Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Napoleon[edit]

Why isn't Napoleon mentioned here at all? I was going to add something about Lujzijana, but to no avail. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Map[edit]

It would be nice if we had a detailed map of the Kingdom of Croatia around the 1850s... I'll se what I can do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Crazy colors[edit]

The map in the infobox should ideally be a political map with the Kingdom of Croatia highlighted.

  • The military frontier was NOT, repeat: NOT a part of the Kingdom of Croatia. To highlight it in any way that hints to such a status is unnecessarily confusing and deliberately misleading. That would be a typical nationalist reduction in quality. It should be the same color (though probably a slightly different shade) as the rest of the Austrian Empire.
  • Ditto for the Kingdom of Dalmatia. It should be slightly distinct so the reader knows where it is, but to highlight it in a way so as to suggest its a part of the Kingdom of Croatia is unnecessarily confusing and deliberately misleading. It should be the same color (though probably a slightly different shade) as the rest of the Austrian Empire.

In short, this map of mine is more than satisfactory, do not alter it to somehow to highlight lands that were NOT a part of the Kingdom of Croatia - as being part of the Kingdom of Croatia. For once, lets remove fantasies from Croatian history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How many times were the Habsburgs Croatia's rulers?
"The Kingdom was a part of the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen, but was subject to direct Imperial Austrian rule for significant periods of time, including its final years. Its capital was Zagreb."
King Habsburg had the last word. King imposed its will several times. King tried to diminuate or ignore the importance of Kingdoms that conditionally accepted the Habsburgs as the monarchs. Kingdom of Croatia (check the full title!) conditionally accepted Habsburgs. "Direct rule" - better word is needed.
So, although King tried to diminuate, Sabor (Parliament) of Kingdom of Croatia was resilient. It resiliently defended its rights, since Croatian Parliament held to the (in which they accepted Habsburg) as to the contract and never gave up its rights. Kubura (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag[edit]

I have changed the red-white flag from infobox to red-white-blue tricolor. Red and white flag was official only for 15 years, and since this article refers to much longer period, in which the tricolor flag was in official use (from 1800 onwards, except for this 15 years), this flag should be in infobox as Flag of the Kingdom. Ro0103 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The last flag should be in the infobox, not the one that was most used. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
According to Heimer the tricolour was brought back c. 1860, thus making it the last flag.--Thewanderer (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It was merely no longer prohibited after 1960, it was not adopted, though. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thewanderer is right. In 1960, after the fall of Bachs absolutism, the tricolor was brought back to official use. Proof for this claim you can find in official flag at installation of Croatian ban Josip Šokćević. This fact and more about Croatian flag and COA you can find in recently published book by dr. Mario Jareb from Croatian History Institute - Croatian national syimbols (Hrvatski nacionalni simboli, Alfa d.d., Hrvatski institut za povijest, Zagreb, 2010.)

Dear Director, I don't understand why did you changed the COA of Kingdom of Croatia in this period? As you said before, there should be the last COA used, and in this period this surely is the COA of Triune kingdom of Croatia. This COA was printed on the front page of the official Gazette - Almanac of laws and orders valiant for Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia in 1866. Similar COA is on the seal of Croatian Parliament from 1866. All this you can see in above mentioned book. Ro0103 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Ro0103 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom was called "Kingdom of Croatia", not "Triune Kingdom of etc", that much I am absolutely certain of. It was also a distinctly separate administrative province, not only from the Kingdom of Dalmatia (with which it was never united at all), but also from the Kingdom of Slavonia to the east (the Slavonian Kingdom was, however, "subordinate" to the Kingdom of Croatia 1744-1849).
concerning insignia, it seems you fellas are right after all regarding the flag. The tricolor was re-introduced 1860-1868. The coat of arms, however, is an entirely different matter. It was certainly not the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (as was introduced by Ro0103). That coat of arms includes the Crown of St. Stephen and could not possibly have been in use prior to 1868. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I have re-edited the line about COA, so you can see my reason for changing the state insignia. Also, I am avare of difference between "Kingdom of Croatia" and "Triune Kingdom of etc", but I used that term to precisely define which COA should be used. Ro0103 21:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you OK with this one - this COA is definitely shown on the covers of books I mentioned above. Also, alternate version of COA (also used on official documents) would be this one
Ban standard.PNG
Ro0103 21:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Sry, but the first CoA was never really used anywhere or at any time. Its sort of what Croats wanted for the coat of arms of an independent Croatian subdivision of Austria-Hungary, but the Hungarians forced the St. Stephen crown in the Nagodba.
The second CoA is not a coat of arms at all, but a detail from the personal standard of the ban of Croatia in 1848.
Also, I'm a little skeptical regarding your assurances that a Triune CoA was indeed used. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, I'm a lawyer and historian by occupation, and heraldry is my hoby. As in most european states of that time, Croatian flag and COA was not regulated by Law until 1868 (and two color flag we were discussing before). But this doesnt means that it didn't have its official design and use. Again, you can read all about this in Jareb's book where you can also see the official Gazette cover pages (where can you see the Triune COA with unidentified crown), published by Croatian Parliament, and also the seal of Croatian Parliament (here is the link to Croatian Parliament site with the depiction of seal ) I think it can't get more official than this. The alternate version I proposed above was on official flag of Croatian ban. Ro0103 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro0103 (talkcontribs)
Quite simply, the coat of arms of the ban is not the coat of arms of Croatia. I am not contesting that the image was used officially to represent the ban's government, but if heraldry is your hobby than you of all people should realize that does by no means make it the official coat of arms of the kingdom. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, antd that is also the reason I didn't used this COA in main article. But the same COA that was printed on several official documents of Parliament and it resembles the COA from the parliament seal. Again, in this period of time, two types of COA were used in official use - Triune COA with undefined crown, and this one from the seal as a great COA. --Ro0103 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro0103 (talkcontribs)

I am restoring again the last flag of the Kingdom - Director, please, you yourself wrote on this discussion page, just few rows above, I quote "The tricolor was re-introduced 1860-1868." Again, for all others, everything about the flags in Croatia can be fonud in the book written by dr. Mario Jareb from Croatian History Institute - Croatian national syimbols (Hrvatski nacionalni simboli, Alfa d.d., Hrvatski institut za povijest, Zagreb, 2010.). Please, next time you change something, state your sources and arguments...Ro0103 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-Croatian sources[edit]

One thing: is it possible to find non-Croatian sources? Croatian historiography, with all due respect, is rather prone to supporting fiction in order to romanticize Croatian history. Examples of this are endless. Not only that, but we also have the Croatian claim on Dalmatia and Slavonia, which results in local authorities in Croatia adopting the use of various insignia depicting Austrian subdivisions other than Croatia itself. The problem is that this was not always (in fact very often not) recognized by the crown, which only tolerated this only when it intended to use Croatia as a tool to undermine the Hungarians. (Example: the croatian government liked to call itself the "Triune Kingdom of etc.", whereas noone in the entire world used this term to refer to the Kingdom of Croatia, including the Imperial court.)

In other words, we need (and have always needed) some sort of outside perspective on this. Preferably publications calling on official Imperial sources of the time which would ensure we are not representing the Croatian version of history ("Croatia-Hungary", the "victory" at Pakozd, the imaginary "pacta conventa", the non-existent "Triune Kingdom", etc.). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, I think you are pushing these tings about Croatian history too far. Like you have mission to re-wright all what was written until now. Yes, there is a problem of objectivity in some periods of Croatian history science, especially in works of older historians as Kukuljević, Rački, Šišić etc. but modern Croatian historians are tending to set the right track. I am not referring here to modern history in the 1990-ies, but recent works of Budak, Goldstein etc. who are very important medievalists and who are demystifying many aspects of Croatian history. Not to forgot Nada Klaić who was devil's advocate of Croatian History. Many of this new data have been introduced already to articles on Wikipedia. Being objective is one thing, but I think you have crossed the line here, and you are searching something that may not exist. So, back to books...
What I mean to say here - of course you have some things that are exaggerated by Croats, but you also have same exaggeration by Hungarian and Austrian side which are sometimes in opposition to Croatian data, of course, written from their prospective and their interests founded on their claims. So, what is the truth here?
For example - you have mentioned Croatian claims over Slavonia. I will mention Croatian claims over Military frontier. Austria and Hungary didn't support these Croatian claims for decades, but in the end, both Slavonia and Military frontier was incorporated in Croatian Kingdom, meaning that Croatian claims were founded in great extent.
Battle of Pakozd - you would probably find data about the victory on Austrian and Croatian side, an some different data on Hugarian side.
Interests in politics make the world go round...--Ro0103 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Now, I think you've added too much weight to my comment. It was certainly not my intent to universally condemn our historiography, all I meant was that there are problems with objectivity and mysticism - which I'm sure serious scientists are working to correct (probably in the face of political interests).
Again, with all due reverence, as an objective-minded Croat, I would have to say I would be far more prone to believe an Austrian historian than a Croatian historian. However what I meant was - can we find US, English, French, German, etc. sources. The point was objectivity. (And yes the Battle of Pakozd was most likely a defeat for us, and a humiliating one at that since we had the advantage.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, you said that you would be more prone to believe an Austrian historian than a Croatian historian. I can't agree with you. This is the thing where my education in law steps out - the Austian (same as Hungarian) historian is also just a "side in proceedings" led by his own interests. So, I would search for the truth in the middle, by clashing arguments of both sides. History is just a puzzle of many pieces.--Ro0103 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia – More natural title relisting to see if consensus can be formed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Jaro88slav (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Surely that wasn't its formal name. Do historians call it that? —Tamfang (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
There are 150 Google Books results for "Habsburg Croatia" and 5 Google Books results for "Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia", but I think "Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia" is more complete than "Habsburg Croatia". We also have the similar Habsburg Netherlands and Habsburg Spain Jaro88slav (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Not a huge difference, but WP:AT and WP:D do prefer natural disambiguation over the parenthetical variety. Jenks24 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move per Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Article titles need not reflect formal names. There's nothing wrong with present title - it's clear and recognizable, finely disambiguated (year range is not really helpful disambiguation IMHO), so just leave it be.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Was Croatia a Land of the Hungarian Crown?[edit]

The article Lands of the Hungarian Crown says the following:

After 1526 Hungary disintegrated into three parts. From the 16th century, Hungary proper, Croatia and Transylvania were the three regna of the Crown. These lands had some links with each other but became more and more autonomous during the centuries.

In the 18th century, the Lands of the Hungarian Crown consisted of the Kingdoms of Hungary, Croatia and Slavonia with the city of Fiume, the Grand Principality of Transylvania, the Croatian-Slavonian, and the Serbian-Hungarian military frontiers.

On the other side, this article says that Croatia was "in Personal union with Kingdom of Hungary". Isn't this a contradiction? What do Croatian editors think about this? 123Steller (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not contradicting. Both Croatia and Transylvania were in fact legally separate entities from Hungary proper but were part of the Lands of St.Stephen's Crown or the so-called Archiregnum Hungariae. In essence they were in dynastic or personal union with Hungary. What happened in 1526 and especially in period afterwards (namely with Transylvania) was that it sought greater indepedence and were at times de facto indepdendant and ultimately resulted in the so-called Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. Croatia however exercised separate status from 12th century already and was always separate legally from Hungary proper and the various noble families like Subic (later branch known as Zrinski) and Frankopan were basically independent magnates in the function of Ban's (Viceroys) of Croatia. Think of the Lands of St.Stephen's Crown something as similar to how the UK functions today. In essence it was a union of separate countries from a legal point of view. Shokatz (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)