Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711)

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

tilte of the article[edit]

The Principality of Transylvania existed not only as a semi-independent state, but also as part of the Habsburg Monarchy and Austrian Empire (until 1867). Logic dictates: if the article is about the semi-independent part of its history, then it should be evident from title or, if not, the rest of the history of the Principality completed.--Bluehunt (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We have already an article called Translyvania and many other articles to cover other periods besides its simply not true. The Principality of Transylvania existed until 1711 that is the scope of this article as it is clearly defined.. Hobartimus (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree. Nowhere in the title is this specified, and The Principality, as you well know, existed until 1867.--Bluehunt (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In the name Principality of Transylvania is already the exact name of the independent state, when talking about the geographical unit and NOT a state as in after 1711 usually its called simply Translyvania or as an administrative unit Grand Duchy of TR or some such a clearly different and distinct name. The "Principality of Transylvania" is different territory actually from just the geographical Translyvania what you refer to from 1711 onward it's much different and many articles already cover it. This article is very clearly about the independent state previously known as Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (exactly b/c it has much more territory than just Transylvania). So the article is clearly about the state and nothing else. Some days ago I had the exact same conversation with a user named Olahus, do you know him by any chance? Hobartimus (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Excerpt from Wikipedia article on Hungary: "The Kingdom of Hungary existed with minor interruptions for 946 years" As you well know The Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist as an independent state after the Battle of Mohács in 1526 until 1867. But no one is absurd to discuss its history including only the independent period. About Olahus, I don’t know him, I've checked your discussion and it happens that I agree with his position.--Bluehunt (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand what's your problem Wikipedia discusses the post 1711 period as well (the name wasn't principality btw it was Grand Duchy then with completely different status and territory) just not in this article. This article was always about 1571-1711 it clearly says it in the article why are you trying to change this? Hobartimus (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
correction: the official name was not Grand Duchy but Grand Principality. See Emperor of Austria and Austrian Empire --Bluehunt (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anything against adding "independent" into the title, I see that you mentioned that as one of the options acceptable to you so the title would change but the articles content could be preserved. Hobartimus (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Please change title. Thanks.--Bluehunt (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Hobartimus (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

status of Translyvania after 1711[edit]

[4] This source states that Translyvania was separate entity.
Bernard A. Cook. "Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia‎". Routledge; 1 edition (10 Jan 2001), ISBN-13: 978-0815313366.  ...and by 1711, the region had become part of the Hungarian portion of the empire... This source states that formally it was part of Hungary, although it was ruled by the Habsburgs. Now which one?--Bizso (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Britannica 2009 Transylvania:

During the reign (1648–60) of György Rákóczi II, the Turks, trying to curb Transylvania’s growing power, stripped it of its vital western territory and made the obedient Mihály Apafi its prince (1662). Shortly afterward, the Turks were defeated before Vienna (1683). The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors. In 1699 the Turks conceded their loss of Transylvania (Treaty of Carlowitz); the anti-Habsburg elements within the principality submitted to the emperor in 1711 (Peace of Szatmár).

During the succeeding century the pressure of Roman Catholic and bureaucratic rule gradually undermined the distinctive character of Transylvania. A strong Magyar movement, overshadowing the declining influence of the Szekler and Saxon nobles, urged the abandonment of the principality’s separate administration and integration with Hungary. Consequently, during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, the Magyars of Transylvania identified with the insurgents. The Romanian peasantry, which had been developing its own national consciousness and agitating for more extensive political and religious liberties, took a stand against the Magyars and swore allegiance to the Habsburgs. When the Habsburgs reasserted their control over Hungary, Transylvania was separated from Hungary and transformed into a Habsburg crown land, subject to strict, absolutist rule. Subsequently, it was reabsorbed into Hungary (1867).--Bizso (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the data seems contradictory, but if you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources, one should avoid tertiary sources (i.e. Encyclopedias like the 2 examples you offered), including Britannica:

"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

The primary source in this case is Diploma Leopoldinum (the text of which I could not find) and, to cite again the contradictory Britannica

"Introduced after years of anarchy and war, the Diploma offered the promise of internal order and cultural and vocational opportunities for all three nations of Transylvania in their own languages. It soon became apparent, however, that the Diploma had not secured autonomy for Transylvania, as the leadership of the principality came under the direct influence of the Vienna chancellery. Transylvania was therefore severed from Hungary for the next two centuries."

I cited only secondary sources and, because I am Romanian, I cited Hungarian or "independent" authors, avoiding Romanian sources.
Regardless of this discussion, the Principality of Transylvania was not disestablished in 1711, but existed until 1867.--Bluehunt (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit of May 4th[edit]

In the future, please sort the languages either alphabetically or by the number of speakers. For my edit, I chose the latter. I have also removed the following OR and weasel-word statement: ruled by mostly Calvinist Hungarian princes. SISPCM (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit with a source, writig in the article once again that the Principality was mainly ruled by Hungarian princes. Even if we don't look at the source: Transylvania was ruled at the time by the Szapolyai, Rákóczi, Bethlen, Báthory, Bocskay, Apafi families. These were Hungarians. Look at the article List of rulers of Transylvania. Most rulers in the period of the independent principality were member of one of these families. Why can this not be mentioned in this article then? The fact that this territory is now part of another country does not change history. Qorilla (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Quorilla, You are right, I added sources about that theme.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Year of Establishment[edit]

Is 1570 the correct year? Some say the Principality of Transylvania was established in 1541: [5] [6] [7]. Another source talks about 1556: [8]

Treary of Speyer (1570) is the correct date (and the treaty was ratified in 1571) when John II renounced his claim as King of Hungary and he became a Transylvanian prince.[9]Fakirbakir (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The authors mix the name of the entity (expert needed)[edit]

These sources[1][2][3] mix the name of the entity. They talk about principality of Transylvania, however we can not talk about an "official principality" (in other words " a principality as state") until 1570 because Sigismund was a king and ruled a Hungarian kingdom until treaty of Speyer. He established the proper Principality of Transylvania in 1570 when he abdicated as King of Hungary. We can talk about titles as "prince of Transylvania" before 1570 but he was an elected Hungarian king (rex electus) who ruled the eastern part of the partitioned country until 1570. The Hungarian kingdom was the predecessor of Principality of Transylvania. OR we can talk about a "Transylvanian principality" as sub-entity (because the title "prince of Transylvania" existed before 1570) but it belonged to the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom.

  1. ^ (...) in 1541, and, as discussed in Chapter 3, the tripartite division of the country and the establishment during that year of an independent principality of Transylvania (...) [1]
  2. ^ (...)newly created Principality of Transylvania, which she began to rule with her son in 1541(...) [2]
  3. ^ [...]1541, when Frater Gybrgy Martinuzzi, a Pauline monk of Croatian origin who rose to the rank of cardinal, established the principality of Transylvania for John (Janos Szapolyai) I's widow, Queen Isabella[...] [3]

A proper principality has a prince(ss) as head of state, but Sigismund's main title was KING of Hungary until the treaty.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If that guy was King of Hungary, it does not mean that he could not be Prince of Transylvania too. The Voivodeship of Transylvania was a also province (voivodeship) of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary from 12th to 16th century. Please don't disregard the sources. Do you have any sources according to whom the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom existed after 1541? AvramIancu48 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
See this one:[10]Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Other sources talk about 1556 [11] [12]. Maybe we should present all these views about the starting year AvramIancu48 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The sources are quite confusing, but I think that Fakirbakir is right. John Sigismund Zápolya had the title King of Hungary until 1570 (Treaty of Speyer). Until that, we should speak about the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, and not the Principality of Transylvania. It is true that the voivodeship of Transylvania was part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, but the kings did not have the title "voivode", it was given to someone else. 1541 is a strange starting date, since it is the time Buda was captured by the Ottoman Empire. Why should it be given as the starting date of this principality? In my opinion, the two possible starting dates are 1538 (Treaty of Nagyvárad) or 1570 (Treaty of Speyer). The first one set the boarders between the territories belonging to Ferdinand (Royal Hungary) and the territories belonging to John Zápolya (Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, EHK), while both of them had the title King of Hungary. In my opinion, if we want to give a single date as the foundation of the Principality of Transylvania, it should be 1570, since this is the time Jonh Zápolya's son, John Sigismund Zápolya, abdicated from the title of king. For me, it sounds strange that the principality was founded while the kingdom (EHK) still existed (so it formed inside another state). Do we have some sources which claim this? Our other option would be to give all possible dates that could be found in sources, and say that the exact date of the foundation is obscure (but it was surely somewhere in the 16th century). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do you find the "political entity inside another political entity" so strnage? As I said above, the same situation was with the Holy Roman Emperor, who was Hungarian King in the same time... I found yet others sources that assert that 1541 was the starting year [13][14][15][16][17] John Sigismund, first prince of Transylvania (he would later renounce his royal title over Hungary) AvramIancu48 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As we know until 1541 the seat of the royal court was in Buda (court of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). After the Turkish occupation George Martinuzzi placed the court to Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia). The seat of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania until 1570. I think Transylvania did not possess sub-entity status. The counties next to the Tisza river were !equal participants! at the Transylvanian diet. Moreover the former apparatus of the Transylvanian voivode was inadequate to the task of administering a state, so Martinuzzi had to establish an entirely new court (See page of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). Another thing, the voivodes were always under the kings of Hungary (until 1570) and they did not count as heads of state. From 1566 John Sigismund was the voivode (prince) and the king simultaneously. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
And I agree with Koertefa, 1541 is a false date, those sources are inaccurate. The country was invaded by the Turks, however the kingdom was already "officially" divided to two in 1538.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this mutual recognition lasted for only 2 years (1538-1540). The coronation of John II Sigismund was not recognized by the Habsburgs. Why is the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom said to be 1538 - 1570? Between 1540 - 1570 (like between 1526 - 1538), the claim to the Hungarian throne was unilateral AvramIancu48 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Vica versa. At the eastern part of the country the Habsburgs were not recognized as kings of Hungary. The nobles there did not want a Habsburg king. We had 2 Hungarian kings until 1570, and they always thought the division is only a temporary formation.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
But the Habsburg king was not recognized in the eastern parts between 1526 - 1538 either. The "civil war" started immediately after Mohacs, why don't we have Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (1526-1570)? AvramIancu48 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I see your reasoning but until treaty of Nagyvárad there was only one kingdom with its medieval borders "officially". 1538 is the proper date when we can state that the medieval kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist, because of the "official" division, and the Eastern kingdom started to pay an annual tribute to the Ottomans from 1542 or 43. The Ottomans were in the medieval capital from 1541. This period was chaotic.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
And this "official" division lasted for only 2 years. Between 1540 and 1570 each of them claimed he is the rightful ruler of the whole Kingdom. If the criterion according to which we decide when the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was created and ceassed is the "official" recognition by the Habsburg side, its lifespan should be 1538-1540 AvramIancu48 (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
With your logic, the foundation date should be 1540 (not 1541), since that is the time the infant John Sigismund Zápolya was elected as king of Hungary. Even though Ferdinand did not accept him as king, his claim to the Hungarian throne was not unilateral, for example, the Ottoman Empire recognized him [18], and he was supported by the king of Poland (Sigismund's grandfather) [19]. I still do not see any reason why a state inside a state would have been founded. Do we have some sources which talk about this? Of course, there are many examples of sub-entities, but all of these were created when one of the states became subordinated to another state. But in these cases both states existed before the subordination. What's the logic behind creating a sub-state (Principality of Transylvania) inside a (half) kingdom (Eastern Hungarian Kingdom)? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
By "unilateral" I was referring to the relation with the Habsburgs. John Zapolya was also recognized by the Sultan as king of Hungary [20]. What's the difference between 1526-1538 period and 1540-1570 period in the terms of international recognition? Why do we include only the latter in the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom?
New source about 1541: [21] + Britannica 1911 "He attained it by the treaty of Gyula (Dec. 29, 1541), whereby western Hungary fell to Ferdinand, while Transylvania, as an independent principality under Turkish suzerainty, reverted to John Sigismund." [22] AvramIancu48 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Dear AvramIancu48, you know well your source is inaccurate. 1541 is a false date. As I see the main problem is the authors mix the name of the entity. 1, We can not use the name "Principality of Transylvania" before 1570 even if John had a princely (voivode)title from 1556 because his main title was king of Hungary and he was a counter king of Hungary. 2, It is clear Treaty of Speyer established proper Principality of Transylvania where a prince was the head of the state (not a king) 3, The Habsburgs claimed the Transylvanian territories as well so John's title as prince was also "unrecognized" in their points of view before 1570. 4, The diet of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania from 1541 (Buda was the previous), however it was the diet of the kingdom and not the diet of the principality. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So what if his main title was "King of Hungary"? It does not mean that the Principality of Transylvania did not exist before 1570, I showed you many sources. The Principality of Transylvania was recognized by the Habsburg side in 1541, by the Treaty of Gyula. After 1690 Habsburg Kings of Hungary assumed the title of Princes of Transylvania too (they owned the both titles, just like John Sigismund). Koertefa, who do you think is right? AvramIancu48 (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
But you mix the voivode (prince) title with the meaning of state. There was a royal court in Gyulafehervar. John II abdicated as king of Hungary and he remained a voivode or prince (in Hungarian: fejedelem or vajda) under the 'nominal' authority of the Habsburg Hungarian king (in accordance with treaty of Speyer) in 1570. This "nominal authority" meant the principality "nominally" belonged to Kingdom of Hungary. According to your reasoning you should state that Principality of Transylvania as a state existed from Mercurius, the first voivode of Transylvania(princeps Ultrasylvanus) (1110 AD).Fakirbakir (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, the tile of voivode existed until 1556 (with the last voivode being István Dobó). In my opinion the Principality of Transylvania, as political entity ruled by Unio Trium Nationum, was the successor of of the Voivodeship of Transylvania. Transylvania was a province of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and remained (even if only de jure) under the authority of the Hungarian king after the mid 16th century. John Sigismund just abdicatedas counter-King and remained only Prince of Transylvania and Partium (a title that he owned before the Treaty of Speyer too)
On the other hand, I still believe that the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom should be 1526-1570 (1526- 1538 and 1540-1270 periods of unrecognition by the Habsburgs, 1538-1540 period of official recognition) AvramIancu48 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Where did you read that Dobó was the last voivode? It is not true, István Báthory preferred to use the voivode form (in Hungarian vajda).Fakirbakir (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not read anywhere, it was only a presumption. He was the last I knew that used the title. But it seems I was wrong. Who was the list Voivode then? According to List of rulers of Transylvania, it seems that even Sigismund Báthory used the title. AvramIancu48 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Until 1594, the voivode title was used. After that there was a treaty between Báthory and the Habsburgs and they (the Habsburgs) recognized his new title "prince" instead of the old one "voivode". According to the source, István Báthory was the last voivode, but the Habsburgs recognized it later under the era of Sigismund Báthory (1594).[23].Fakirbakir (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
So before 1594, we can still talk about the Voivodeship of Transylvania... Howver the title Principality of Transylvania is only a convention, because the official title was "Prince of Transylvania and Parts of Hungary". Considering that the Voivodeship (Principality) of Transylvania existed as an entity before 1570 too, what do you say of renaming this article to Principality of Transylvania (semi-independent state) or even better Transylvania (semi-independent state) [24]? AvramIancu48 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I do not understand why the Habsburgs had to recognize this title again in 1594. They accepted it in 1570 "princeps Transsylvaniae et partium regni Hungariae dominus". In Hungarian maybe vajda (voivode) is a bit lower title than fejedelem (prince), and that was the reason why initially Stephen Báthory used it. He wanted to emphasize his loyalty to the Habsburg kings but later he changed his mind and started to use the "prince" form.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Question: was fejedelem (prince) used before Mohacs too? Is the medieval province Voivodeship of Transylvania also known as Principality of Transylvania? AvramIancu48 (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think so, "voivode" is not the same as "prince". There is an (almost 3 hundred pages long) scholarly book by Gábor Barta (written in Hungarian) called "The Birth of the Principality of Transylvania" ("Az erdélyi fejedelemség születése") according to which the earliest possible starting date would be 1541, while mostly 1556 is treated as the foundation date of the principality [25] (in Hungarian: "a fejedelemséget legkorábban 1541-től, de többnyire csak 1556-tól szokás számítani"). On the other had, it was surely not an (semi-)independent principality before 1570, therefore, we should keep 1570. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose the inclusion of the presentation of the 1541/1556 - 1570 period of the Principality of Transylvania, as province of the (Eastern) Hungarian Kingdom in the article Voivodeship of Transylvania AvramIancu48 (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Speyer[edit]

Hypothetically, according to treaty of Speyer (1570), in the sense of public laws, the Principality of Transylvania remained an inalienable part of Kingdom of Hungary. [26] Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen[edit]

The phrase Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen is an umbrella term, using this instead of Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary would only make the article unreadable. Moreover, preferably it should be used after 1867. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: the source (Encyclopedia Britannica [27]) also uses this form: "The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors." KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don`t see a problem here. This is fine.Adrian (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)