Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 22nd, 2018, 10:56 AM   #61
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 430

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsar View Post
It's a complex story. In late 13th century Simon Kézai wrote a work called Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, giving his vision of Hungarian history. In it he claimed that the nobility originated from ancient 108 Hunnic/Hungarian clans (as the Huns and the Hungarians were the same according to Kézai), that came from "Scythia"; those who failed to join the ranks in times of war were "rightfully punished" by "eternal serfdom". The nobility from the "other nations" (ethnically non-Hungarian nobility of Hungary) entered the ranks of the nobility by serving the king or other barons of the realm. The sharp distinction was made among regnicolae (the political community that actually led the country) and the common inhabitants (Hungariae regni cohabitatores).

During the mid 15th century, an alternative appeared. The advance of humanism brought to humanist ideas of the loyalty to the fatherland (patria). The new community, called respublica litterata emerged. The only thing that connected these people trained in humanist disciplines was their education. They had no illusion of belonging to any ethnic or political community.

With the Ottoman conquests, the humanists of the 16th century had to take care to avoid any further divisions. Stuck between two great powers, the Hungarian humanists saw the similarity of their situation with the one of early 16th century Italy. The downfall of Hungary was attributed to loose connections of the inhabitants (including regnicolae) and the lack of "virtue" of the same people. The most important theoretician of the time, István Werbőczi wrote in his Tripartitium that any man could become a member of the regnicolae on two conditions:

1) To demonstrateScythian virtue (=to be a free warrior; that is, to own land)
2) To receive privileges (privileges as a document) from the king.

What is important is that Tripartitium, as well as further legal documents bear no notion of ethnic community, unlike Kézai's Gesta.

The big, if ephemeral, change arrived during the Bocskai Uprising (1604-1606). During the Long Turkish War (1593-1606) the Ottomans and the Habsburgs were hitting each other with practically everything they had, leading to devastation of Hungary as the main battlefield. Groups of armed peasants, led by István Bocskai, forced the Habsburgs to end the war. Bocskai referred to hajdúks (armed landless horsemen) as a part of Hungarian nation in a letter to a Transylvanian nobleman in 1605. Two hajdúks, one of them being a Gypsy, wrote in 1604:

Hungary is no more than a shadow of herself by now and from the acts of his captains everyone could have seen the intention of the Emperor: to devastate the country and extinguish even the Hungarian name. (taken from: B. Varga, "Political Humanism and the Corporate Theory of the State", Whose Love of Which Country? Composite States, National Histories and Patriotic Discourses in Early Modern East Central Europe, eds. Balázs Trencsényi, Márton Zászkaliczky, Brill: Leiden-Boston, 2010, p. 306)

Bocskai appealed to all inhabitants, regardless whether noble or not, to defend their patria, something radically different than Werbőczi. In a manifesto to other countries, Bocskai claimed that King Rudolf had "excommunicated himself from (...) his country". Bockai's ideas were, however, destroyed as the war ended: the hajduks received the possessions and privileges (although from the Estates and not the Crown), and thus they became a part of the nobility. Werbőczi's ideas triumphed, and the climate remained unchanged.

Another wind of change started blowing after the Seven Years' War (1756-1763). The French, being defeated by the British, attributed British victories to their citizen-based patriotism. The whole war was seen as clash of nations rather than clash of monarchs. The writers, like Rousseau in Émile, wrote about the distinction of a man and a citizen. The first one promoted self-interest, while the second one sacrificed his interest to the interest of the patrie. Putting the examples of Athens, Sparta and Roman Republic, the French writers put much effort into explaining how these examples of republican patriotism of citizens were compatible with politically exclusive absolute monarchy. This effort brought much success not in France, but in Prussia, where the spirit of such ideology flourished under King Frederick the Great.

Introduction of such spirit was attempted into Hungary as well. Queen Maria Theresa brought a small revolution when she decided to tax all the subjects equally, using the ideology of self-sacrifice as a reason. This was met with uproar in Hungarian natio politica for two reasons. First of all, Hungary was not a hereditary land of the Habsburgs and according to one of the fundamental laws she couldn't have been governed as a mere hereditary land. The other reason was the exemption of natio politica from the taxes. The nobility turned to Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, liking that Montesquieu claimed the collection of Hungarian laws to be constitution of a kind. What's more, Montesquieu wrote that without nobility there was no monarchy, for only a despotic prince would've remained. What's most important is that the nobility put an accent on the Montesquieu’s principle of division of powers: jus sufragii, or legislative power, was shared between the Diet and the monarch; therefore, there were no laws without the Diet approving them. This claim would become a commonplace after 1790.

Nobility based resistance on the question of taxes on Tripartitium and Corpus juris hungarici (a collection of Hungarian legal statutes from the 16th century, codified by István Illosfalvy). The key words were republic (meaning self-goverment of natio politica), nation (natio politica) and freedom (privileges). While still showing loyalty to the king, the natio politica made difference between love for patria and love for monarch. The struggle between the supporters of Queen Maria Theresa's centralization and the majority of nobility became particularly heated during the taxation debate on the 1764 Diet, where the queen failed to enforce taxation of nobility. Therefore a new strategy was made, not to convene the Diet at all (and the Diet was not convened until 1790). Another new strategy was introduced, of schooling the brightest Hungarian students in Vienna, and founding cameral schools funded by the monarch in Hungary.

---------------

So I think the main factors of the lack of assimilation were:

1) Feudalism (I personally hate the term, but eh): As far as I know, until development of citizenship models in the UK, France and Prussia, there were no grand-scale efforts to assimilate patois groups. The societal change in Hungary came only with the revolution of 1848-1849, and then such efforts, however uncoordinated, begun in Hungary as well.
2) Common enemies: Common enemies to all ethnic groups, such as the Ottomans and the Habsburgs (if they can be called enemies) made all groups accept living next to each other. That created what's usually called Hungarus identity. A good example from Serbian language: the Kingdom of Hungary that dissolved after the WWI is called Угарска (Ugarska), while it's successor is called Мађарска (Mađarska).
3) "West European" influences: Cultural influences from 16th century Italy and 18th century France didn't know of ethnic nationalism.
There is nothing new in that, because modern nationalism did not really exist in Hungary (and in most European countries) until the late 18th century.

And not forget the dominant identity of Hungary was Western type / Civic nationalism until the end of WW1, contrary to German lands and Slavic speaking countries, where ethnic nationalism was the determinant factor.

Last edited by janossyjanos; May 22nd, 2018 at 12:01 PM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 22nd, 2018, 10:57 AM   #62

Highlander's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Serbia
Posts: 1,422

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
The Horvát name is not related to ethnicity in Hungary, since it means only: people from the territory of Croatian lands. Most Horváts in Hungary belong to the Romani (aka Gypsy) people.

Other examples: Family names like Román (Romanian), Lengyel (Polish), Orosz (Russian), Szerb (Serbian) are related to Jewish people in Hungary. The nation names only have territorial meanings, it refers to the direction of migration rather than to their ethnicity
What about Rac and Toth surnames?
Highlander is offline  
Old May 22nd, 2018, 11:27 AM   #63
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 430

Quote:
Originally Posted by climatron View Post
they failed cause
1. slovaks never forgot their native language
Did the Slovaks have unified "native language" before the 19th century, and was the unified Slovak language taught/spread by schools only in the Czechoslovak era school system? Do they had own ethnonym before the late medieval period? (Without own ethnonyms we can not even talk about ethnic groups)

2. they lost war against ottomans and their magyar territory was conquered by turks, just city of Pressburg(and some territories of Slovakia) survived this and became new capital of Royal Hungary under Maria Theresia for more than 300y
Quote:
Originally Posted by climatron View Post

Did you know that Slovaks were only minority in Pozsony until the Czechoslovak times?
Quote:
Originally Posted by climatron View Post
3. territory belonging to Habsburg Empire after Ottoman invasion called Royal Hungary(the only one territory of great hungary which surived ottoman invasion) wasnt even Magyar but Austrian.
I've never heard about that strange fantasy.

Please read about the historic reality in this section: (and read the linked books of citations of the article) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro...6%E2%80%931848

Quote:
Originally Posted by climatron View Post
4. In 1848 magyars revolted against Austrian domination and started fakeing history of magyars and reunited old hungary again.
Hungarians did not revolted against Austrian Domination, since the local and nation-wide political life ,the parliament, the central administration and the public administration and the judicial systems were not under Austrian Domination in Hungary.

Hungarian simply wanted to abolish the previous feudal order of the country, which clashed with the Habsburg absolutist power interests. (The first elected responsible liberal government was the Batthiány government, which was pro
-Habsburg and Royalist, but the Habsburgs did not want to introduce of liberal statehood thus Habsburgs sent armies against the democratically elected legal Hungarian (pro-HABSBURG !!!) government. Which Habsburg military aggression resulted the fall of the liberal royalist Batthiány
government, and paved the way before republican anti-Habsburg Kossuth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by climatron View Post
They built their new capital Buda A Pest and wanted to magyarizate all people living in hungary till world war 1. Unsucesfully
Buda was older capital than Pozsony, and it was strategically better position than Pozsony (which was rather an entirely Vienna dependent small town, due to geographical reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by climatron View Post
Simply after revolution of 1848 it wasnt the real Hungary as it was before Ottoman invasion and they wanted to act like Magyars always played major role in Royal Hungary. But they didnt. They never again gained power over the lands which they lost in treaty of Trianon.
This part was simply ridiculous. How old are you?

Last edited by janossyjanos; May 22nd, 2018 at 12:00 PM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old May 22nd, 2018, 11:34 AM   #64
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 430

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander View Post
What about Rac and Toth surnames?
Tóth originally means a collective name for Western Christian Slavic people, like Croats, Slovenes, Poles and later also Slovak. Tóth became equal to Slovak circa only from the 1880s. So people who have the name "Tóth" can have Western Christian Slavic ancestors. It is a rare exception, because it is not Jewish name.

Rác or Rácz (meaning Serbian) is mostly a Jewish family name in Hungary, it can also mean Serbian descendant, but very rarely.

Magyar (means Hungarian) is also mostly a Jewish name in Hungary, since Christian people (let them be Hungarian, Croat, German, Serb, Slovak Romanian Rusyn etc...) were not named after nations nor after cities in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary. There are few exceptions, but as I said nation names and big city names represented Jewish names in Hungary.

Last edited by janossyjanos; May 22nd, 2018 at 11:41 AM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old May 22nd, 2018, 06:43 PM   #65
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Western Eurasia
Posts: 3,532

Quote:
Magyar (means Hungarian) is also mostly a Jewish name in Hungary, since Christian people (let them be Hungarian, Croat, German, Serb, Slovak Romanian Rusyn etc...) were not named after nations nor after cities in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary. There are few exceptions, but as I said nation names and big city names represented Jewish names in Hungary.
well half truth, family names denoting ethnicity were just slightly less frequent in the past, it is true that assimilating Jews in the 19th-20th century also picked them (as they did other common names) but they were already in use among the christian population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander View Post
What about Rac and Toth surnames?
the ethnonym Tót originally denoted people who were called Slav/Sclavus in Latin within Hungary, that is the modern Slovaks, Slovenes, Slavonians and the extinct Transdanubian Slavic population.

this table is showing the frequency of "ethnic" family names in the 1715 conscription of tax payers (source of the table http://real.mtak.hu/16075/6/NFJ_Nev_..._2011_gyor.pdf ). The survey listed around 160,000 tax payers (adult heads of tax paying households) within Hungary by name, it covered a larger area than present day Hungary (that area of the Hungarian Kingdom which was under civilian administration, it didn't include Transylvania, Croatia, Slavonia + the Temes area which was still Ottoman, and areas which were under military administration, also for unknown reasons didn't cover Vas county). This survey btw didn't include the jews, who anyways were not in significant number that time in the country (their larger immigration waves started later, at this time there were just around 10,000 jews in the whole country when the total population was some 4-4,3 million people...).

Click the image to open in full size.

and the frequency of "ethnic" family names in present day Hungary as of 2007 (Családnév=Family name, Gyakoriság=frequency, Százalék=percentage showing their % from among all family names).

Click the image to open in full size.

In comparing the datas between 1715 and 2007 it should be kept in mind they covered different areas, many people were not included in that survey for various reasons and exceptions, and since then there was both internal migration from the periphery to the center of the country (i.e. in the 18th century if i can recall more people lived in the area of present day Slovakia than in present Hungary, now the reverse is true, there was also some immigration from Transylvania to Hungary proper etc) and of course huge immigration from abroad.


It is true that later Jews when they started to Magyarize their names in the 19th-20th century and also adopted unrelated ethnic names too which were frequent among Hungarians, but i don't think it played that big impact in their increase (maybe in the case of family names "Román" and "Szerb" true, as these are otherwise modern and uncommon family names).
i mean there were 261 jewish individuals who Hungarianized their names to "Rácz" between 1815-1932, it is hard to imagine that the majority of the 35,000+ people in present day Hungary now with this family name are the descendants of these 261 persons, more likely the natural increase of the already existing families with Rácz name (who could then nomen est omen indeed be originally of patrilinear South Slavic extraction, but it designated catholics too, not only orthodox Serbs) . Also just like the Jews, most Serbs adopted fixed family names later, in the late 18th, early 19th century, some of them could also pick (or were given) the "Rácz" name. in the case of Jews they had German family names until the 19th century before they started to Magyarize it. Most of the Jews who changed their names to Rácz had previously similar sounding German family names, such as Reis(z/mann), Rosenberg/feld, Roth, Reich etc.

The frequency of family name Orosz is the only in the last 300 years that actually decreased, the reason is simple, it designated ethnic Ruthenes and most of them ended up outside present day Hungary (Ukraine and Slovakia). (between 1815-1932 50 people Hungarianized their name to "Orosz", out of them 23 were Jews. so again i doubt they are the responsible for the 16,000 ppl with this name now, more likely most of them are of Ruthene extraction)

Here is a searchable database for name changes within Hungary between 1815-1932 (a total of 156,946 name changes happened in this period, big majority of them after the 1860s)

NÉVVÁLTOZTATÁSOK (részletes/detailed search also allows to search for new name/previous name, place of residence, place of birth, religion, year of name change, year of birth)

Last edited by Tulun; May 22nd, 2018 at 08:22 PM.
Tulun is offline  
Old June 13th, 2018, 11:12 PM   #66
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Slovakia
Posts: 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Did the Slovaks have unified "native language" before the 19th century, and was the unified Slovak language taught/spread by schools only in the Czechoslovak era school system? Do they had own ethnonym before the late medieval period? (Without own ethnonyms we can not even talk about ethnic groups)
Yes, Slovaks did have "native language." It was not officialy codified obviously, since codification in early medieval era is silly idea of itself. You can not compare 19th century reality with early medieval ethnic groups.

Jan Stanislav made an excellent research in area of western part of Karpathian basin. (west of Danube river) He was able to distinguish between west and south Slavic languages, even distinguish between Slovak and other west slavic languages. Means, that there was core of the language which was present among slavic/slovak speaking area. That Slovak language had many dialects and was only codified in 19th century. But that codification was based on core of langauge that was same among all dialects. He was even able to distinguish between settlements created by Slovaks and those created by Croats in western Hungary, especially around Balaton (Blatenské jazero, eng. muddy lake).

Now to your other question. Yes, we had our own ethnonym, as we do up till present time and it was Sloveni. In letter from Rastislav to byzantine emperor Michal III in 862 "Rastislav kňazj Slověnsk s Svätoplukom poslašťa...a my, Sloveni, prostá čaď...
Now compare that to present Slovenská republika (Slovak republic), slovenský jazyk (slovak language), slovenka (slovak female)
Only exception is Slovák (slovak male) which has changed from Sloven in late medieval period. Same as Sloven changed to Slovák, Polen changed to Polak, etc.

Last edited by Falat; June 13th, 2018 at 11:15 PM.
Falat is offline  
Old June 14th, 2018, 12:46 AM   #67
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Slovakia
Posts: 26

To answer OP's question: They failed because of World war I and its outcome. If monarchies survived war, they would succed in (violent) magyarization.
Falat is offline  
Old June 14th, 2018, 05:58 AM   #68
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 430

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
To answer OP's question: They failed because of World war I and its outcome. If monarchies survived war, they would succed in (violent) magyarization.
We can speak about violent Frenchization in France. (native French speakers were still minority in mid 19th France) , We can speak about violent spread of English, as the only educational and official language in the United kingdom, which functioned strictly as greater England rather than the unification of equal kingdoms.

We can speak about violent Germanization in Prussian lands.


But we can not speak about violent "Magyarisation", that's why this project remained unsuccessful. A statistical fact about "magyarisation": 80% of the minorities can not even speak Hungarian in the 1910 census.

Maybe it would have been successful with French, German or English type of arrogance.

Unlike Austria or Hungary, the Western European powers denied the minority rights.

Last edited by janossyjanos; June 14th, 2018 at 06:36 AM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old June 14th, 2018, 07:40 AM   #69
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Slovakia
Posts: 26

Just because it was unsuccesful does not mean it did not happen.
Slovak language was forbidden in schools, closing Slovak gymnasiums and schools, closing slovak associations and societes, banning Matica Slovenská, Apponyi school laws and other non-institutionalized approaches to persecute minorities in Hungary is undeniable. Lets not speak about massacre of Černová, violation of elections in Giraltovce and many more.
Falat is offline  
Old June 14th, 2018, 08:00 AM   #70
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 430

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
Just because it was unsuccessful does not mean it did not happen.
Slovak language was forbidden in schools, closing Slovak gymnasiums and schools, closing slovak associations and societes, banning Matica Slovenská, Apponyi school laws and other non-institutionalized approaches to persecute minorities in Hungary is undeniable. Lets not speak about massacre of Černová, violation of elections in Giraltovce and many more.
Wrong. All Slovak elementary schools operated as all other minority schools in Hungary. In contemporary France, Germany or UK you (minorities) wouldn't have had chance for that. Only Matica slovenska Grammar school was banned, because it was racist and definetely spread anti-Hungarian propaganda for the students, thus it also operated as a quasi-political institution. Why didn't you established other Grammar schools, like Romanians Serbs Croats and Germans? Lex Apponyi was not executed, because there were not enough teachers who could speak Hungarian in minority primary schools. (Only 15% of the teachers could speak Hungarian language in the areas where minorities were the majority.) The nationalist party lost the election in 1910, and liberal pm. István Tisza didn't support that idea, because he and his party could collect votes mostly from minority areas.

The racist problem was the Slovak ethnic nationalism, which clashed with the Hungarian civil/liberal Western type nationalism (where the origin of the people did not matter, if they were trustworthy
for the state). However ethnic nationalism was ruling idea in Germany and in Slavic speaking countries, because the Slavic intelligencia was influenced by German philosophy during the national awakening, so they adopted the ethnic nationalism from Germans very early. Ethnic nationalism base on "blood and soil" idea. We can not imagine nazism without the German/Eastern European nation definitions. After WW1 Hungary rejected the Western liberal/civic nationalism (during the Horthy era.)

Minorities were so persecuted, that 25 ministers of foreign origin people became ministers in Hungary, and we had more than 3 foreign origin prime ministers.

Read about Béla Grünwald, he was the leader of the political and media campaign against the MAtica Slovenska. HE was a German-Polish, who learned Hungarian in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Gr%C3%BCnwald

Those politicians who didn't like the minorities in Hungary are always wanted a similar "solution" for the minorities like in France Germany or UK. Most anti-minority Hungarian politicians always referred to the Western European models (French German English) and Western European "effective solutions" in their speeches in the Hungarian parliament.

Last edited by janossyjanos; June 14th, 2018 at 08:49 AM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
fail, hungary, magyarize, nonhungarian, territories



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cut-off territories EmperorTigerstar European History 5 July 8th, 2015 10:41 AM
Lincoln and the Territories diddyriddick American History 12 February 5th, 2012 07:42 AM
Are these reservation territories? DeliciousTomatoesYay American History 3 September 23rd, 2011 05:54 PM
Expansion of slavery to the territories. Mike McClure American History 21 January 10th, 2011 07:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.