Talk:Imperial-Royal Landwehr

Austria Mid‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War I task force

k.k. and k.u.k.

At 19:17 on 10 September 2013, User:Bermicourt posted the following on my talk page, requesting that I respond here:

Hi Srnec. Could you explain the logic for moving this to Imperial and Royal Landwehr at the talk page. There was a very clear distinction between k.u.k ("Imperial and Royal") which referred to the domain of the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary (i.e. the whole Austro-Hungarian Empire) and k.-k. ("Imperial-Royal") which only referred to the western half of the empire i.e. Cisleithania of which the sovereign was Emperor of Austria and King of Bohemia. This is an important historical and legal distinction. The k.k.Landwehr only defended Cisleithania; the Kingdom of Hungary had its own territorial force, the Royal Hungarian Honved, Whilst using k.u.k. instead of k.-k. is a common error in German, we should surely not be perpetuating this in English.

Well, my logic was twofold. (1) I found fare more results for "imperial and royal Landwehr" over "imperial-royal Landwehr" and GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar. (2) I found several instances of kaiserlich-königliche translated "imperial and royal". It appears my logic was flawed, but at least I'm in good company. My only problem with your reasoning is that you call this distinction "very clear". It is quite muddy in any language! That aside, my Google results won't go away. Very few sources call this the "Imperial-Royal Landwehr". More use "k.k. Landwehr" or "Austrian Landwehr". Many just use "Landwehr", because they have already explained that the Hungarians had their Honved, the Empire had its Common Army and the Austrians had their Landwehr. My familiarity with the Landwehr goes no further than what I have encountered in works on the First World War, and I cannot recall every seeing it called "Imperial Royal". Srnec (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry by "clear distinction" I didn't mean the distinction was clear to us today - I guess it's not - but that after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, the authorities stopped using the 2 terms rather loosely and interchangeably, but very definitely restricted k.u.k. to common, pan-Empire organizations and k.-k. to the Austrian half of the Empire. This was apparently at the insistence of the Hungarians. So perhaps I should have said "rigorous distinction" instead!

I am happy to look at the most apt title, taking account of authoritative source usage; say googlebooks plus any reasonable internet sources plus offline sources. I am away from home at the moment, but am happy to work with you to build up the picture to the point where we can discuss the alternatives. Bermicourt (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@Bermicourt:,

I kindly ask you before you revert anything by one click, better check the content, since your argumentation is not necessarily valid and it would be good if you do not make me work twice...

- Kiraly Honvédség -> A gramatically failed mispelled term. at least correctly Királyi Honvédség, however natively Magyar Királyi Honvédség, Kiraly means nothing in Hungarian and the mispelled version of Király that means King.

- you restored also Honvéd (Honvédség) -> Honved (Honvéd), that is again a controversial an illogic concept, if we assume first is the English name and after in brackets the Hungarian name. What English consider Honved, that is in Hungarian Honvédség, as we discussed also another occasion as well that Honvéd is as well an English used term, thus my evident change to Honvéd (Honvédség) did not harm the English spelling, just identified the two terms in English and Hungarian properly

- The rest is entirely the Honved/Honvéd question, since both term are used in English, also earlier I asked you for consistency, that you accepted.

A kindly ask you again for again. I will wait now again one week, like last time regarding the last question, but the first two has to be corrected, because they are either syntactically and semantically failed.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you and I remember we discussed this before. Please go ahead and correct the Hungarian if you are sure this is what Hungarian sources use. The English name should remain Honved, even though it looks strange to a Hungarian speaker (just like the French Londres for London looks strange to the English). Bermicourt (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this case, adding an or Honvéd could satisfy me. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Recent edit

@Bermicourt:,

feel free to correct the grammar. succeeding in gaining its independence is false, since Hungary has been a Regnum Independens, not incorporated into the Austrian Empire, just the absolutist rule ended, on the other hand Austrians wanted to elevate the relations to a Dual Monarchy, which was marked by the Compromise.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]