This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
The Principality of Transylvania existed not only as a semi-independent state, but also as part of the Habsburg Monarchy and Austrian Empire (until 1867). Logic dictates: if the article is about the semi-independent part of its history, then it should be evident from title or, if not, the rest of the history of the Principality completed.-- Bluehunt ( talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
[4] This source states that Translyvania was separate entity.
Bernard A. Cook.
"Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia‎". Routledge; 1 edition (10 Jan 2001), ISBN-13: 978-0815313366. ...and by 1711, the region had become part of the Hungarian portion of the empire... This source states that formally it was part of Hungary, although it was ruled by the Habsburgs. Now which one?--
Bizso (
talk) 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Britannica 2009 Transylvania:
During the reign (1648–60) of György Rákóczi II, the Turks, trying to curb Transylvania’s growing power, stripped it of its vital western territory and made the obedient Mihály Apafi its prince (1662). Shortly afterward, the Turks were defeated before Vienna (1683). The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors. In 1699 the Turks conceded their loss of Transylvania (Treaty of Carlowitz); the anti-Habsburg elements within the principality submitted to the emperor in 1711 (Peace of Szatmár).
During the succeeding century the pressure of Roman Catholic and bureaucratic rule gradually undermined the distinctive character of Transylvania. A strong Magyar movement, overshadowing the declining influence of the Szekler and Saxon nobles, urged the abandonment of the principality’s separate administration and integration with Hungary. Consequently, during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, the Magyars of Transylvania identified with the insurgents. The Romanian peasantry, which had been developing its own national consciousness and agitating for more extensive political and religious liberties, took a stand against the Magyars and swore allegiance to the Habsburgs. When the Habsburgs reasserted their control over Hungary, Transylvania was separated from Hungary and transformed into a Habsburg crown land, subject to strict, absolutist rule. Subsequently, it was reabsorbed into Hungary (1867).-- Bizso ( talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."
"Introduced after years of anarchy and war, the Diploma offered the promise of internal order and cultural and vocational opportunities for all three nations of Transylvania in their own languages. It soon became apparent, however, that the Diploma had not secured autonomy for Transylvania, as the leadership of the principality came under the direct influence of the Vienna chancellery. Transylvania was therefore severed from Hungary for the next two centuries."
In the future, please sort the languages either alphabetically or by the number of speakers. For my edit, I chose the latter. I have also removed the following OR and weasel-word statement: ruled by mostly Calvinist Hungarian princes. SISPCM ( talk) 13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Is 1570 the correct year? Some say the Principality of Transylvania was established in 1541: [5] [6] [7]. Another source talks about 1556: [8]
These sources
[1]
[2]
[3] mix the name of the entity. They talk about principality of Transylvania, however we can not talk about an "official principality" (in other words " a principality as state") until 1570 because Sigismund was a king and ruled a Hungarian kingdom until treaty of Speyer. He established the proper Principality of Transylvania in 1570 when he abdicated as King of Hungary. We can talk about titles as "prince of Transylvania" before 1570 but he was an elected Hungarian king (rex electus) who ruled the eastern part of the partitioned country until 1570. The Hungarian kingdom was the predecessor of Principality of Transylvania. OR we can talk about a "Transylvanian principality" as sub-entity (because the title "prince of Transylvania" existed before 1570) but it belonged to the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom.
A proper principality has a prince(ss) as head of state, but Sigismund's main title was KING of Hungary until the treaty. Fakirbakir ( talk) 15:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
As we know until 1541 the seat of the royal court was in Buda (court of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). After the Turkish occupation George Martinuzzi placed the court to Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia). The seat of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania until 1570. I think Transylvania did not possess sub-entity status. The counties next to the Tisza river were !equal participants! at the Transylvanian diet. Moreover the former apparatus of the Transylvanian voivode was inadequate to the task of administering a state, so Martinuzzi had to establish an entirely new court (See page of
Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). Another thing, the voivodes were always under the kings of Hungary (until 1570) and they did not count as heads of state. From 1566 John Sigismund was the voivode (prince) and the king simultaneously.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 20:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
And I agree with Koertefa, 1541 is a false date, those sources are inaccurate. The country was invaded by the Turks, however the kingdom was already "officially" divided to two in 1538. Fakirbakir ( talk) 23:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear AvramIancu48, you know well your source is inaccurate. 1541 is a false date. As I see the main problem is the authors mix the name of the entity. 1, We can not use the name "Principality of Transylvania" before 1570 even if John had a princely (voivode)title from 1556 because his main title was king of Hungary and he was a counter king of Hungary. 2, It is clear Treaty of Speyer established proper Principality of Transylvania where a prince was the head of the state (not a king) 3, The Habsburgs claimed the Transylvanian territories as well so John's title as prince was also "unrecognized" in their points of view before 1570. 4, The diet of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania from 1541 (Buda was the previous), however it was the diet of the kingdom and not the diet of the principality. Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hypothetically, according to treaty of Speyer (1570), in the sense of public laws, the Principality of Transylvania remained an inalienable part of Kingdom of Hungary. [26] Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The phrase Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen is an umbrella term, using this instead of Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary would only make the article unreadable. Moreover, preferably it should be used after 1867. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: the source (Encyclopedia Britannica [27]) also uses this form: "The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors." KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I ask User:KIENGIR to post here the exact quotes from his sources where it is written that Hungarian was used "in the Diet and legistlation". 123Steller ( talk) 12:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any exact quote from the status of the Latin language? No, it is listed where and how it was used, the same as in Hungarian. You asked for sources, you got it. but of course, if you want details here you are:
8. March 1556. was the first Diet is Szászsebes where the first law in Hungarian was enacted. After again Latin was used until 1565. If you are further interested, i.e. in Michael The Brave's time the Diet still held in Hungarian, Michael The Brave himself also negotiated with the Saxons in Hungarian, but the during his reign the orders and papers were published in Latin.
For the legistlation, it's enought to investigate source 3 & 4, these are the lawbooks of Transylvania with a Latin title but with a Hungarian content. Source 4 has a link provided where you can check in the original images of the book and you can verify it's Hungarian codification.
But if you really want exact quote, here you are from source 1:
"During the over one and the half century reign of Principality of Transylvania was not only the respective holder of the Hungarian statehood, but between the XVI-XVII. centuries it had a very important role in the history of the Hungarian language. First of all because here and then were possible to have the Hungarian language as a state language that was not only used on lowest level of public life or in the local administration, but in the highest state institutions: by the internal affairs, the Transylvania Diet, and also the lawbooks that were edited from the official decisions had Hungarian as an official language. These times are born the political/jurisdictional/institutional official version of the Hungarian language."
Because I know you are interested on German affairs, I let you know that the Saxon cities' inner administrational language was German (although ther national statutum in 1583 was issued in Latin). If you want add this info on your own regarding the German language.( KIENGIR ( talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC))
This article is awash with the usual mind-numbing nonsense of both sets of nationalisms, Hungarian and Romanian. Other than that it says nothing on the crucial topics of Hungarian and Saxon civilization in Transylvania (Protestantism, Renaissance, Baroque, religious toleration and its limits, manorialism, printing, etc. etc.), let alone an actual overview of what Romanian society was like, it obsesses with a discourse about ethnic identity that was hardly relevant to people living at the time, and is hardly relevant now -- and to achieve that, it presents the assumptions made by entrenched historians on either side as the "Hungarian POV" and the "Romanian POV", as if to say you can't be a Hungarian/Romanian and not have that entrenched POV (when, in fact, most historians on both sides are quite capable of seeing eye to eye on most issues). The Principality produced some of the defining elements of Hungarian culture, and also shaped a Transylvanian heritage that is now the pride of tourism in Romania, yet there's not a word to be found on this in the entire article.
The obsession with Romanian mistreatment in Transylvania is not merely jingoistic, it hides under the rug various inconvenient parts of the narrative -- to wit, that "ethnic discrimination" never prevented the Romanian elites, small as they were, from joining the ranks of Hungarian nobility; it also glosses over the numerous instances in which Wallachians, boyars and peasants alike, fled over the border, including during rebellions sponsored by Transylvanian princes -- rebellions that were nationalist, at least in the sense that they were anti-Greek. That discursive duplicity is sometimes glaring in Romanian nationalistic sources, which refer to Transylvania as a hellhole for Romanians, but then commend Transylvanian princes for their project of creating a "Dacian" state merged with Wallachia and Moldavia, or applaud their warm welcome of figures such as Matei Basarab, or mention the flowering of Romanian culture under Saxon rule, while forgetting to mention that there was a Saxon rule, or that said flowering was largely a by-product of Protestant proselytism. Then, the whole logic of religious discrimination, which was the standard in virtually all of Europe (though Transylvania was probably one of its most tolerant regions!), is depicted as ethnic discrimination; and the stratification of society, with a wide base of serfs who were largely (but by no means exclusively) Romanians, and a tip of elites who were largely (but by no means exclusively) Hungarian, is persistently and misleadingly presented as a purposeful mechanism of ethnic destruction. Even with evidence that serfs in Transylvania were often better off than those living in Wallachia -- because, lo and behold, Romanians also had serfdom, and, my oh my, most serfs there were also Romanian.
On the Hungarian side, the most glaring POV in the narrative, as now induced through the article, is the anti-Habsburg lore. You see, we are led to believe that the massive number of Hungarians who consciously supported the Habsburg version of Hungary were not really Hungarian, or did not exist (just like the Romanian elites who joined the ranks of Hungarian nobility never existed). The interesting part of (mainly Protestant) Hungarian elites choosing Turk over Pope is a much more contextually important issue than any speculation by nationalist historians as to how Romanians organized and suffered. Dahn ( talk) 10:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Dahn: I have taken the liberty to remove the Ukrainian categories since only a tiny part (1%) of current Ukraine once belonged to this principality. Even a considerable part of Máramaros County does not currently belong to Ukraine. Similarly for the Serbian categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
KIENGIR, you removed half of my contribution saying r+m, what is r+m?
Iconian42 (
talk) 19:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
:- What problematic material? and what data outside the scope of the article? You are talking about the contribution on History of Transylvania, while it has some common points with this one, there is material here that differs from the one on History of Transylvania, so even if you disagree with the contributions on that other page, your removal of the whole contribution here because of that is not justified.
Iconian42 (
talk) 00:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
:::The reason you removed the first Austrian statistics of 1730 and the first population census of 1850 from History of Transylvania's lead was because they were already in the main article. Which is an absurd reasoning because all information from the lead has to be already in the main article by definition. You did not offer any response to that or any other explicit reason for the removal but you're still against it. However, in the article History of Transylvania they were removed from the lead arguing it's already in the main article, while in the article Principality of Transylvania they were removed from the demograhpics sub-section of the main article, which is clearly not the same case, because you can't use the same reasoning in this case.
Iconian42 (
talk) 10:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The French author wrote: "Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l'empereur...Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à -dire romain". He clearly meant that the regions of Wallachia, Moldova and most of Transylvania were inhabited by people who thought they descended from Roman settlers and that they called their language "romanechte", and the source cites the year 1574, when Pierre Lescalopier wrote this, meaning that in the mentioned year Romanians were the majority of Transylvania (la plus part de la Transivanie). Also, why the Letopisețul Țării Moldovei reference was removed? ZZARZY223 ( talk) 15:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Aristeus01, can you tell me what is abusive in deleting a rule-breaking source?
Gyalu22 ( talk) 11:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Aristeus01,
I am referring to your edit:
"mek.oszk.hu is a Hungarian POV site not reviewed by international community and not a neutral source"
The website: Hungarian Electronic Library (main site: oszk.hu)
https://mek.oszk.hu/indexeng.phtml
Hungarian wiki about the website:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_Elektronikus_Könyvtár
Owner: National Széchényi Library (biggest Hungarian library) https://www.oszk.hu/en
Wiki page about the library: National Széchényi Library
This wesbtie cannot be "Hungarian POV", because it is a library where it was uploaded various many ten thousand of books. That is why many Hungarian related topic use links from this website because many books were uploaded there.
The linked book is this: HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume 1-3, from the beginning until 1919 (when Transylvania belonged under the Hungarian crown), it is a really big book, edited by many Hungarian scholars and historians, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2001, the English version (what is in the link) was published Hungarian research institue of Canada, University of Toronto, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. This book made by academic historians.
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/index.htmlThe first volume is 899 pages:
https://books.google.hu/books/about/History_of_Transylvania.html?id=YJtqjgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
The third volume is 871 pages: (You can see it is a vast amount of academic work)
https://link.library.eui.eu/portal/History-of-Transylvania-Vol.-3-From-1830-to/lBNoVQDxt2U/
Wiki page about the publisher: Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Cambridge review from a previous version:
When I use this book, I usually provide the links to the appropriate chapter, you can read the full content. In the content which was removed by you, it was presented a contemporary Austrian estimate from 1712 (which cannot be also a Hungarian POV), those datas was collected and presented by modern academic historians in todays, in 2000s.
Compare with this, you restored this content, which is was published in 1850, which cannot be a reliable historical academic source, morover, the author do not write population data from his age, from 1850, but the presented content is about 500 years earlier. It cannot be a reliable academic modern historian work refering an author from 1850, what he think about the population in 1310. By the way what is the basement of his statement? What is the base that is was more German than Hungarian and Szekelys in Transylvania? (Even the calculation is wrong 400 000 +150 000 + 300 000 is not 1 000 000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_Transylvania&oldid=prev&diff=1119993498
OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Having the demographics section outweigh all the rest of the article isn’t right, surely? Boscaswell talk 20:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
The Principality of Transylvania existed not only as a semi-independent state, but also as part of the Habsburg Monarchy and Austrian Empire (until 1867). Logic dictates: if the article is about the semi-independent part of its history, then it should be evident from title or, if not, the rest of the history of the Principality completed.-- Bluehunt ( talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
[4] This source states that Translyvania was separate entity.
Bernard A. Cook.
"Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia‎". Routledge; 1 edition (10 Jan 2001), ISBN-13: 978-0815313366. ...and by 1711, the region had become part of the Hungarian portion of the empire... This source states that formally it was part of Hungary, although it was ruled by the Habsburgs. Now which one?--
Bizso (
talk) 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Britannica 2009 Transylvania:
During the reign (1648–60) of György Rákóczi II, the Turks, trying to curb Transylvania’s growing power, stripped it of its vital western territory and made the obedient Mihály Apafi its prince (1662). Shortly afterward, the Turks were defeated before Vienna (1683). The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors. In 1699 the Turks conceded their loss of Transylvania (Treaty of Carlowitz); the anti-Habsburg elements within the principality submitted to the emperor in 1711 (Peace of Szatmár).
During the succeeding century the pressure of Roman Catholic and bureaucratic rule gradually undermined the distinctive character of Transylvania. A strong Magyar movement, overshadowing the declining influence of the Szekler and Saxon nobles, urged the abandonment of the principality’s separate administration and integration with Hungary. Consequently, during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, the Magyars of Transylvania identified with the insurgents. The Romanian peasantry, which had been developing its own national consciousness and agitating for more extensive political and religious liberties, took a stand against the Magyars and swore allegiance to the Habsburgs. When the Habsburgs reasserted their control over Hungary, Transylvania was separated from Hungary and transformed into a Habsburg crown land, subject to strict, absolutist rule. Subsequently, it was reabsorbed into Hungary (1867).-- Bizso ( talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."
"Introduced after years of anarchy and war, the Diploma offered the promise of internal order and cultural and vocational opportunities for all three nations of Transylvania in their own languages. It soon became apparent, however, that the Diploma had not secured autonomy for Transylvania, as the leadership of the principality came under the direct influence of the Vienna chancellery. Transylvania was therefore severed from Hungary for the next two centuries."
In the future, please sort the languages either alphabetically or by the number of speakers. For my edit, I chose the latter. I have also removed the following OR and weasel-word statement: ruled by mostly Calvinist Hungarian princes. SISPCM ( talk) 13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Is 1570 the correct year? Some say the Principality of Transylvania was established in 1541: [5] [6] [7]. Another source talks about 1556: [8]
These sources
[1]
[2]
[3] mix the name of the entity. They talk about principality of Transylvania, however we can not talk about an "official principality" (in other words " a principality as state") until 1570 because Sigismund was a king and ruled a Hungarian kingdom until treaty of Speyer. He established the proper Principality of Transylvania in 1570 when he abdicated as King of Hungary. We can talk about titles as "prince of Transylvania" before 1570 but he was an elected Hungarian king (rex electus) who ruled the eastern part of the partitioned country until 1570. The Hungarian kingdom was the predecessor of Principality of Transylvania. OR we can talk about a "Transylvanian principality" as sub-entity (because the title "prince of Transylvania" existed before 1570) but it belonged to the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom.
A proper principality has a prince(ss) as head of state, but Sigismund's main title was KING of Hungary until the treaty. Fakirbakir ( talk) 15:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
As we know until 1541 the seat of the royal court was in Buda (court of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). After the Turkish occupation George Martinuzzi placed the court to Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia). The seat of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania until 1570. I think Transylvania did not possess sub-entity status. The counties next to the Tisza river were !equal participants! at the Transylvanian diet. Moreover the former apparatus of the Transylvanian voivode was inadequate to the task of administering a state, so Martinuzzi had to establish an entirely new court (See page of
Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). Another thing, the voivodes were always under the kings of Hungary (until 1570) and they did not count as heads of state. From 1566 John Sigismund was the voivode (prince) and the king simultaneously.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 20:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
And I agree with Koertefa, 1541 is a false date, those sources are inaccurate. The country was invaded by the Turks, however the kingdom was already "officially" divided to two in 1538. Fakirbakir ( talk) 23:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear AvramIancu48, you know well your source is inaccurate. 1541 is a false date. As I see the main problem is the authors mix the name of the entity. 1, We can not use the name "Principality of Transylvania" before 1570 even if John had a princely (voivode)title from 1556 because his main title was king of Hungary and he was a counter king of Hungary. 2, It is clear Treaty of Speyer established proper Principality of Transylvania where a prince was the head of the state (not a king) 3, The Habsburgs claimed the Transylvanian territories as well so John's title as prince was also "unrecognized" in their points of view before 1570. 4, The diet of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania from 1541 (Buda was the previous), however it was the diet of the kingdom and not the diet of the principality. Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hypothetically, according to treaty of Speyer (1570), in the sense of public laws, the Principality of Transylvania remained an inalienable part of Kingdom of Hungary. [26] Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The phrase Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen is an umbrella term, using this instead of Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary would only make the article unreadable. Moreover, preferably it should be used after 1867. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: the source (Encyclopedia Britannica [27]) also uses this form: "The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors." KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I ask User:KIENGIR to post here the exact quotes from his sources where it is written that Hungarian was used "in the Diet and legistlation". 123Steller ( talk) 12:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any exact quote from the status of the Latin language? No, it is listed where and how it was used, the same as in Hungarian. You asked for sources, you got it. but of course, if you want details here you are:
8. March 1556. was the first Diet is Szászsebes where the first law in Hungarian was enacted. After again Latin was used until 1565. If you are further interested, i.e. in Michael The Brave's time the Diet still held in Hungarian, Michael The Brave himself also negotiated with the Saxons in Hungarian, but the during his reign the orders and papers were published in Latin.
For the legistlation, it's enought to investigate source 3 & 4, these are the lawbooks of Transylvania with a Latin title but with a Hungarian content. Source 4 has a link provided where you can check in the original images of the book and you can verify it's Hungarian codification.
But if you really want exact quote, here you are from source 1:
"During the over one and the half century reign of Principality of Transylvania was not only the respective holder of the Hungarian statehood, but between the XVI-XVII. centuries it had a very important role in the history of the Hungarian language. First of all because here and then were possible to have the Hungarian language as a state language that was not only used on lowest level of public life or in the local administration, but in the highest state institutions: by the internal affairs, the Transylvania Diet, and also the lawbooks that were edited from the official decisions had Hungarian as an official language. These times are born the political/jurisdictional/institutional official version of the Hungarian language."
Because I know you are interested on German affairs, I let you know that the Saxon cities' inner administrational language was German (although ther national statutum in 1583 was issued in Latin). If you want add this info on your own regarding the German language.( KIENGIR ( talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC))
This article is awash with the usual mind-numbing nonsense of both sets of nationalisms, Hungarian and Romanian. Other than that it says nothing on the crucial topics of Hungarian and Saxon civilization in Transylvania (Protestantism, Renaissance, Baroque, religious toleration and its limits, manorialism, printing, etc. etc.), let alone an actual overview of what Romanian society was like, it obsesses with a discourse about ethnic identity that was hardly relevant to people living at the time, and is hardly relevant now -- and to achieve that, it presents the assumptions made by entrenched historians on either side as the "Hungarian POV" and the "Romanian POV", as if to say you can't be a Hungarian/Romanian and not have that entrenched POV (when, in fact, most historians on both sides are quite capable of seeing eye to eye on most issues). The Principality produced some of the defining elements of Hungarian culture, and also shaped a Transylvanian heritage that is now the pride of tourism in Romania, yet there's not a word to be found on this in the entire article.
The obsession with Romanian mistreatment in Transylvania is not merely jingoistic, it hides under the rug various inconvenient parts of the narrative -- to wit, that "ethnic discrimination" never prevented the Romanian elites, small as they were, from joining the ranks of Hungarian nobility; it also glosses over the numerous instances in which Wallachians, boyars and peasants alike, fled over the border, including during rebellions sponsored by Transylvanian princes -- rebellions that were nationalist, at least in the sense that they were anti-Greek. That discursive duplicity is sometimes glaring in Romanian nationalistic sources, which refer to Transylvania as a hellhole for Romanians, but then commend Transylvanian princes for their project of creating a "Dacian" state merged with Wallachia and Moldavia, or applaud their warm welcome of figures such as Matei Basarab, or mention the flowering of Romanian culture under Saxon rule, while forgetting to mention that there was a Saxon rule, or that said flowering was largely a by-product of Protestant proselytism. Then, the whole logic of religious discrimination, which was the standard in virtually all of Europe (though Transylvania was probably one of its most tolerant regions!), is depicted as ethnic discrimination; and the stratification of society, with a wide base of serfs who were largely (but by no means exclusively) Romanians, and a tip of elites who were largely (but by no means exclusively) Hungarian, is persistently and misleadingly presented as a purposeful mechanism of ethnic destruction. Even with evidence that serfs in Transylvania were often better off than those living in Wallachia -- because, lo and behold, Romanians also had serfdom, and, my oh my, most serfs there were also Romanian.
On the Hungarian side, the most glaring POV in the narrative, as now induced through the article, is the anti-Habsburg lore. You see, we are led to believe that the massive number of Hungarians who consciously supported the Habsburg version of Hungary were not really Hungarian, or did not exist (just like the Romanian elites who joined the ranks of Hungarian nobility never existed). The interesting part of (mainly Protestant) Hungarian elites choosing Turk over Pope is a much more contextually important issue than any speculation by nationalist historians as to how Romanians organized and suffered. Dahn ( talk) 10:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Dahn: I have taken the liberty to remove the Ukrainian categories since only a tiny part (1%) of current Ukraine once belonged to this principality. Even a considerable part of Máramaros County does not currently belong to Ukraine. Similarly for the Serbian categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
KIENGIR, you removed half of my contribution saying r+m, what is r+m?
Iconian42 (
talk) 19:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
:- What problematic material? and what data outside the scope of the article? You are talking about the contribution on History of Transylvania, while it has some common points with this one, there is material here that differs from the one on History of Transylvania, so even if you disagree with the contributions on that other page, your removal of the whole contribution here because of that is not justified.
Iconian42 (
talk) 00:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
:::The reason you removed the first Austrian statistics of 1730 and the first population census of 1850 from History of Transylvania's lead was because they were already in the main article. Which is an absurd reasoning because all information from the lead has to be already in the main article by definition. You did not offer any response to that or any other explicit reason for the removal but you're still against it. However, in the article History of Transylvania they were removed from the lead arguing it's already in the main article, while in the article Principality of Transylvania they were removed from the demograhpics sub-section of the main article, which is clearly not the same case, because you can't use the same reasoning in this case.
Iconian42 (
talk) 10:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The French author wrote: "Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l'empereur...Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à -dire romain". He clearly meant that the regions of Wallachia, Moldova and most of Transylvania were inhabited by people who thought they descended from Roman settlers and that they called their language "romanechte", and the source cites the year 1574, when Pierre Lescalopier wrote this, meaning that in the mentioned year Romanians were the majority of Transylvania (la plus part de la Transivanie). Also, why the Letopisețul Țării Moldovei reference was removed? ZZARZY223 ( talk) 15:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Aristeus01, can you tell me what is abusive in deleting a rule-breaking source?
Gyalu22 ( talk) 11:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Aristeus01,
I am referring to your edit:
"mek.oszk.hu is a Hungarian POV site not reviewed by international community and not a neutral source"
The website: Hungarian Electronic Library (main site: oszk.hu)
https://mek.oszk.hu/indexeng.phtml
Hungarian wiki about the website:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_Elektronikus_Könyvtár
Owner: National Széchényi Library (biggest Hungarian library) https://www.oszk.hu/en
Wiki page about the library: National Széchényi Library
This wesbtie cannot be "Hungarian POV", because it is a library where it was uploaded various many ten thousand of books. That is why many Hungarian related topic use links from this website because many books were uploaded there.
The linked book is this: HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume 1-3, from the beginning until 1919 (when Transylvania belonged under the Hungarian crown), it is a really big book, edited by many Hungarian scholars and historians, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2001, the English version (what is in the link) was published Hungarian research institue of Canada, University of Toronto, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. This book made by academic historians.
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/index.htmlThe first volume is 899 pages:
https://books.google.hu/books/about/History_of_Transylvania.html?id=YJtqjgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
The third volume is 871 pages: (You can see it is a vast amount of academic work)
https://link.library.eui.eu/portal/History-of-Transylvania-Vol.-3-From-1830-to/lBNoVQDxt2U/
Wiki page about the publisher: Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Cambridge review from a previous version:
When I use this book, I usually provide the links to the appropriate chapter, you can read the full content. In the content which was removed by you, it was presented a contemporary Austrian estimate from 1712 (which cannot be also a Hungarian POV), those datas was collected and presented by modern academic historians in todays, in 2000s.
Compare with this, you restored this content, which is was published in 1850, which cannot be a reliable historical academic source, morover, the author do not write population data from his age, from 1850, but the presented content is about 500 years earlier. It cannot be a reliable academic modern historian work refering an author from 1850, what he think about the population in 1310. By the way what is the basement of his statement? What is the base that is was more German than Hungarian and Szekelys in Transylvania? (Even the calculation is wrong 400 000 +150 000 + 300 000 is not 1 000 000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_Transylvania&oldid=prev&diff=1119993498
OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Having the demographics section outweigh all the rest of the article isn’t right, surely? Boscaswell talk 20:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)