User vita:PE
A Wikipédiából, a szabad enciklopédiából.
Tartalomjegyzék |
[szerkesztés] Re: Charles Martel
Hi & wlcome to Huwiki. I tried to look up the info, but unfortunately haven't found the answer. I'll ask some other Wikipedians who know more about history. – Alensha 
üzi 2007. szeptember 1., 00:33 (CEST)
Hi! Alensha told me about your question and asked me to answer you. Well, first of all, Charles was never really king of Hungary – a legitimate Hungarian king has to be crowned by the archbishop of Esztergom with the Holy Crown, and Charles was only proclaimed king by his father. Furthermore, it seems that he didn't actually rule and control any territories in Hungary or Croatia himself. However, it's true that several great barons, who didn't accept Andrew III, accepted him as king. Among them were the Šubić (Subics), the Babonić (Babonics) and the Frangipani (Frangepán), who possessed several domains in Croatia and Slavonia, and even the Kőszegi family, who were great lords in Western Hungary.
The Anjou couldn't assert real control above their Hungarian supporters, since they were fought by Andrew III in Hungary and his mother, Tomasina Morosini in Croatia. The latter was named "duchess of Slavonia" in 1293, and defeated the rebellion of the Babonić in 1295, the year when Charles Martel died after five years of being a pretender to the throne of Hungary. To sum it up: he had several supporters, but didn't rule them. --Mathae Vita 2007. szeptember 1., 01:01 (CEST)
[szerkesztés] Nemanja and county
In fact, I can't really find anything right now about Charles appointing Vladislav Nemanja – only a sentence in one of my books, that says that his father, Dragutin supported the Anjous during the struggles for power. Anyway, if Vladislav was appointed, I'm quite sure that this was only a nominal act, since duchess Tomasina held her territories firmly.
Concerning megye: Hungary has been divided into "counties" (Latin: comitatus, pl. comitati) since the reign of Saint Stephen, though the Hungarian name and the function of these administrative units changed (from vármegye to megye). Municipalities were only formed in the 19th century, before that different types of towns and cities existed (szabad királyi város, mezőváros, tárnoki város, személynöki város stb.) according to their different rights and privileges while villages didn't have any legal autonomy. --Mathae Vita 2007. szeptember 2., 21:57 (CEST)
That's a good question... what do you mean, when you say municipality? Municipalities are cities with self-government, and severeal municipalities can be located in a county, right?--Mathae Vita 2007. szeptember 3., 14:09 (CEST)
In 1918, the Kingdom of Hungary had 63 counties plus the city of Fiume (now Rijeka, Croatia) as an exclave (like Kaliningrad today), not couting the 8 Croatian counties. Slovakia received territories of 23 counties (11 totally); Austria got parts of 4 counties, the Serbo-Croatian Kingdom got all the Croatian counties and parts of Hungarian 3 counties, while Romania got territories of 26 counties (17 totally). These aren't sure facts, only I tried to count after it...--Mathae Vita 2007. szeptember 3., 14:48 (CEST)
I think in this case "municipalities" simply means villages, towns and cites. What exactly do you want to know about the National Councils? Anyway, where are you from? :) --Mathae Vita 2007. szeptember 3., 22:03 (CEST)
No, no problem, I simply don't have time to look up a suitable answer for you – at the beginning of the new semester, I'm trying to create a nice timetable and don't have time to do research for you – you see, I don't have any serious books regarding this topic, and I don't want to send you an unproved answer. So sorry, but I guess you'll have to wait for a couple of weeks. But if I can help you in any other way... I found some info about the Romanian Council, but it's quite a long text, written by reliable historians. [1] Maybe you could ask Alensha or someone else who can translate the parts regarding it, I don't have the time for that. As for the case of Yugoslavia, I can't really help right now.--Mathae Vita 2007. szeptember 4., 19:27 (CEST)
[szerkesztés] Ugrin
Ugrin Csák, who had territories around Újlak (Ilok, now Croatia) was a "bán" (≈ governor, but this title was only used in Croatia, Slavonia and territories of Bosnia and Serbia) and owner of several high ranks of the monarchy, e.g. bán of Szörény, bán of Macsó, vajda of Transylvania. He remained loyal to Andrew III but was caught by the supporters of the Anjou family in 1292. After the death of Andrew he became a chief supporter of Caroberto, and so the protector of the young king. He died in 1311. He was only a distant relative of Máté Csák, lord of Northeastern Hungary. --al-Mathae Vita 2007. október 6., 01:03 (CEST)
- No, definitely not. He had domains in hr:Ilok (Újlak in Hungarian), as I sad, and several other smaller ones in Croatia and Southern Hungary, but he wasn't among the greatest barons. --al-Mathae Vita 2007. október 6., 23:13 (CEST)
Well, it seems from another book, that indeed he had rather huge territories, but surely smaller than the map shows. His domains were basically between the Sava and the Drava-Danube line, stretching to Požega (then Pozsegavár) in the west, and his center was Ilok-Újlak. Anyway, he was only a smaller "fish" on the political field then, compared to the other great barons. So on the map I would erase all the territories in the north of the Danube. And of course it must be marked, that Ugrin was not independent in theory, i.e. his lands were part of the Kingdom of Hungary. --al-Mathae Vita 2007. október 7., 16:15 (CEST)
I'm not sure about this, but since Dragutin died five years after Ugrin's death, it's possible that he ruled Syrmia for that short period. I can't really find out any specific information right now about the situation before 1311, though I'm quite sure that Csák didn't lose his possesions. --al-Mathae Vita 2007. október 7., 21:45 (CEST)
- And of course if Dragutin had actually become the lord of those lands between 1311-1316, he ruled them as a subject of Hungary, while he was a legally independent North-Serbian king as well.--al-Mathae Vita 2007. október 7., 21:49 (CEST)
[szerkesztés] Translation
Aside from Marko, Vukasin had three other sons: Andrijas, Ivanis and Dmitar. Andrijas is mentioned as a lord of a region in Western Macedonia, who was famous for minting his own money. Later Andrijas and Dmitar left their possessions in Macedonia and settled in Hungary. Dmitar was ispán (comes) of Arad vármegye (comitatus) and captain of the stronghold of Világos between 1404 and 1407. The least is known about Ivanis. It can only be known that he lost his life in 1385, on the battlefield of Szaúr. – al-Mathae Vita 2007. november 1., 01:22 (CET)
[szerkesztés] Ugrin
Hi, and happy new year to you too. I've almost forgotten you... in fact, I've just found another map, which shows that indeed Csák possessed lands to the north of the Danube, inculding Bács/Bač and Hasznos (doesn't exist today, it lied somewhere around Törökbecse/Novi Bečej), and even to the east of these lands (e.g. Versec/Vršac in Serbia and Illyéd/Ilidia, Harampatak/Potoc in Romania were in his or his allies' hands).– al-Mathae Vita 2008. január 7., 20:59 (CET)
[szerkesztés] Szerém
Hi! First of all, I have to make clear that Szerém is a name of a county, while the geographic territory on which it's located bears the name "Szerémség".
Actually, the Hungarians conquerred Szerémség with the land between the Dráva (Drava) and Száva (Sava) rivers during the "honfoglalás" (Conquest of Homeland, i.e. the migration of Hungarian tribes to the Carpathian/Pannonian basin) soon after they arrived, sometime between 900-905, to be more precise. From the 10th century, we don't really have any data about the internal affairs of Hungary, and the situation is nearly the same regarding the 11th – the land of Szerém (named after Roman Sirmium) was first called Marchia, which suggests it was administered like Marks/marches of other countries. In the mid-12th century Hungary and Manuel I Comnenus, the Byzantine emperor had several wars against each other, because the emperor supported pretenders to the Hungarian throne.
In 1164 the Hungarian king, István III agreed to cede Croatia, Slavonia and Szerém to the Empire, but in 1165 he reconquerred it for a short time, but later in the year Manuel defeated him near Zimony (Zemun), and gained the southern territories again. The same happened in 1166 and 1167, but on 8th July 1167 the Hungarians suffered a decisive defeat. From then till the death of Manuel Szerémség (along wiht the other previously mentioned territories) was ruled by the Byzantine Empire, and only Béla III got it back around 1180-'81-'82.
After that Szerémség was one of the most flourishing regions of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom, it's said that the wine made here had a good fame everywhere in Europe. The trouble came with the Ottoman Empire. The first Ottoman raid reached the southern frontiers in 1390, and from then on the Turkish nearly every year sacked Szerémség, which soon became poor and unpopulated. Quite a lot of castles and fortresses were built there to fight against the Ottomans (far the most important of them was Nándorfehérvár/Belgrad and Pétervárad/Petrovaradin). The Turks managed to occupy Belgrad in 1521, suffered a minor defeat in Szávaszentdemeter/Sremska Mitrovica in 1523, and in 1526 they defeated the Hungarian army at Mohács. From then on – though the rest of Central Hungary was only occupied by them in 1541 – Szerémség was in their hands till 1687-'88. Some violent battles were fought against them in the 1690s (Szalánkemén/Slankamen - 1691, Zenta/Senta - 1697), but they finally gave the territory back to the Kingdom of Hungary in 1699 (peace treaty of Karlóca/Karlowitz/Karlovci). – al-Mathae Vita 2008. január 24., 00:05 (CET)
[szerkesztés] Pacta Conventa
Virtually nothing. – Mathae 2008. június 14., 18:30 (CEST)
Ah, I see, you mean the Croatian pacta conventa. Anyway, my sources don't write about it anything. They don't mention any agreement between Kálmán and the Croatians in 1102, only that in that year "Kálmán had himself crowned king of Croatia in Trogir. Thus was estabilished a Hungarian-Croatian personal union."
The next question is much easier to answer. The whole Hungarian text can be found here, but it's rather long to translate all of it, not to mention that it's quite archaic and written in legal jargon. What kind of questions are you interested in regarding this pact? – Mathae 2008. június 17., 00:06 (CEST)
There are no regulations for the abolishment of the pact. As for making changes on it:
 |
70. § Ez egyezmény a legmagasabb szentesités után, mint Magyarország s Horvát-, Szlavon- és Dalmátországok közös alaptörvénye, a nevezett országok külön törvénykönyveibe igtattatik. Egyszersmind megállapittatik, hogy ez egyezmény az egyezkedő országok külön törvényhozásainak tárgya nem lehet, s változás rajta csak ugyanazon módon, a mint létrejött, mindazon tényezők hozzájárulásával tétethetik, a melyek kötötték. | |
That is:
|
70. § This agreement after the Highest Sanction is to be ratified as the fundamental law of Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia in the distinct codes of the above mentioned countries. At the same time it is stated that this agreement cannot be an issue for the separate legislative authorities of the negotiating countries, and changes can only be made on it, as it was created, with the consent of all the signatory parties. | |
That means I guess that it couldn't be altered unilaterally. – شهاب الويكي 
مجلس الحكمة 2008. június 17., 21:32 (CEST)
