Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1848

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hungary (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This article could use another image. Here's one I would add, but I don't really know what it is. Can anyone help? - TheMightyQuill 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) It's the Hungarian painter Mihaly Kovacs's work, titled "Redcap" (elite troopers of the Revolutionary Army's 9th and 11th Battalions, the red cap was a distinctive feature from regulars, it was an aknowledgement of their bravery.). It probably depicts early days (1848) of the Revolution, when Serb raiders instigated by the Austrian tyrants robbed Hungarian villages and these guys were ordered to restore peace in the Southern Lands (the killed agressors lying on the ground apparently Serbs).-- The painting on the upper right doesnt depict Petőfi, its Lajos Kossuth recruiting men to the Hungarian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

unreferenced tag[edit]

I reverted the deletion of the intro paragraph and unreferenced tag because even though there are no references yet (anywhere in the article) the intro itself is a summary of the article whereas the main body requires references. (there is nothing controversial or POV in the intro). The tag is not inapropriate but the intro should remain. István 20:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to delete the lead. Sancho McCann 20:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Placement of un-reffed tag[edit]

I've noticed some other editors preferring to place that tag at the bottom of the page too. My reason for liking it at the top is that it doubles as both a request for references and sort of a caution to certain readers who might make the connection between an unreferenced article and an inaccurate article. However, this article just seems to be lacking references, not inaccurate, so the placement at the bottom is fine with me. Sancho McCann 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really think it looks nicer there. Your concern is totally valid though. The whole History of Hungary series is poorly referenced, if at all. The main article has only 5 footnotes! - TheMightyQuill 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Minor, but... first, why plural revolutions, and second, to standartize it with others, why not Hungarian revolution of 1848?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I feel the same way. It was done to standardize it with the other articles that are part of Template:Revolutions of 1848, but I think a singular title would make more sense. - TheMightyQuill 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - no reason not to leave the Template title alone (since it does deal with many concurrent revolutions) and change the titles to each article to singular (unless it indeed deals with more than one revolution, e.g. "Habsburg") - it's at least a more correct, less ambiguous presentation. István 19:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Revolution, but Ethnocratic War[edit]

When the so-called Hungarian Revolution started, the lands of the Krown of Saint Stephen had a multiethnic population of Romanians, Serbs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Germans, Jews and Hungarians. The Hungarian - speaking population (including the Jewish, German, Serbian townspeople) was merely 29% and the Hungarian ethnic group was abb 25% of the total population. The aim of the rebelious group under the dictatorial command of Lajos Kossuth was to impose an APARTHEID STYLE society all over the St. Stephen Lands (the actual Hungarian Republic, Slovakia, parts of Romania, Ukraine, Austria, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia).Only the Hungarian ethnic group would enjoy full freedon and full citizens rights. According to the rebels "Revolutionary Programme", accession to the status of full citizens would imply the rejection of the national identities of the native peoples (75% of the population in 1848) and inclusion into the "Hungarian Nation". Therefore, it is excessive to call the 1848-1849 uprisings of Hungary a "Revolution". It was in fact a sort of military attempt to replace the Austrian imperial administration by an Hungarian ethnocratic system by force and extensive massacres among the native peoples during the period 1848-1849. Of course, the success chances of this kind of ethnocratic attempts are meagre or short-lasting. It's usefull to see the situation of South Africa, where the white minority (20% of the population in 1945 and 9% of the population in 2005) hardly mantained the Apartheid Regime, against the world-wide condemnations. The so-called "hungarian revolution" was very far from European democratic way of thinking an is an example of anti-democratic movement, but successfully sold to the outside world as a "very democratic attempt". Maybe that style of twisting the events was the main success for the Hungarian Ethnocratic Oligarchy during the years after 1849. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Very interesting analysis. I know next to nothing about this revolution, so I encourage such "revisionist" voices to chip in here. Zezen (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, no....the original motivation for the revolution independence (of some sort or another) from the Habsburg Empire! The Habsburgs had been taking much more control over Hungary than they were supposed to, not to mention enforcing a backward feudalist system that kept the country (except for the mostly Austrian nobility) impoverished and uneducated. The leaders of the revolution, Kossuth Lajos and Petőfi Sándor, were certainly nationalists but they were also progressive liberals and reformers, steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment (you know, liberté, egalité, fraternité and all that). Misjudgements by Kossuth, agitation by outside powers and clever Machiavellian meddling by the Habsburgs all conspired to bring the ethnic element into what was originally a purely political, idealistic and liberal revolution firmly in keeping with the spirit of 1848. To call this revolution an "ethnocratic war" and say that its true goal was establishment of "apartheid" is simply ridiculous. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but there's no other word for it. K. Lásztocska 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is really strange to consider Kossuth, Petofi and the rest of the gang as "progressive liberals and reformers". Long before any Habsburg conspiracy and Machiavellian meddling, this gang clearely stated that inside the Carpatian Basin ONLY HUNGARIANS will benefit from "liberty, equality and fraternity" and they wrote this loud and clear in the ORIGINAL Budapest Proclamation. No Habsburgs and no outside forces teached them to kill 40.000 Romanian childrens, women and elders in Transsylvania. 50 years of Apartheid regime in South Africa did less victimes than 2 years of "Hungarian revolutionary regime" and ETHNOCRATIC WAR. Moreover, it's very interesting to observe that Avram Iancu, one of the leading figures of the Romanian inteligentia in 1848-1849 proposed in his writings the formation of a "European Union" with democratic Constitutions, equality for ALL THE CITIZENS, irrespective of ethnic, religious origin, free universal vote, common assemblies, free trade and cultural excanges. Please note that the actual European Constitution is strikingly similar with the political ideeas of Avram Iancu, written in 1847-1850 ! The response of the Hungarian gang was ... several massive military offensives against the Highlanders of Avram Iancu. It's wierd to see, even in the contemporary Hungary, which is a member state of the European Union, monuments of war criminals as kossuth, petofi and bem !

Petofi was a poet, not a criminal. And y'know, I've heard some not-so-nice things about Avram Iancu, so let's not pretend this is a black-and-white issue. Among other things, Kossuth emancipated the peasants, ended the nobility's immunity from taxation, emancipated the Jews, put an end to feudalism, and did his best to modernize the economy (although it could be argued that Szechenyi was more effective at that). Again, you have not convinced me, and as for your cheap shot about statues of "war criminals" in a member state of the European Union...sir, I like Romania and the Romanians so I'd prefer not to fight, but be advised that I could come up with a VERY large catalog of, shall we say, unfortunate things that happened and still happen in Romania, now a member state of the EU. Nobody's country is as pure as fresh snow, not mine, not yours. K. Lásztocska 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I could come up with a VERY large catalog of, shall we say, unfortunate things that happened and still happen in Romania - bring it on! Biruitorul 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't really want me to do that, do you? I knew we'd end up like this. K. Lásztocska 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not aware of the "unfortunate" things you're referring to, so if you'd kindly name a couple, that would be nice. Biruitorul 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Forget it. I'm just a Hungarian, so anything I say would be wrong anyway. I've heard some stuff about Hungarians getting beat up in the streets for speaking Hungarian, the occasional blatant Hungarian-baiting provocations by a prominent political figure, marginalization of the Székely and their desire for autonomy...but of course I must just be mistaken, nothing like that could ever happen in perfect golden Romania, the pinnacle of civilization! K. Lásztocska 01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Ignore the heck out of this whole exchange, please. I wasn't thinking and I wasn't myself. K. Lásztocska 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I've heard about Romanians being beat up in the Székely land, and of them leading rather marginalized lives there; Funar is no longer in office; the Hungarian political party has been in government for most of the post-Revolutionary period; and the Romanian Constitution defines Romania as a "unitary and indivisible" state, so the issue of autonomy is moot. So I think Romania has a pretty good record here. On the other hand, could the IP editor(s) please type in lowercase letters and tone down the rhetoric? It's silly, for instance, to speak of "racism" in this context. Biruitorul 07:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Glad to hear I was misinformed, and things aren't as bad as I feared. :) Sorry for my instability yesterday--sleepless editing, like you said...K. Lásztocska 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The "not so nice things about Avram Iancu" is the fact that he considered that the only feasible government is a FULLY democratic one and the fact that he rejected hungarian and habsburg tirany in Transsylvania (as the vast majority of the Transsylvanians). Another "bad thing" about Avram Iancu was the fact that he encouraged the good human relations between hungarians and Romanians. The fact that he married a hungarian women enraged the narrow minded backward hungarian nationalists. Another "bad thing" is that Avram Iancu condemned the ethnic cleansing and the massacration of the civilian as a barbaric act and therefore he enraged the kossuth, petofi and bem's gang of ETHNOCRATIC FANATICS. If you remember, the Emperor Joseph II von Habsburg emancipated the peasants and the jews, ended the nobility's immunity from taxation and put an end to feudalism but his reforms was halted by the Hungarian ETHNOCRATIC RULE because Josephine illuminist reforms threatened the HUNGARIAN ETHNOCRATIC RULE inside the Carpatic Basin. Do not compare the war criminal kossuth with the administrative genius, count Istvan Szechenyi. The Hungarain nation have admirable personalities as count Istvan Szechenyi, but also horrible criminals like kossuth and extremist and racist artists like petofi alexander (born Petrovics, as a Serbian, but of course, rejected by the Serbs). As a conclusion, one of the greatest mistakes of the kossuth ethnocratic gang was to extend them apartheid-style movement into Transsylvania. Of course, in Transsylvania there is a Hungarian Szekler minority (abb 6% of the total population) and an Hungarian speaking minority, most of them the offspring of Hungarized Romanians and Germans (abb 12% of the population) but his is not a valid argument for the intervention of the ETHNOCRATIC GANG's armies of fortune in this province ! It's cruel, barbarian, anti-democratic and shamefull by ALL STANDARDS of human behaviour ! Get real, Start to think as an democratic European ! Reject apartheid style racists as kossuth, petofi, bem, batthyany ! It's not an academic stand to defend and EHNOCRATIC GANG in Wikipedia. The 21th century Europe shoud NOT pay hommage to cruel and antidemocratic criminals and ethnocentric racist poets. The Hungarian people has enough admirable personalities and outstanding accomplishments to be hailed and presented to the wide World.

I am not even going to bother with a political response to that. You just accused me of being anti-democratic, racist, and ethnocentric, not to mention "shameful by all standards of human behavior" because I'm "defending an ethnocratic gang." Regarding my comments about Avram Iancu, I appear to have mixed him up with someone else and I apologize for that. In light of that, I would now like an apology for your description of Sándor Petőfi, one of my favorite poets and one of my country's most beloved historical figures, as an "extremist" and a "ethnocentric racist." K. Lásztocska 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Uummmm, I am neither hungarian nor even european, but reading petofi makes it clear that he was an extremist and racist... I know he is celebrated in hungary, but this does not change his (literally) extreme nationalist views on hungrian greatness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Three words: Unio Trium Nationum. Biruitorul 17:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
sorry I don't understand, what is your point? K. Lásztocska 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know, just trying to be witty. But persecution and de-nationalization of Romanians in Transylvania did continue until 1918 - is there any reason to believe the 1848 revolutionaries had different intentions? Biruitorul 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, the original intent of the revolutionaries was political, not ethnic. The ethnic element made its unpleasant appearance well after the revolution began, and crimes were committed on all sides btw. Not everything in Hungarian history has a sinister ethnic-cleansing/apartheid motive, get that into your head. K. Lásztocska 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that came out way grumpier than I intended. No offense meant. K. Lásztocska 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Not everything in Hungarian history has a sinister ethnic-cleansing/apartheid motive". What a priceless quote. I guess the minorities in that "great" hungarian kingdom have other views on this, something that it seems the hungarians are keen to forget... or never to learn? Ethnic oppression is so lovely to reminisce about, especially when you were the ones holding the power. It seems that many europeans have highly selective memories... (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I will decide what I do or don't get into my head, thank you very much, but for the record, I never claimed that "everything in Hungarian history has a sinister ethnic-cleansing/apartheid motive". However, given the previous, inauspicious 850-year record of Magyar-Romanian relations, "trust but verify" appears to have been a proper attitude for Romanians to take at the revolution's outset, followed in relatively short order by "don't trust - leave Hungary as fast as you can!" Biruitorul 03:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Inauspicious history indeed. I assume it's all my country's fault, as usual? You want me to apologize for that terrible day when Árpád led his band of pagan savages into the heart of Christian Europe and ruined everything for good? K. Lásztocska 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No and no. I didn't lay blame on either side; I merely stated an opinion. Biruitorul 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any contradiction here. Leaders of the revolution wanted to establish a liberal nation state. The project was supposed to be "liberal" as this word was understood in 1848, not in 2007. And nation-state building included ethnic cleansing at that time. I do not think it is fruitful to apply present-day normative standards to any historical event. It is much better just to describe facts and explain causes and consequences, without pushing any moral judgments. Tankred 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Tankred, I generally agree, but I think "ethnic cleansing" is FAR too strong a term to use. Ethnic cleansing is what happened at Srebrenica and Auschwitz. Ethnic cleansing means annihilation and genocide. Kossuth and his comrades did not want to exterminate anyone. K. Lásztocska 03:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right, I agree that a more accurate description would be forced assimilation. By the way, ethnic cleansing does not need to involve mass killing. Unfortunately, journalists use the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide as interchangeable. Tankred 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, even if the original definition of ethnic cleansing didn't involve mass killing, it sure does now, post-Srebrenica and all. So the term has de facto come to mean "genocide" (don't know if that's the journalists' fault or what...) and we should be veeeeery careful in using terms like that--you and I have both seen what happens around here when someone uses a controversial or inflammatory description about anything in Central Europe! :) By the way, I'd like to publicly apologize here for my grumpy and trollish snide remarks to Biru in the above paragraph--there's no excuse for that sort of childish and asinine sniping, and it won't happen again. K. Lásztocska 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I too am sorry for any untoward aggressiveness. Biruitorul 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Austria turned the nationalities against the Hungarians, mainly playing out the era's Pan Slavism against the Hungarians, saying the things you say above. For example Josip Jelačić (a devote supporter and protagonist of the Illyrian movement) got promoted as ban, in exchange for raising an army aganist the Hungarians. BTW more Slovaks fought on the Hungarian side, than against them. Romanians were, and are eastern orthodox ppl. In a catholic country it meant secondary citizenship. Whom wanted to be promoted or simply get higher in the hierarchy, simply left orthodoxy and rebaptized as a catholic. It is misleading do define a 19th century event with 20th century definitions and viewpoints. "Nation" and "ethnicity" does not counted before the French revolution, or in a broader sense, before the enlightement. And Hungary, as the whole region was in at least 50 yrs, but that time even more of lag (and is still in it :) comparing to Western Europe. For example Hungary was still feudalistic in the 1890s (!), when feudalism was demolished in the 16th-17th century. Just remember Széchenyi's writing about how backward country was Hungary in the 1830s, comparing to the West. But divide et impera does existed. And Austria had a long history of using it. - üdv: László

I find this whole discussion too much in black-and-white , with too much childish nationalistic mythology that got entagled in something that should be a historical debate. YES, Austria used slavic ethnicities against the Hungarians, and YES the revolutionaries were liberal (in the 19th century sense of the word), and YES, the prominent men of the revolution at that time were not prepared to acknowledge equal rights to non-Hungarian minorities (which made the Austrian task of playing the other ethnicites against the Hungarians easier). These facts are NOT mutually exclusive, except in the heads of Hungarian/Romanian/Croatian/Austrian&etc nationalists. Explaining a complex and massive process like a revolution in a hundred words and using "us and them" mindset is, mildly put, stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not transpose the political status we have now, with the status there was in 1848. First: it was a fight for independence, this is better statement than "revolution". Second, it was not an ethocratic war as you write, as the ethnicity was mixed, even the army was mixed! Moreover, in very short and in general, the society at that time was "nobles" and "not nobles", and yes, the Romanians and other ethnicity were non-nobles, but hey, can you please check what was the situation in USA, England or France ? The difference between the French/English revolution and this revolution is that the Hungarian revolution raised the "non-nobles" to the noble level, meaning all people under the Doctrine of the Holy Crown had the noble status. The French revolution abolished the nobility creating "citizenship". Moreover, the Kingdom was retained, without the king, Kossuth being the governor. Before you call these people "gang" you should check wat they have been writing, doing and then you can judge them. I recommend not to read from the brainwasher Romanian schoolbooks, but from original sources. Then you can come and troll around. Hétszűnyű Kapanyányi Monyók (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Compare the minority rights in Kingdom of Hungary with other European powers[edit]

In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in the world. (The next such laws were in Switzerland.) But these were overturned after the Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. When Hungary made a compromise with the dynasty in 1867 one of the first acts of the restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).

Again, ethnic minority rights didn't exist in other countries of the pre ww1 Europe, France Britain Italy and German legal systems didn't know the term of ethnic and minority rights before ww1. France was a multinational country sin similar degree as Hungary. (Only 50% of the French population spoke French as first/mother tongue in 1870 !!!) Minority newpapers theatres and schools were banned in France. The official language was French in offices, only foreign citizens had right to use translators. Great Britain was a multinational "united" kingdom with unquetionalbe English cultural and linguistic hegemony (Irish Scottish question). (only English schools theatres newspapers were tolerated in the British Isles), Russia was also multiethnic The russian hegemony was unquestionalble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


If we were to move this article, what would you name it?

  • Revolution of 1848 in Hungary
  • Hungarian Revolution of 1848 (parallel to Hungarian Revolution of 1956)
  • Hungarian Revolution and (Civil?) War of 1848
  • Or would you move it at all?

Any other ideas? - TheMightyQuill 07:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard "Hungarian War for Independence", but I'm not sure how standard that is. K. Lásztocska 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Consensus was in favour of the move to Hungarian Revolution of 1848. --bainer (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And the others?[edit]

Looking over the long list of others, similarly named "Revolutions of 1848 in XX" one may easily advocate changing to "XX-ish Revolution of 1848" with one notable exception: France. It doesn't seem right to use the title "French Revolution of 1848"; since "French Revolution" is already so iconic and much more significant. One could simply make an exception for France (certainly without breaking precedent) allowing a redirect to stand as a special case, but does anyone else have a solution to propose? István 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the French Revolution of 1848 is quite appropriate. French wikipedia has fr:Révolution française for the iconic revolution and fr:Révolution française de 1848 for the one we're discussing. I'm no expert on revolutions of 1848, but from what's available on wikipedia, it's the other article titles prove more difficult. In the Hapsburg Empire, there were at least two revolts (modern Hungary and Austria). In the italian and german states, there seem to have been a number of distinct revolts, with the latter leading into 1849. Still, German wikipedia does list it as de:Deutsche Revolution 1848/49 so maybe German Revolution of 1848/49 would be okay? Maybe we should ask some German historians... - TheMightyQuill 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TMQ, "French Revolution of 1848" seems fine to me (I see your point, though.) K. Lásztocska 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cockade picture is incorrect[edit]

The Hungarian cockade (kokárda) puts the red on the outside, gathering up the green on the inside. The picture seems to be of an Italian cockade. (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Hungary had autonomy before the revoultion, and the demands (the twelve points) were about a democratical goverment, not autonomy, which already existed. Otherwise, Kossuth became governer in 1849. Toroko (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Hungary wasn't in war with Croats, but with troops from Croatia.
Because of circumstances, Croats from southern Hungary stood by Hungary. Because of that, later in Kingdom of Yugoslavia acts of those Croats were viewed as treason and those Croats as traitors, because they were not on the same side as Serbs (and Croats).
Simply told, Croats from southern Hungary were too close to huge Hungarian troops to take side against them, and too far away from friendly controlled territory, like Serbs from southern Hungary had. Croatian troops were engaged westwards.
Choice was: either with numerous Hungarians against less numerous Serbs, or siding with less numerous Serbs (that had some dissatisfaction against Croats) against much stronger Hungarians. Kamarad Walter (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I copied the infobox from hu wiki word by word. In fact there were Croats, Slovaks, Serbs etc. on Kossuth side as well, but as far as I know they weren´t organized in some kind of independent units (as Jelačić soldiers were) but rather as part of Hungarian revolutionary army. In cases like this it is hard to decide who was on which side but since Croats on Hungary side didn´t have independent units with Croatian commanders we can´t include them into the infobox in my opinion. It´s like including Hungary on the Austrian side because there were Hungarians fighting against the revolution. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually your argument falls apart right there as Hungarian royalists and Habsburg supporters did fight on the side of the Habsburg King. Revolutions tend to have this setup, the King and his supporters, and everyone else who opposes the King, regardless of anything else. Hobartimus (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah and there were also Soviet soldiers fighting on side of Nazi Germany during operation Barbadossa. The question - so what? Bytheway: what is the reason of removing the infobox? I found it quite informative (it´s in Magyar, Czech, Dannish and Russian wiki as well). If it is flag of Slovakia - it is flag of Slovak National Council established in 1848 in Vienna which was in charge of Slovaks fighting in revolution against the Kossuth army. Serbian flag is flag of Serbian Vojvodina, Romanian flag was also the correct one and Croatian was copied from commons where authour states that it is flag of Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia from 1848. If it was only about un/sourcing of casulties than there was nothing more easier than copied the name of the books from hu wiki instead of deletion. So? --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, ElsswothSK. Croats that fought on Hungarian side were part of Hungarian units. I haven't seen in sources that there were some particular Croat units in Hungarian army.
I disagree with user Baxter9 that made an revert [1] and left Wikipedia, without discussing his action. Triune Kingdom existed before Croatian-Hungarian Agreement.
[2] "Hrvatsko plemstvo bilo je zatečeno agresivnošću mađarske politike, ali joj je pružalo odlučan otpor u skladu s politikom formuliranom banskim protestom izrečenim u samom Ugarskom saboru: »Regnum regno non praescribit leges!«...Ono je branilo svoj kolektivni identitet kao staleška »natio croatica«. Branilo je zasebni politički identitet političkog teritorija i svoj položaj nositelja njegova suvereniteta, nepovredivost »realnog« teritorija Hrvatske i Slavonije te prava na obnovu teritorijalne cjelovitosti »Kraljevina Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije«. Njegov hrvatski staleški protonacionalizam manifestirao se i u uporabi jedinstvenoga hrvatskog imena za tu »trojednu kraljevinu«. U svojoj su se izjavi u Ugarskome saboru protiv uvođenja mađarskoga jezika hrvatski nunciji 1790. izjasnili kao »nunciji Kraljevine Hrvatske« (»nuncii Regni Croatiae«), izričito napominjući da pod jedinstvenim imenom »regnum Croatiae« razumijevaju teritorij pod povijesnim imenom »Regna Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae«"
Translation of the last sentence;
"In 1790, In Hungarian Diet, in their declaration against introduction of Hungarian language in Kingdom of Croatia, Croatian deputees have declared themselves as nuncii Regni Croatiae, nuntius of Kingdom of Croatia, explicitly noting that under common name "regnum Croatiae" they mean the territory under historical name "Regna Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae" (Kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia).
I believe that this is also available in Hungarian literature. Kamarad Walter (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

There is too less content in 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania, there is no need to create a separate article for a content that could be included in other already existing ones (Iaaasi (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Disagree. This is essentially the head article for all the topics about the battles, the people and so forth, of which I and my partner have translated very faithfully from the head article. I think it needs to stands as the head article for others to link. I am trying to improve the links, if SmackBot doesn!t keep taking them all out again. I have complained about this to the owner of that bot, and not to my surprise got absolutely no response at all. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Convert to British English[edit]

The topics on the various battles, the biographies of the people involved etc, are written in British English as I happen to be British. This subject is in American English, and I have no problem with that as such, but I think it would flow smoother if it were put into British English.

I should appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On a quick scan it seems to be a bit of both. It would be better in one or the other and if someone (i.e. Si Trew) is prepared to copyedit so be it. The difference would not be big.Orenburg1 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
OK I make it British English. I possibly made it half and half without noticing, I was trying to stick to American English, but probably kinda failed there as my mother tongue is British English. Nothing against Americans, just it is very hard when you are British to realise your own dialect.
Sincere regards Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I converted the references into harvnb form and did a general tidy up so that the sentences didn't all run backwards until reeled the mind. The third para about the war itself still needs a lot of tidying but I have been doing the gnoming for seven hours and am a bit tired now. Hope it is looking better than it did. Si Trew (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks better - congratulations Si Trew. I will try to proofread it line by line when I have a minute. Regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the proofreading and corrections - lots of silly typos etc. When you are in the middle of it you don't notice 'em.
You may notice Marx and Engels comes out as Marx Engels, though the harvnb doc says it should come out as Marx & Engels (or Marx, Engels). Not sure what I have done wrong there that the separator (comma or ampersand) does not appear. It is minor, but without it the link to sources does not work. I always struggle like this with harvnbs. At least they are properly referenced in the text, but I have probably somehow made some minor flaw in the {{cite book}} in the Sources section. I always struggle to get these right. If you can, please do. Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have word blindness myself when editing stuff I have written - just can not seem to spot those typos and obvious mistakes.
I had a quick look at the cite thing but can not immediately figure out what the problem is. I will have another go when I have time but it will not be for a few days. Maybe there is someone smarter than me out there who is interested and can fix it quickly, otherwise it may have to wait a bit. Orenburg1 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


The article claims "After securing all of Transylvania, Bem moved his 30,000–40,000-man Hungarian army against Austrian forces in the northern Banat capturing the city of Temesvár (now Timişoara, Romania)". Although Engels is mentioned as a source for this, it never happened. While the city was under siege from hungarian revolutionary forces, the imperial garrison held the city until it was successfully relieved by Haynau, after he won the battle of Temesvar against Bem, just as the linked article states. Dead-cat (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberal, Right-winger[edit]

What is with all the loaded politicking? First of all politics is not a straight line as most in the US think, second it is almost impossible to map 1848 political spectrum to today's; so why the need to use these slanted high-inference language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Status of Kingdom of Hungary: Monetary and fiscal status[edit]

Why do you thing that monatary and fiscal status is "out of context" ?Litricsor (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the section is called "Status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution", and your text includes phrases like "After the revolution of 1848-1849" (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Number of Russian Troops[edit]

In this article the Russian forces entering Hungary are dismissed as less of ten thousand people, easily won by the patriots. In the article "Revolutions of 1848" it is said that Russian soldiers were over than 300.000. The difference is big and unavoidable. I think Russians were at least 190.000 and, mainly, were determining in crushing the Hungarian troops, since Austrian army was engaged against other uprisings. Lele giannoni (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Scanned section?[edit]

Some of the article looks to be copied from scanned documents, given odd typographic errors such as "Paris reached Pressburg 1 (March i)" and "I3" instead of "13" for a date. The language of those same paragraphs also reads less like neutral journalism. Sorry to come and nitpick, instead of just rewriting the content, but I thought it would be worth calling out in case someone is inspired to look for plagiarism. Owlmonkey (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution[edit]

a. "Article X of 1790". What treaty or other instrument is being referenced? b. What is a "Hungarian Diet"? Presumably, not the latest fad in weight loss. Should this link to another page describing what it is? (Later note: a link appears later in the paragraph to the Diet of Hungary.) c. What is a "rescript"? Ditto link to another page. d. A word of explanation of "the common monarch" would be welcome since this paragraph makes it clear at the start that Hungary was a separate monarchy. Common and separate mean different, nearly opposite, things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Common Monarch can rule legally independent countries. Have you ever heard about Personal union? It was frequent phenomenon in England Hungary France HRE Spain and in many other European countries. --Konglich (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed some contradictory remarks that are not entirely supported by the underlying source. Laszlo clearly states that in 1804, Hungary became formally part of the Austrian Empire, albeit with almost the same rights as it had before. See the articles on Ausgleich and Austrian Empire. I've included the quote from the source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Bombastic POV style[edit]

I mean this:

the forces of reactionary absolutism were everywhere supreme. But beneath the surface a strong popular current was beginning to run in a contrary direction. Hungarian society, not unaffected by western Liberalism, but without any direct help from abroad, was preparing for the future emancipation. Writers, savants, poets, artists, noble and plebeian, layman and cleric, without any previous concert, or obvious connection... 

I am slapping "personal essay" tag on it. Zezen (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it a translation from Hungarian? I tried to at least fix the grammar, see my changes, but got stuck at:

 In contrast, Kossuth believed that the society could not be forced into a passive role by any reasons through the social changing.

I do not grok it, so I stop and leave it to our Hungarian speaking colleagues to elucidate. Ping me when the article can be read in extenso, please. Zezen (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

it's not bombastic, it is reasonably accurate and not very controversial. --that's just an old-fashioned style used by scholars in 1910 and popular historians more recently. The text is word for word from the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1902-- a great many of the historical articles in Wikipedia in fact were directly copied from that encyclopedia. Somehow the tagline indicating the source got dropped. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I added this tag Wikisource This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainChisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "article name needed". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.  Text "Kossuth" ignored (help) Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Do you understand the second quote then?

1. What I mean by bombastic: "reactionary absolutism were everywhere supreme. But beneath the surface a strong popular current... "

  • reaction to what? The revolution was about to start, I presume?
  • hyperbole: "everywhere supreme". Should be added: the gut-wrenching tyrannical yoke of the evil dark forces for more POV effect.
  • Writers, savants, poets, artists, noble and plebeian, layman and cleric, - they forgot to throw in the Khlysty nuns, folk dancers, babies in the cradle and Gypsy circus performers thereto.

The style is not elegant. It is not encyclopedic. It is not objective. It should be rewritten. Zezen (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's straight out of major encyclopedia--one Wiki copied for tens of thousands of articles. The style sound elegant and objective to me. -- is there an error? The author is James Wycliffe Headlam-Morley, a well-known scholar. He wrote numerous articles that were copied into Wikipedia, see [for EB text] on "Hungary" which matches the quote in question here. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Bombastic or not, but the first quote is from the "Hungary" article of the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. (Which is free to use in Wikipedia) We don't need transform it, just keep the original. It is an archaic, but good English. Reactionary means pro-feudal or anti-liberal in the era. During the era communist dictature, the "reactinoary" means capitalist liberal or even nazi in the books of Eastern European authors.

"they forgot to throw in the Khlysty nuns, folk dancers, babies in the cradle and Gypsy circus performers thereto" These had no effects on the contemporary societies and politics.

Yes, utmost all contemporary Western (English French American etc..) authors , encylopedias considered the Habsburgs and Russians, as the "evil dark forces" of the feudalism, because they crushed the liberal bourgeois revolutions. --CTVRTLANIK 1975 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1848/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Felhívnám mindenki figyelmét,hogy a kokárda színei fordítva vannak/the cockade's colors are inverse,now it's more like an Italian one.

Last edited at 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

13 Martyrs[edit]

"It's an old tradition (although nowadays not held by everyone) that Hungarians do not clink beer glasses or beer bottles. This is due to the legend that Austrians celebrated the execution of the 13 Hungarian Martyrs in 1849 by clinking their beer glasses, so Hungarians vowed not to clink with beer for 150 years." Marcin862 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)