Talk:Austria-Hungary: Difference between revisions
→Incomprehensible: new section |
→Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary: new section |
||
Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
The second half of 'Ethnic relations' is very poorly written - eg. "and not also community" (phrasing) "From Juny 1907 (lex Apponyi)" (?) "the fourth class" (Year/Grade 4; fourth year of schooling) "although it was far less violent than the politics of the new-founded states" (what new-founded states?). Can we get it clarified by whoever wrote it? +[[User:Hexagon1|Hexagon1]] <sup>([[User talk:Hexagon1|t]])</sup> 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
The second half of 'Ethnic relations' is very poorly written - eg. "and not also community" (phrasing) "From Juny 1907 (lex Apponyi)" (?) "the fourth class" (Year/Grade 4; fourth year of schooling) "although it was far less violent than the politics of the new-founded states" (what new-founded states?). Can we get it clarified by whoever wrote it? +[[User:Hexagon1|Hexagon1]] <sup>([[User talk:Hexagon1|t]])</sup> 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary == |
|||
I was looking for explanation of Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary, but there is no article on this subject. I would very much like to know what do individual parts mean or represent... thanx in advance --[[Special:Contributions/217.23.248.117|217.23.248.117]] ([[User talk:217.23.248.117|talk]]) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:41, 12 June 2008
![]() | Austria-Hungary was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 15, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Former countries B‑class ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Austria Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | Hungary Unassessed High‑importance | |||||||||
|
Flag of Austria-Hungary
The flag shown in the article is NOT the flag of Austria-Hungary. It is the common merchant ensign (well, not entirely, two coat of arms have to be added). The Austrian-Hungarian monarchy didn't have a common national flag. Each of the two entities had their own one. There was just a common merchant, marine and war ensign (see [1] for further details) Gugganij 19:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- We've had some confusion about the flag, so I'm glad you have helped clarify this. Do you think that the website you refer to would allow us to use their flags?
- Peregrine981 20:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I don't know either way, but Flags of the World suggests that design was also used as a civil ensign… — OwenBlacker 21:26, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
The book Österreich-Ungarn, Die Donaumonarchie in historischen Dokumenten, Salzburg 1984. (Austria-Hungary, The Danube Monarchy in historical documents) written by Alexander Sixtus von Reden states the following (translated from German): Common flags of both states (i.e. the Danube monarchy) were the red-white-red war and naval flag with a crowned shield of arms added (in use since 1786) (example: War Ensign of 1880-1915 (Kriegsflagge)) in [2]) [...] The common merchant flag is a combination of the war flag and the Hungarian flag supplemented with the small Hungarian coat of arms (example: Merchant Ensign, 1869-1918 in [3]).
In the German language Wikipedia we had a similar discussion (de:Diskussion:Österreich-Ungarn).
Unfortunately, I don't think that we can use the flags of [4] and [5] under the GNU-FDL(see their copyright statements). Gugganij 23:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since the flag shown in the article is wrong, I think we should remove it. Gugganij 12:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is it o.k. when I remove the flag in 4 days? Gugganij 22:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'll just remove it today. Peregrine981 18:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I have an original old Austro-Hungarian "Marineflagge" and "Kriegsflagge" at my home. I will make a photograph of it and upload it to Wikipedia. Greetings, Andi --Andreas.poeschek 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Flag of Austria-Hungary (II)
As discussed above, there was no common national flag of Austria Hungary (the one shown in the box is therefore wrong). Additionally the flag shown in the box (red-white-red without any emblem) became the official flag of the Republic of Austria (1918), but was not used before. I am going to remove them within a week. Any comments? Gugganij 12:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the flags. Gugganij 22:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Someone should remove this red-white-red/green flag again. As discussed various times before (for example here and on the corresponding talk page of de-wikipedia), a national flag of Austria-Hungary did simply not exist. Both Austria and Hungary had national flags on their own as correctly depicted below in the flags and heraldry section of the article. Common Flags have only existed for duties that were commonly administered by the two parts of the empire, so there have been a merchant flag and a war flag but a common national flag was not in use. --AlexF 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Flag of Austria Hungary (3)
I removed the "Flag" of Austria-Hungary again. This kind of flag did simply not exist. Gugganij 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unless you offer proof of that, the flag stays. Also, here's a site that claims that the Austro-Hungarian flag was in fact used: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Austria.html WhyNotFreedom 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- This has been discussed long ago on this talk page. --AlexF 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Habsburg and the flag is the official flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.27.64 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolute Monarch?
Those two were linked by a government under a monarch wielding, in theory, absolute power, although in practice the power of the monarch was limited. The monarch’s common government was responsible for the army, navy, foreign policy, and the customs union.
How accurate is the claim that the dual monarch held absolute power? What I've read elsewhere suggested that the monarch did in fact wield absolute power as Emperor of Austria, having authority (which was exercised on occasion) to suspend constitutional government and make law as an autocrat, his powers as King of Hungary were more limited by the Diet. Shimmin 17:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Depends on what you mean by absolute power. In theory he did have the power to suspend the constitution and pass unilateral decrees. However, he almost always consulted fairly widely and respected the wishes of regional diets and politicians in both Hungary and Cisleithania because he knew that his powerbase was increasingly fragile. He wanted to ensure continued loyalty from the nationalities, many of whom saw him as their "defender" to some extent. I think that fits the bill for not using his absolute power in practice.
- Peregrine981 20:42, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- HEY this is me..i like tottally agree...hwo are we so sure that we are providing the correct info???heloo..like a monarchy doesnt HAVE TO be absolute..thanx!16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)~~dint REALLY mean to sound mean......but yea whatever..who cares..EVEN IF I DID —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.90.198 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC).
- As I was reading about Austria-Hungary it was noted that the people loved their King/Emperoer. Also, the leader of the Black Hand (the organization that organized the Archduke's assignation, for those who don't know) was also the leader of the National Serbian Military Intelligence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.252.101 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC).
National anthem
The national anthem of Austria-Hungary was not Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser. It had the same melody but different lyrics (Gott erhalte, Gott beschütze, unsern Kaiser, unser Land...). Additionally, I am not quite sure if the anthem was also the national anthem of the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary. I try to find out. Gugganij 10:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By the way, that's the German text of the anthem since 1854:
1. Gott erhalte, Gott beschütze Unsern Kaiser, unser Land! Mächtig durch des Glaubens Stütze, Führ' er uns mit weiser Hand! Laßt uns seiner Väter Krone Schirmen wider jeden Feind! |: Innig bleibt mit Habsburgs Throne Österreichs Geschick vereint! :|
2. Fromm und bieder, wahr und offen Laßt für Recht und Pflicht uns stehn; Laßt, wenns gilt, mit frohem Hoffen Mutvoll in den Kampf uns gehn Eingedenk der Lorbeerreiser Die das Heer so oft sich wand |: Gut und Blut für unsern Kaiser, Gut und Blut fürs Vaterland! :|
3. Was der Bürger Fleiß geschaffen Schütze treu des Kaisers Kraft; Mit des Geistes heitren Waffen Siege Kunst und Wissenschaft! Segen sei dem Land beschieden Und sein Ruhm dem Segen gleich; |: Gottes Sonne strahl' in Frieden Auf ein glücklich Österreich!
4. Laßt uns fest zusammenhalten, In der Eintracht liegt die Macht; Mit vereinter Kräfte Walten Wird das Schwere leicht vollbracht, Laßt uns Eins durch Brüderbande Gleichem Ziel entgegengehn |: Heil dem Kaiser, Heil dem Lande, Österreich wird ewig stehn! :|
5.An des Kaisers Seite waltet, Ihm verwandt durch Stamm und Sinn, Reich an Reiz, der nie veraltet, Uns're holde Kaiserin. Was als Glück zu höchst gepriesen Ström' auf sie der Himmel aus: |: Heil Franz Josef, Heil Elisen, Segen Habsburgs ganzem Haus! :|
6.Heil auch Öst'reichs Kaisersohne, Froher Zukunft Unterpfand, Seiner Eltern Freud' und Wonne, Rudolf tönt's im ganzen Land, Unsern Kronprinz Gott behüte, Segne und beglücke ihn, |: Von der ersten Jugendblüthe Bis in fernste Zeiten hin. :|
Gugganij 10:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The Austrian National Anthem's words were changed to honour each emperor in turn, though using the same tune. The original 1797 version was Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser for Franz II. After he died in 1835 the new emperor Ferdinand's anthem began "Segen Öst'reichs hohem Sohne / Unserm Kaiser Ferdinand!" ("Blessings to Austria's high son / Our Emperor Ferdinand!"). After he abdicated in 1848, the original words were reinstated for Franz Josef for a few years before the 1854 version was introduced. Apparently they never had time to rewrite the words for emperor Karl in 1916... -- Arwel 22:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There were translations in EVERY language of the Monarchy. It was the anthem of every part of the doubble monarchy. Kaiser Franz Joseph I wanted in 1854 an anthem whe can also use his succsessor. So the anthem wasen't change for Karl. I. Mayby have a look on the article in German Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.78.166.65 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Austro-Hungarian Empire etc
I've moved the links to the term 'Austro-Hungarian Empire' bahahahahahah miikesell rocks to that page which I've disambiguated. People often use this terminology for the country prior to 1867. Suggestions for further link consolidation are welcome... --Joy [shallot] 00:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am glad to see the problem resolved.
Sargeras 19:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard "Austro-Hungarian Empire" for pre-1867. I've heard "Austrian Empire," "Austria", "the Habsburg Monarchy"... john k 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I figure it's local bias, people from areas that used to be part of the Kingdom of Hungary tend to refer to it like that because it may have been supremely Austrian but the Hungarians still had precedence/influence. Regardless, it is indicative that Transleithania was of the same size or larger than Cisleithania for at least 68 years before the Ausgleich (and after that they existed like that for 51 year). --Joy [shallot] 01:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the Kingdom of Hungary was the Kingdom of Hungary from 1699. But that doesn't mean that "Austro-Hungarian Empire" is an appropriate term for the whole entity before 1867. john k 04:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You'd have to go through many of the articles to make sure the links are accurate. The article where I found this was Nikola Tesla (and Biography of Nikola Tesla), for example, where it refers to the Military Frontier as Austro-Hungarian (which is not so wrong because it wasn't part of either Cisleithania or Transleithania) in 1856. --Joy [shallot] 11:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Cisleithania/Transleithania is post-1867 terminology, isn't it? And did the Military Frontier still exist in 1856? At any rate, while the Military Frontier existed, it was administratively separate from Hungary, but my understanding was that it was still considered a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. john k 19:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the timing of that terminology, I was merely trying to say that the Hungarian domain was noticably large before the creation of Austria-Hungary (indeed, that was one of the main reasons for the latter action). The Military Frontier was finally abolished only in 1881, so it had to have existed in 1856. I don't know whether the Austrians considered it part of KoH, but it was centrally administered by Austrian military leaders from Vienna, not Budapest, so I wouldn't go so far to say that it was a part of KoH. --Joy [shallot] 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Qertis wrote: This is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia should not become a collection of nonsenses.
Please go through all those links and verify that the references themselves aren't "nonsensical", too. --Joy [shallot] 20:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And just as I was beginning to think that I may just be going off on a tangent here, my watchlist came up with this diff. The paragraph explicitly talks of 18th century, and yet the term used is "Austro-Hungarian Empire". And that anon. user mistakenly linked it directly to Austria-Hungary. --Joy [shallot] 20:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK, so lets fix it and don't let anon users become confused. Qertis 23:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we ought to create an article at Habsburg Monarchy which discusses the Habsburg agglomeration as it existed between 1526 and 1918, in order to avoid both incorrect usage of Austria-Hungary and a useless link to Austria. Currently, Habsburg Monarchy redirects to Habsburg, which is a decidedly confusing article, in that it's not sure what it's about. (At the very least, all the different lists on Habsburg ought to be moved elsewhere, I think.) john k 00:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I fully agree, such an article is badly needed here. Qertis 01:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've had a go at creating it at Habsburg Monarchy. Mostly it's just trying to elaborate what the monarchy consisted of, and how it was organized. Pretty barebones. But a start, I think. john k 03:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Joy [shallot] 09:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- On that note, I created Austro-Hungarian Army where a dozen more links were easily consolidated, and I'm still not done. --Joy [shallot] 11:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
john k and Joy, I'm reading this entry precisely because an article I was reading somewhere else, celebrating the 150th anniversary of Freud's birth, said he was born "in the Austro-Hungarian Empire on May 6, 1856", and I was thinking "er, no, that was still the *Austrian Empire*". I knew this not because I'm a historian or particularly interested in the period, but because I'm Hungarian, and 1867 is one of the twenty or so dates we usually remember from our grade school history lessons (provided we ever paid any attention at all :-)) I think it's more likely that the mix-up or extension of meaning is fairly common in non-historian circles *outside* the area (this one was an American article), but I've certainly never encountered it in Hungary. I suspect Austrians would be unlikely to make this mistake, though I imagine that the nations that were under Hungarian rule and justifiably resented this situation might not see much difference between the pre-1867 and the post-1867 period (as Joy said). Arankine 23:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Border in the maps
The correct border between Austria and Hungary crossed in the middle of the Istrian peninsula dividing it in two parts approximately equal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.172.86 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 April 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I know the drawing of the border is correct. Gugganij 22:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Map
Hmm... that map needs formatting, but I don't know how to do it. Could anyone teach me, or should I give the job to someone else? Sargeras 19:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I fixed it up. You can see instructions at Wikipedia:Images#Using_images. --Joy [shallot]
Seeing as it's a historical map, do you think it should say somewhere what the other countries on it are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.152.229 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Improvement drive
The article on Franz Kafka has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Add your vote there if you want to support the article.--Fenice 06:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Govt. Structure correction?
I believe you need to change it from the "mid-1900's" to the early-1900's".
The disputes between the halves of the empire culminated in the mid-1900s in a prolonged constitutional crisis -- triggered by disagreement over the language of command in Hungarian army units, and deepened by the advent to power in Budapest (April 1906) of a Hungarian nationalist coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.174.43 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
rise of naziism
twice it's suggested in this article that the power-vacuum in austria following WW1 somehow led to the rise of naziism 10 years later. Now I'm not a big history buff, but this seems a dubious claim. Hitler's ascendancy as I understand it was the result of events more or less exclusively within Germany (collapse of the mark, prolonged economic hardship, hatred of communism, resentment of jews, etc.) Is the article suggesting that a strong authority in Austria would have acted as a check on Hitler, and would not have been so easily subjugated by him?
Perhaps just the wording of the article should be changed, so it's not suggested that the Austro-hungarian dissolution led directly to Hitler's rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.53.158.201 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well its a complicated issue. A lot of the same issues present in Germany were in Austria as well. ie. fear of Eastern Europeans, anti-semetism, instability, etc.... However, I would agree that the actual rise of the nazi party was largely a domestic German affair. What I would say needs clarification is that the destruction of Austria-Hungary as a central European power to check Germany allowed Germany to easily divide and conquer the resulting nation states. Peregrine981 00:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- What I think the reference may be trying to get at is with the disappearance of Austria-Hungary, which was regarded as one of the five traditional Great Powers of Europe (the others being Britain, France, Prussia/Germany, and Russia) and its replacement with an number of more or less weak states in Eastern Europe, there was a power vacuum in Eastern Europe that left the area open for being in either German and/or Soviet zone of influence. During the inter-war period and afterwards, advocates of Realpolitik such as George F. Kennan often complained about the absence of Austria-Hungary, which in Kennan’s point of view, would served as a counter-balance to both Germany and the Soviet Union. I don’t want to get into the merits of this thesis, but a lot of people agree with it and a lot of people disagree with it.A.S. Brown 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Added infobox
I replaced the old infobox with the standard one. The old one cluttered up the edit page with code. The red links in the infobox need to be fixed though. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about those things (population density, etc) can fix them.--Kross | Talk 07:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Infobox
I hope the infobox at the top of this article will be fixed. Now it is way too wide. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although it may have cluttered up the edit page I restored the old infobox. I have no problem with the new one, but when adding it please make sure that it fits in neatly. Thanxs Gugganij 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Latin as official language?
Where does the information that Latin was Austria-Hungary's offical language come from?
AFAIK, the official languages for the two halves were different. At least in Cisleithania, I am reasonably sure that laws were enacted in all major languages. Latin may have been an official language in the Hungarian half. Martg76 17:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- In Hungary Latin was official language until 1844. Then it was changed to Hungarian by an act http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=5255. Imre, 10 January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.239.52 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Article still shows Latin as language in Hungary in the infobox - given article only runs from 1867 and delphic statement above says until 1844 I think it should be removed - but I'll leave it to the punters here. Stevebritgimp 19:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Black-yellow flag
I think we need to remove the black-yellow flag from the infobox, since it gives the impression that it was the common national flag, which is not true. Gugganij 21:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Was Austro-Hungary a multiethnic society ?
(copied here from a discussion about Franz Joseph I of Austria biography)
Austria-Hungary was not one the last European multi-national countries: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland (Germans, Belorussians, Unkrainians, Lithuanians), Switzerland, Spain (see the tensions there), Bulgaria (Turks), Germany (Poles), Soviet Union, Finland (Swedes), and so on.
- Except for Switzerland and Yugoslavia, in all other cases you list there is a prevalent ethnic group that forms a national state, and other peoples are present only as minorities. The situation in Austria-Hungary was different, as there were two prevalent nationalities. StefanoC 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- The ties between Austrian and Hungarian parts were very weak and the parts were diverging. Pavel Vozenilek 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither it was multi-ethnic state, at least in simple understanding. It was loose federation of two and half countries (Austria, Hungay and Bosnia) where ethnic relations wildly varied from place to place. Pavel Vozenilek 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was multi-ethnic in the sense that integrated all minorities in a more or less homogeneous society (at least the military and the state bureaucracy was multiethnic). StefanoC 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've doubt about homogenity. It had modern industrial regions as well huge areas practically in medieval times. State bureaucracy (on local level) was local and /zealously/ guarded againt "foreigners". Military was the only unifying force, that's right. Pavel Vozenilek 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Then we could agree that the defeat in WWI, and the fall of the House of Hausburg removed the only two unifying forces (the military and a common royal family) bringing on the dissolution of the composite state ? StefanoC 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
languages
Wouldn't it be most appropriate if we wrote Serbo-Croatian instead of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Eh. Perhaps. The Serbs and Croats were certainly considered to be distinct ethnic groups within the Empire, but the division was much more religious than linguistic. john k 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Serbs and Croats were always distinct, but in their own similarities, a single nations. They were always obssessed by the idea of Pan-Slavism.
- Please, bear in mind that the Serbo-Croatian language split in 1993. The Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian alternatives most certainly do not belong in the Austro-Hungary article; don't you agree?
- The Croatian and Serbian languages were unified into the Serbo-Croatian language in the Habsburg's capital, Vienna, in 1850. Since Austro-Hungary's a historical state, modernism surely cannot be applied here.
- Is this sufficient explaination? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, do what you like. Serbo-Croatian was (and is) essentially a single language, but we should also make clear that Serbian and Croatian are separate ethnic groups. john k 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Message to User:Elephantus that reverted my edit: How come? The Bosnian language didn't exist back then, and the Serbian and Croatian weren't considered seperate. What did you mean? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Croatian was the only official language in Croatia-Slavonia according to the Croatian-Hungarian settlement of 1868. There was a well-known riot when the Hungarian state railways attempted to put up signs in Hungarian in Croatia. :-) Bosnian was very much alive and kicking during the days of Austria-Hungary. Only in the last years of the Monarchy was it suppressed and the "Serbo-Croatian" used instead (although the language continued, of course). There was even an officially prescribed high-school grammar book "Gramatika bosanskoga jezika" (A grammar of the Bosnian language). --Elephantus 09:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Aha, yes; I know well about the Croatian langauge - but I fail to see the Bosnian langauge. That Grammatics dates from the late 19th century - and I doubt that the Monarchy instutited the Bosnian language after 1908 (as you said, it promoted Serbo-Croatdom at the end). Why then mention the Serbian name? In Vojvodina, the Illyrian language was official - until its replacement with the Serbo-Croatian. As far as I know, the Illyrian language was forged in Croatia and Slavonia - and it was sometimes refered to as the Croatian language. It would become Serbo-Croatian as well, if I'm wrong. What wonders me is which language was official - given the 1850 Convention in Vienna, isn't it presumably logical that that language was constitutionalized on the Monarchial level (and local official languages being Croatian, Illyrian, Serbo-Croatian)? P. S. I wouldn't say that Hungarization's funny. My ancestors had a lot of trouble with it. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Austria-Hungary in Europe.
One of the recent edits changed the title under the map in the article from "Austria–Hungary in 1913" to "Austria–Hungary in Europe". I think the "in Europe" part is absolutely unnecessary since the map shows it but it doesn't show the year. --cassini83 19:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Something doesnt fit about languages in Kustenland: In the article it has been written that slovenian was the main language (37.3%) while italian is ranked second (around 34%). Yet I see in the article on Austrian Littoral that italians summed up to 237616 while slovenian were 209698.... I suspect that the data about slovenian as main language is manipulated. It is a well known slovenian claim..that at the time of the Austrian Empire Trieste belonged to Slovenia...
Contradiction in the article
The article says that capital of Dalmatia was Zadar. The map says Split. Which one's wrong? --Dijxtra 08:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1911 Britannica says Zara (Zadar), and it should know. john k 13:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Zadar's webpage: [6]: "During the last century, when Habsburg ruled our countries, Zadar was the administrative centre of Dalmatia". Pavel Vozenilek 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Popular Culture
Is there any information to be included that represents popular culture? Were there any magazines? For example, in the Czech area there was Zlata Praha and Cesky Svet. There must be others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.151.21 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Map reference
Since you use current names for other cities, it would be correct to list the capital of Galicia (Halychyna) as Lviv, its Ukrainian name, rather that Lemberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tturula (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Er, we don't use the current names for the other cities - we have Agram, Laibach, Czernowitz, Brünn, Troppau, and so forth...speaking of the map, though, Zara, rather than Spalato, was the capital of Dalmatia. john k 02:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Official name of the state
There are official names of Austria-Hungary in German and hungarian in the table. Why there is no name in latin. Wasn't it one of the official languages of this state?--133.41.4.46 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Latin was at one point the official language of Hungary, but it had ceased to be such before 1867. john k 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Coat of Arms
you should use for Austria and Hungary the medium coat of arms, at the moment you are useing fpr Austria the small and for Hungary the medium! This is the medium coat of arms of Austria: http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://www.adler-wien.at/wDeutsch/img/heraldik/staats/gr_reichswappen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.adler-wien.at/wDeutsch/heraldik/staats/hw_001.shtml&h=298&w=452&sz=23&hl=de&start=1&tbnid=n0FNQMmnBNscfM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmittleres%2Bwappen%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.55 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Successor states
Why is the Republic of Poland listed in the successor states? I mean, I know that it was created back then - but larger portions of territory were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy and oh-so-much the Kingdom of Romania. Why makes Poland more important? --PaxEquilibrium 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The heading is "New states". Poland regained independence at the time of Austria-Hungary dissolution. Romania and Italy had already existed as sovereign states before. But I agree that calling Poland a "successor state" of Austria-Hungary is not very accurate. If you can come up with a better wording, please go ahead and change it. — Kpalion(talk) 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Military subtopics
Where would be a good place for military subtopics, such as the presently orphaned topic Army Slav, which was a partial solution for multi-language military units (also anyone who might know where to find more sources? I've not gotten further than what I got from the only source I know of -- the idea of such a small historical language interests me). -- Strangelv 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A section underneath economics on the military might be of use. john k 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wank and Good
Er....a little voice tells me that part of the following extract from the article is vandalism:
- Alan Sked has advanced the view that, "to speak of decline and fall with regard to the Monarchy is simply misleading: it fell because it lost a major war." (The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire 1815–1918)
- David F. Good supports Sked's view.
- Others, such as Solomon Wank, remain skeptical.
Colin4C 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually they're both published historians. Google 'em. DCB4W 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Article 19
Great info on the Austro-Hungarian Empire - seems a shame we can't get the original German, or at least somehting pretty close. Anyone? Shamanjim 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
A simple little question about the Lithuanian name of the country - Why is it there?
I would like to ask why it was important to have the name of the country in Lithuanian? It would be nice to get a good answer for this. Wasn't it originally ment to be written in the languages of the peoples of the Empire? Or do we want to put it out in all the languages of the world? Then why don't we have it in Kyrgyz yet (for example)? Sorry for asking, please, somebody answer, and take action too, let's be consequent. Thank you. Danke. Dziękuję. Děkuji. Dakujem. Diakuiu. Hvala. Mulţumesc. Köszönöm.
Ditto for Norwegian - was that an official language? I think not - I'll try to check the edit history... Stevebritgimp 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Dankon. Diolch. Tapadh leibh.
re: Successor states - for PaxEquilibrium
Such parts as Kraków belonged to the Austro Hungarian Empire. Check out the following wiki articles for explanation (or just read about them elsewhere): Kraków, Galicia, Jagellonian University (for instance...)
GA quick fail
This article does not meet the threshold for verifiability outlined under wikipedia's policies (see also WP:CITE) and necessitated for GA status, therefore I am quick-failing it. If the editors have any questions about this review, they are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Common Languages In Cisleithania
Something is really fishy about this table, aside from that fact that no source is cited. For one thing, no date for the statistics is given, making them meaningless. Furthermore, I suspect that they are invented out of whole cloth; for instance, according to the chart the percentages of the most common language in Galicia and the "other language"(!), Polish and Ukrainian respectively, add up to 98.8% - never mind the fact that there were significant Yiddish, Ruthenian and German speaking populations there. I'm going to leave the chart for now, but someone should look into this. Bws2002 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Common Languages In Cisleithania (II)
There is indeed something profoundly wrong in this table. The source cited appears to be the correct one, but I reckon highly unlikely that there were 43% italian speakers in Tyrol in 1910. My understanding is that there were only 3%, and that only in South Tyrol. Since this table is crucial to convey a correct insight on the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it is urgent to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertrandeborn (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC) --Bertrandeborn (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Incomprehensible
The second half of 'Ethnic relations' is very poorly written - eg. "and not also community" (phrasing) "From Juny 1907 (lex Apponyi)" (?) "the fourth class" (Year/Grade 4; fourth year of schooling) "although it was far less violent than the politics of the new-founded states" (what new-founded states?). Can we get it clarified by whoever wrote it? +Hexagon1 (t) 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary
I was looking for explanation of Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary, but there is no article on this subject. I would very much like to know what do individual parts mean or represent... thanx in advance --217.23.248.117 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class former country articles
- Former country articles requiring restructuring
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- Unassessed Austria articles
- Unknown-importance Austria articles
- All WikiProject Austria pages
- Unassessed Hungary articles
- High-importance Hungary articles
- All WikiProject Hungary pages