoslovakian parliament were mostly members of the Austrian Federal Assembly in A-H, while the Slovak MEPs were msotly members of the Hungarian State Assembly before Trianon). Ironically enough Slovakia has up to this day retained more of these things than Hungary itself (who has adopted the pengő as its currency, due to the Hungarian korona becoming worthless due to war loss; they've exchanged the A-H grading system in schools for the Soviet system during the communist rule due to Rákosi's sovietophilia and also adopted a LOT of idiocies from the soviets in the laws as well), even to the extent of Austrian German loanwords (Hungarians in Hungary have almost eliminated them, while in Slovakia some of these words still thrive amongst not only the Slovaks, but the Hungarian minority as well e.g. stekker - wall socket, faktúra - invoice, alapiskola - grade school, luszter - chandelier, batri - battery, hózentrógli - suspenders etc.). So if it weren't for the Slovaks' "in-bred" hatred towards anything that they think is connected to Hungarians, it won't be obvious that who the successor state is at all. CoolKoon (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If we talk about K of Hun (1000-1946) (with an interruption between 1918-1920), the correct successor is Second Hungarian Republic (Iaaasi (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Merge between Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) and Hungary between the World Wars

User:Dbachmann tagged the latter for merge on september 6, 2008: [4]. I have notified WikiProject Hungary and Former Countries. Please discuss here. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Split

There is far too much content overlap with the general History of Hungary article here. The term "kingdom of Hungary" can refer to at least three entities, Kingdom of Hungary (medieval), Kingdom of Hungary (modern), and Habsburg-ruled Hungary 1711-1867 and/or 1867-1918.

The Hungarian history articles are generally not well-kept, they are not terrible, but they are kind of falling apart. This tendency is re-inforced by a poor choice of article scopes. The main History of Hungary article has the following h2 sections:

1. Early history (main articles: Hungarian prehistory and Pannonian basin before the Hungarians)
2. Middle Ages (895–1526) (main article: Kingdom of Hungary (medieval))
3. Early modern age (1526–1700) (main articles (two independent entities): Royal Hungary and Ottoman Hungary)
4. Modern and contemporary age (1700–1919) (main article: History of Hungary 1700–1919)
5. Interbellum and WWII (1918–1946) (unfortunately, two main articles with overlapping scopes: Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) and Hungary between the World Wars)
6. Communist period (1946-1989) (main article: People's Republic of Hungary)
7. after 1989

ouf of these seven, the current "Kingdom of Hungary" article is coterminous with four out of these seven (nrs. 2-5). This is basically {{duplication}} of scope.

Kingdom of Hungary currently has an intermediate position between the main History of Hungary article and at least six {{main}} WP:SS sub-articles linked from there. This is not a good solution in the long run, as also indicated by the comparatively poor state of these articles. The more partial scope overlaps between articles you creat, the poorer the maintenance of the individual articles is going to be, because bona fide effort of contributors will be diluted. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kingdom of Hungary was lasted from 1000 to 1946. This state never ceased during the centuries. There are other questions whether when it was entirely independent or had sub-entity status. We can only talk about one Kingdom of Hungary in essence. The quality of the pages or quality of the edits are other issues.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I need to correct myself. There were nearly 2 years (1918-1919) when the situation was obscure and we can not use the title of Kingdom of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, for start. An almost accurate assessment of the evolution of the term "Kingdom of Hungary". It would still require an article for "KoH (Habsburg province)" (cf. Habsburg Croatia). 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• So, Should we take apart the page of Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) because it was a Hungarian "province" after 1102(1091) according to your set of mind?Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fakirbakir, please let us clean this up, ok? You will have enough opportunities to insert grandiose statements into the article once the cfork problem has been fixed. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Confused

The intro to this topic, refffed by various discussions, assumes it is a DAB page. It is not, but the lead suggests it. I was tempted and am still tempted to cut all other content to make it a DAB, just to rouse other contributors' interest, but that would be harmful. Can we not make the lead look so much like a Dab? Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

see above. This page is a blatant WP:CFORK, but some people refuse to let us fix it due to patriotic (to say the least) sentiment of the type of Kingdom of Hungary was lasted from 1000 to 1946. This state never ceased during the centuries.

This page should probably not become a disambiguation page, but just a redirect to history of Hungary, as it basically covers 90% of the history of Hungary, viz.

2 Middle Ages (895–1526) 
 2.1 The Patrimonial Kingdom
 2.2 Mongol attacks
 2.3 Age of elected Kings
 2.4 Age of early absolutism
 2.5 Decline (1490–1526)
3 Early modern age (1526–1700) 
 3.1 Ethnic aftermath of Ottoman wars
4 Modern and contemporary age (1700–1919) 
 4.1 The Period of Reforms (1825–1848)
 4.2 Revolution, and War of Independence
 4.3 Austria–Hungary (1867–1918)
 4.4 World War I
5 Between the two world wars (1918–1941)
 5.1 Hungarian Democratic Republic
 5.2 Hungarian Soviet Republic ("Republic of the Councils")
 5.3 Counterrevolution
 5.4 Trianon Hungary and the Regency
 5.5 World War II

(toc of the current [[history of Hungary article which overlaps with this giant "2nd millennium kingdom of Hungary" article) --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)