Talk:Partium

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom

Hi Fz22, I would like to ask you a few questions about article Partium. I just want to understand:

• Is the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom ruled by John I of Hungary the same thing as the Principality of Transylavania or not? In the article John I of Hungary it is written that in 1538 (so 12 years after the battle of Mohács), Ferdinand of Habsburg, his political rival was designated as Zápolya's successor by the treaty of Nagyvarad, after John I's death, which if I understand right occured in 1540. At first thought that seems to tell that till 1540 one should speak of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, and after that as Principality of Transylavania. But, then, it is also written there that his son John II Sigismund Zápolya succeeded him "as Hungarian King and Ottoman vassal". So, is the name autonomuous Principality of Transylvania incorrect, and one should use rather Eastern Hungarian Kingdom for 1526-1699? Or was it that between 1526 and 1571 both Zápolya and Habsburgs pretended to be kings, and after 1571 only Habsburgs, with Zápolya receiving only Partium?

Obviously we cannot speak about Principality of Transylvania, before 1571. Between 1571 and 1575 even Stephen Bathory called himself vayvoda(!) Transsylvaniae et Siculorum comes. --fz22 20:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• In which part was Partium in 1526-1571, in Zápolya's part or in Habsburg's part? I guess in Habsburgs' , but I want to be sure I am not mistaken.

What I know for sure is that after 1542 were on Zapolya's side. --fz22 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• You say Parts of the Royal Hungary were entrusted to Prince John II Sigismund of Transylvania, until the extinction of the Zápolya-house. What are these parts? Partium? Transylvania, inlcuding Partium? Partium and somthing to the west of it? Somthing else altogether? I mean after 1571, because your answer to previous question would explain what was before 1571.

Partium + Transylvania. In accordance with the Treaty of Speyer the whole region 100,000 skm was to have returned to the legitimate king.--fz22 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• You say Both Transylvania and Partium remained integrant members of the Kingdom of Hungary. Which "Kingdom of Hungary" do you refer to, the one dominated by Habsburgs, or Transylavania (the autonomuous one)? I can understand that you don't mean the one before 1526 and the one after 1867, and I can understand if you will say that there is continuity between these. I want first to understand (for me) the parts, which part belong to whom, and then the "continuity issue" will be obvious.

the one dominated by the Habsburgs, of course. They were kings of Hungary like many others dynasties before 1526. Unfortunatelly they were not powerfull enough to keep not just the middle but the eastern parts of the kingdom. As the Ottomans were not able to conquer the whole western Pannonia and hence the once powerful kingdom became a buffer state between two Empire for 150 year--fz22 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is it true what I wrote that today the Hungarian part corresponds to the Hajdú-Bihar county, and small parts of the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Békés counties of Hungary ? I simply looked at the maps, but I would rather prefer to have someone confirm this.

Thank you.:Dc76 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reordered the events chronologically - inaccuracy and missing essence

1. august, 1526 - only small parts of the Srem/Szeremseg were lost, by misudventure King of Hungary was killed in the battle
2. november 1526 - voivode of Transylvania/ Szapolyai was elected and was crowned! King of Hungary
3. meantime Archiduke Ferdinand was elected king, by 3 or 4 transdanubian lords
4. after Habsburg machinations a mercenary army attacked the country paralel to the rebelion of the Black Men in southern-Hungary
5. in spetember 1527 King John was defetead near Tokaj and he seek refuge in Transylvania
6. then followed an Ottoman attack against the Habsburgs, 1529, 1532, ... etc etc
7. hence in this period we have a country with small parts conquered by the Ottomans and two candidates (de jure Kings)
8. in 1538 in the treaty of Varad the two king recognised the counter's realm
9. after the fall of Buda in 1541 /and the death of John I/ the country was split in three for 150 year (and the ottomans annexed central hungary efectively ), but there was no Principality of Transylvania in that period! The country of Szapolyai is called/refered by Hungarian historians as Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and not P. of Transylvania, hovewer Transylvania is regarded as a "preserver" of the (semi)independent Hungarian statehood in the 17th century.
10. the frontiers of the Habsburg Hungary and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom is uncertain until 1570. and was dependent on the lords' estates sided with John or Ferdinand. It is meaningless to talk about the Principality of Transylvania before the treaty of Speyer. Even Stephen Bathory called himself voivode and not prince of Transylvania in its first period of rule over Transylvania (read my comments above)...
11. Szapolyai lost Transylvania in 1534? Wrong! the year 1534 was marked by the death of Czibak and regent Gritti ...

--fz22 09:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your comments. I will go through them (hopefully today or tomorrow), and introduce the respective info in the article. Of course, you are also welcome to do it. The reason for my edit was that I read the article at least 5-6 times in 3 different days, and still could not get it, who controled what. Now, my edits from yesterday, have resulted in you giving more detailed information above, which definitevely clarifies many things. Please, regard my edit as a working version, not an attempt to impose something. I simply try to formulate in layman's words what I learn. An outside reader would hardly know about this item more than me, so if I don't get something after reading 3 times, there is a non-zero probability that others will also get confused only.

So you are saying that Transylvania was a voivodate, not principate till 1571? If that's it, then it is strightforward to modify.

transylvania was composed of three "political" enitites: the Szekely autonomy, Universitas Saxorum, and the lands of the seven counties. The voivode was the King's deputy on these counties/a title, like the Ban, Nador, etc/, mostly a landlord from other parts of the Kingdom, having an annual salary of 8000 forints (eg under Ulalszlo). There were no voivode estates he was only a curator on the King's mannors. Without the slighest differencies in the legal, military, castle district, etc. system. A man of that time never said I'll go to the voivodship of Transylvania, but to Transylvania geographicaly --fz22 14:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get about 1534. How about Stephen Mailat, and Emerich Balassa? I am sure you don't deny their existence. I see them in the list of princes/voivodes of Transylvania, while John I only till 1534 (he remains though King till 1540). In 1534-1540 Transylvania seems to be administered by some other nobles, not the Zapolya. My guess is that as quite natural in such situation, there was much infiting and switching sides. Apparently in 1534-1540 Ferdinand had the upper hand, and in 1540 Zapolya again. Perhaps the article should emphasize more Ferdinand- John rivalty, as it would explain a lot of events. After all, personalities have often a very serious impact on history.:Dc76 12:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Majalth/Majlad passed over the Treasury, and Bratislava to Ferdinand receiving the estate of Fogaras in Transylvania. Then sided with John (he confirmed Majalt estates in Transylvania), in 1534 fought on John side against Gritti and near Kosice, but later hatched a plot against the King (John). He realy was a voivode, appointed by Zapolya.

Accordingly Zapolya was voivode between 1510? I don't know for sure-1526, then King of Hungary who appointed other landlords (Perenyi, Bathory, Majlath) as voivode of Transylvania... Regards --fz22 14:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, so let me see what I understood from this. Apparently it is simple (as far as I understand):

Transylvania was a voivodate, governed by a voivod (sort of governor), apppointd by the King. From 1526 to 1570, as there were simultaneously two factions claiming the throne, the voivode had to be either appointed by the one that had the upper side, or be a solution accepted to both. The list of voivodes of Transylvania lists John I Zapolya from 1510 till 1534. So, I guess he was voivod for 16 years before Mohacs, and this being a rich province, that gave him some weight to claim the throne in 1526, after which he does not renounce to be in continuation a voivode. But both Ferdinand and John Zapolya fail to win decisively the upper hand, so they have to rely on help of different nobles, such as Mailat, who indeed as I have heard had governed the entrusted to him Transylvania from Fagaras. So Mailat gets the appointment first from Ferdinand, then also from Zapolya, then supports Zapolya in war, then hatches a plot against him. Well, that's classsical behaviour of a noble with pretentions. But apparently he has overplayed his hand, as in 1540 his function as voivode is terminated by Zapolya with Ottoman help. The fact that Zapolya could not terminate it earlier shows exactly that the country was slowly desintegrating into autonomuous parts, as a strong uniting figure was absent or was not powerful enough. This also corresponds perfectly with Petru Rares involvement, who sent money, people on many occasions, and even troops in Transylavania to support some guy (was it Mailat, most probably, or Zapolya, unlikely, that I don't know for sure), which was exactly 1534-1538. This correspond exactly to what you are saying:

• hence in this period we have a country with small parts conquered by the Ottomans and two candidates (de jure Kings)
• in 1538 in the treaty of Varad the two king recognised the counter's realmthey conquered

Then in 1538, Ottomans start getting really strong. Before they get piece by piece, then in 1541 they "strike gold": Budapest falls, and Transylvania, back in Zapolya's hands, recongnizes their suzeranity. And then, it's sort of clear: Habsburgs and Zapolya emerge as the only players, everyone has to side with one or the other, or get their lands to the Ottomans. No doubt boundaries of the domains controlled by each vary. That's usual politics, perfectly understandable process. But then apparently the two competing houses realize they need to stike a deal, so in 1570 John II renouces his claims of king, and in 1571 the Spier treaty is signed, which appoints to Zapolya Partium (which they de fact controlled from 1542), as part of Royal Hungary i.e. under Habsburgs, and confirms to them Transylvania, also under Habsburgs, but separately, as a principality, not in the Royal Hungary domain of the Habsburgs. So, Transylvania, which was a voivodate becomes a Principality in 1571, under simmultaneous suzeranity of Hangburgs and Ottomans, remaining so untill 1687/1699. House of Zapolya, however apparently looses Transylvanian appointment within months, as in 1571 another person is listed, and in 1572 a second one, in 1575 a thrid one, etc. But that's another story.

Did I understand correctly the above? Of course, it's very unformally expressed, but if I get the idea, then it's excellent. The problem is you know too much about it, and in writing you assume people know at least 50% of what you know about the topic. So it's easy that people don;t succed in follwoing you. But now I think I begin to understand better.:Dc76

Transylvania was a voivodate, governed by a voivod (sort of governor), apppointd by the King. Correct. From 1526 to 1538/1540, as there were simultaneously two factions claiming the throne... King John appointed Perenyi as voivode after 1526.The list of voivodes of Transylvania lists John I Zapolya from 1510 till 1534. wrong: between 1510-1526. and this being a rich province, that gave him some weight to claim the throne in 1526, after which he does not renounce to be in continuation a voivode. It was a rich province, but the power of Szapolyai derived mainly from his enormous estates outside of Transylvania (he procured Garai's and Kinizsi estates in Transdanubia). this is a coincidence that he was forced to reatreat toward Transylvania. I mean the Habsburg came from the west so he had no other choise, it was a geopolitical necesity.The fact that Zapolya could not terminate it earlier shows exactly that the country was slowly desintegrating into autonomuous parts, as a strong uniting figure was absent or was not powerful enough. Majlath sided with Ferdinand around 1539. And he used the castle of Fogaras to hide away ... and as you well know Zapolya was dead in 1540 ... And we don't mention a word about Friar George ... --fz22 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some more details I found with google: Martinuzzi timeline (1526, 38, 40, 41, 51, 62, 63, 66, 68, 71)Mailat. Also I finally got to read Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor John Zápolya George Martinuzzi Petru Rareş (ro and en), and Ştefan Mailat (ro).

I will go through these again, and will add a couple centances (that won't be very soon, as I am very busy now, I am very sorry). I agree with you, we should mention Martinuzzi, but also the other emerging guys: Rares, Mailat, Gritti. We perhaps should give See also ... and re-direct to these guys pages (by the way, Mailat is the only one who does not have one in english, would you like to do it?). The idea of "origine" section of this article I think should be to mention the strugle between Habsburgs and Zapolya/Martinuzzi, with intrigues from the Sultan and Petru Rares, perhaps mention the main treaties, and quickely the names of other main people involved, so that is clear who's standing were and with what thinking/desire in 1571. And to send for details to those articles. Otherwise, it's getting too long.

As for Transylvania, it appears that in 1541-1551 Fra George has already made it an independent principality (see his entry), but again voivodate in 1551.

Again, thank you very much for you explanations. :Dc76 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger

Hello there, I'm The Random Editor. I propose that we merge Partium & Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. The subjects are pratically identical. The name could remain Partium. I feel there is no real reason to keep two pages about the same topic.
--Random ^{Say it here!} 18:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How about merging under the name Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, with Partium as a section. Partium will then either redirect to that section, or will be a 1-paragraph short article describing what is the territory plus See also Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. Also, a template with the history of the Kindgom of Hungary would be good to include. Please, ask User:Fz22 about this, too. He knows much more than me about the subject. I am not qualified enough to do the marger, so if he agrees, be my guest and go ahead.:Dc76 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't think we should merge them into a single article. Few month ago the even the "exitence" of the EHK was put to vote and as a result the article was deleted. However wasn't me who reopened this question i think we should preserve them separatley with a remark that the history of the EHK must be reworked... --fz22 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, I have no problem with keeping two articles. Then the other option should be ok - use the existing material from Partium to improve EHK, and expand EHK. When the work is well under way, we can erase from Partium the portions that are repeated in EHK, and give a see also EHK. In then end, Partium can stay as a 2-3 paragraph concise article. Provided all details are included in EHK. You see, to talk about Partium, one has to tell all the 1526-1570 story. So, if you add See also EHK in the top of P, it is more logical to only tell 1526-1570 in one paragraph in P, and tell it in much more detail in EHK.

By the way, why was EHK deleted? Is there a third article covering the same events or what?:Dc76 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, I see Ottoman Hungary. Maybe the best title would be Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and Ottoman Hungary, which would tell the whole story 1526-1699, how it emerged, and how it became Ottoman. Then Partium will remain with 3 paragraphs and a see also link on top. How does this sound?:Dc76 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC) On a second thought, the previous alretnative is better, since EHK is the later P of T, not OH. :Dc76 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)