Talk:Eastern Hungarian Kingdom

Voivodeship of Transylvania
Recently the misleading claim was added that the Voivodeship of Transylvania (which was, by the way, not a country but a part of the Kingdom of Hungary) was the predecessor of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (EKH). Although, EKH contained the area of the former Voivodeship of Transylvania, as well, it was larger than that and it had a completely different structure. Take a look at this source:. It explicitly states that: "The eastern Hungarian kingdom was not a continuation after 1541 of the medieval Transylvanian province. No Voivode was nominated at all, the crown exercising its power directly [...]". K &oelig;rte F  a  { ταλκ }  08:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree with the point. However, your quote talks about the year 1541, so I wonder if 1538–1570 is the accurate lifespan of the EHK or not. According to the article, the dispute over the kingship started in 1526 ("the country was ruled by two crowned kings (between 1526 and 1538)") Dobitocilor (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I do not know why that source talks about 1541. The treaty of Nagyvárad was signed in 1538 between Ferdinand and Szapolyai. This treaty set the borders of the kingdoms: that is why the article states that as the foundation date of the EHK.  K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  09:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is there were supporters of Szapolyai at the western part of the kingdom the same as Ferdinand's supporters at the eastern part. From 1526 to 1538 there was only one "official kingdom" with two rival kings.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. Thus, between 1526 and 1538 Szapolyai was not the king of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, but the counterking of the Kingdom of Hungary. K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  10:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Starting year
As I said at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867), I think 1526 should be presented as the starting year. Zapolya was elected as king in 1526. In 1538 Ferdinand and Zapolya agreed that the second is the only King of Hungary, and since 1540 there were again 2 pretenders to the throne. Bzg1920 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zápolya was indeed elected as king of Hungary in 1526, but the country was only divided in 1538. Before 1538 I do not think that we can talk about an Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, since before the treaty of Nagyvárad there was only one kingdom (with two kings). K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  06:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And after 1538 we had 2 Kingdoms with one king? Because according to the Treaty of Grosswardein "Ferdinand retained the western parts of the Hungarian Kingdom, and was recognized as heir to the the Hungarian throne" (Zapolya was the only King) Bzg1920 (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did it contain anything regarding the abdication of Ferdinand as king of Hungary? K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  06:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, there was only one crown Bzg1920 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion continues here: Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1538–1867). K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  07:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this name notorius enough?
It does not seem to be mentioned too much by authors. There are hundreds of Google Books sources discussing the mid - 16th events in Hungary and only very few contain this denomination. There are only Béla Köpeczi, Iván Boldizsár (The Hungarian Quarterly)... Magyar Tudományos Akadémia talks about Matthias Corvinus in the given result AvramIancu48 (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have another suggestion? The Hungarian version "Keleti Magyar Királyság" is widely used by Hungarian historians. . K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I guess this title is still the best. 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) 07:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot talk about two kingdoms before 1538 (Treaty of Nagyvárad), since the borders were set only then - and why can we talk about two kingdoms after 1540? The agreement lasted for only 2 years AvramIancu48 (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Kingdom without borders? it does not make sense - which were the borders of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom between 1551-1556, when Isabella and John Sigismund were in exile in Poland and Tranylvania was under Habsburg voivodes? According to Miklós Molnár, in 1551 John Sigismund abdicated as king AvramIancu48 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Lippa
Actually the Ottoman sultan ordered John II and the Izabella to move (to retire) to Lippa. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They stayed briefly at Lippa, but soon came to Transylvania at the invitation of the Diet - the place of the the residence of the monarch is not the same with "capital" TransylvaniaRomania (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole royal entourage moved to Lippa. They had to leave Buda. Martinuzzi also resided with them at Lippa. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this source (kislexikon):"...... Izabella, fiával, a koronával és kincseivel egy darabig itt talált menedéket s 1514 aug. 29. Szulejmán szultán ezt rendelvén székhelyéül, itt maradt 1542 májusági, midőn Gyulafehérvár lett a főváros. 1554. ismét ezt akarta Erdély fővárosává tenni a török"


 * Isabella had to go to Lippa, because the sultan wanted the town to be the new seat. Later in 1554 the sultan wanted Lippa to be the capital again. I am aware of that we would need proper sources, however the source of kislexicon is the Pallas Lexicon. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Was there an Eastern Hungarian Kingdom?
Can we speak of an Eastern Hungarian Kingdom? Are there reliable sources which describe John and John Sigismund Szapolyai's realms as a state with its own specific institutions? As far as I remember both Ferdinand and John regarded Hungary as one state. Could we also speak of two kingdoms in England during the civil war under Stephen, King of England or during the War of Roses, because there were multiple claimants to the throne? I suggest that this article should be renamed "Disintegration of Medieval Hungary" to describe the division of the medieval kingdom into three parts. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the answer is affirmative, we can speak of an Eastern Hungarian Kingdom. The Eastern Hungarian Kingdom is described as having its own deliberative assembly: "The diet of Eastern Hungary reconvened on 24 April 1545 at Torda.". The polity is also mentioned by the HUNGARIAN GEOGRAPHICAL BULLETIN: "Following the battle of Mohács (1526) the voivodship of Transylvania became the main territory of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom ruled by John Szapolyai (former voivode)" 123Steller (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a modern technical term in Hungarian historiography used by some authors. Borbála Bak also mentions this name in her topographic work. Every Hungarians had to learn in elementary school that after Mohács (1526), Hungary divided into two (Habsburg - Szapolyai) then three parts (from 1541 + Ottoman Hungary). So, I think, a separate article is required, but we can discuss over the title of the article. From Zápolya's realm the Principality of Transylvania emerged so this is also a "predecessor state". --Norden1990 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that the medieval Kingdom of Hungary was divided into two and later three in the 16th century. However, both the kings and the inhabitants of the "two" realms (namely, the Habsburgs' and the Szapolyais' realms) knew that the realms did not form separate polities (I refer to the treaties of Várad, Gyalu, Nyírbátor). However, my main concern is that I have no knowledge of a reliable source dedicated to this "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom". Without such a monography (or article dedicated to this subject in an enncyclopedia), this article can easily be described as an original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Károly Kocsis, an important member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, also wrote about the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, so I think it is wrong to deny this term.
 * A similar situation happens nowadays: everyone agrees that there is only one state called China - see One-China policy). Both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and People's Republic of China assert that there is a single China. Taiwan is constitutionally called the "Free area of the Republic of China" which is not ruled by the Communist Party of China in Beijing. On the other side, Communist China considers the Republic of China as being Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. 123Steller (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he mentioned the "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" in a monography dedicated to territorial anatomies (if you read that reference, it is obvious he had no deep knowledge of that polity, because he claims that Transylvania was its main territory soon after Mohács). Is there a monography or an article in an encyclopedia dedicated to this polity? Borsoka (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Béla Köpeczi's high-impact monography (History of Transylvania I-III) also mentions this historiographical term. It's definitely not an original synthesis. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. It is a reliable source. What is the reliable source for the alleged coat-of-arms of this kingdom? Borsoka (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, I deleted it. It's only Szapolyai's personal coat-of-arms. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

However, I think, 1529 as start date is quite doubtful. The history of Zápolya's realm began with John's coronation on 10 November 1526. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding and revert of this day.
Wrong or right, a romanian POV exists, even if the main academic source were also published during the communist time. It's just a pretext for erase this alternative POV. More recent works such as Ioan Aurel Pop's Romanians and Romania : a brief History, Columbia University Press 1999, ISBN 0-88033-440-1 and A. Dragoescu's (ed.) Transilvania, istoria României, 2 vol., Cluj 1997–1999 says exactly the same POV. I do not care, but I'm tired of nationalism disguised under encyclopedic clothes (on the both sides). --Mélomène (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read and apply WP:AGF before labelling other editors. Borsoka (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)