Talk:Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages/Archive 1

Untitled
"Hunyadi of the Vlach tribe"? This is kinda weird since Vlachs are Romanians and Romanians are not a Hungarian tribe. Anyway, informative and interesting article... except for that "mistake". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.104.216.79 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Vlach "tribe" thingy is meant to distract attention off Hunyadi's Romanian ethnicity and confuse the Western reader. He did serve loyally the Hungarian crown, state and nation so i see no reason for Hungarians to deny his Romanian heritage. It doesn't make him less of a Hungarian hero if they openly recognize his ethnicity. 85.186.159.54 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina's reverts
Rjecina wrote: "Funny. In article is writen that Britannica and Encarta are writing fringe theory. Deleted "
 * Really? That's interesting. Because I have not found any Fringe theories in Britannica and Encarta. Could please provide references? Hmm Btw I have some references if you are interested. Form Croatia talk page:
 * Many notable historians dispute the validity of Pacta Conventa, not just some Fringe theorists. Please see a list of some example verifiable academic level sources here:Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary I am glad you mentioned britannica  .Hungary conquered Croatia in 1091. Britannica actually mentions the fact that the document is disputed here .--Bizso (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also glad that you mentioned Encarta: Croatia and Slavonia were formally part of Hungary, although a large portion of their territory remained under direct Austrian rule until the late 19th century as part of the Habsburg Military Frontier (Vojna krajina)
 * After the invasion of Hungary, the two kingdoms united under the Hungarian king, either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force, in 1102.
 * Ladislas subjugated Croatia, Bosnia, and part of Transylvania; his successor, Koloman, obtained part of Dalmatia
 * The treaty of Trianon stripped about two-thirds of Hungary’s territory, including Transylvania, Croatia, and Slovakia

If you want to still read more references, because you don't believe Britannica and Encarta because it is imperialistic toilet paper then go to Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary--Bizso (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Conquest of Croatia
" In 1091 Ladislaus I of Hungary conquered Croatia. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. " (1) and (2) are dead links. (3) I don't know who's that guy. (4) Corvinus Library, I won't question that source. (5) I don't know who's that guy. Have you ever read Paul Robert Magocsi and his work Historical Atlas of Central Europe, ISBN 0-500-28355-9. There's a section on the p. 23, Chapter Hungary-Croatia and Venice, 14th-15th centuries. "...Hungary was able, however, to retain Croatia-Slavonia, which since 1102 had accepted the Hungarian king as its ruler. Croatia had a special status and was never considered among Hungary's "conquered lands", but rather its "annexed lands" . Hungarian rulers were also crowned king of "Croatia and Dalmatia", and were represented there by an officer known as the ban or by their own relatives (sons or brothers), whoe were called dukes. The dukes in particular often acted as independent rulers, appointing bans and bishops, minting their own money, and convoking diets. ...". I hope this can help. Kubura (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this can help: Nada Klaic (a croatian historian) thinks, Pacta Conventa is false, but the text does illustrate how the elite wanted to present itself in a later peroid, be it the fourteenth or fifteenth century.When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr., University of Michigan Press, ISBN 047211414X

'' The earliest manuscript attestation of that document is of late fourteenth century. The pacta conventa is most likely a late medieval forgery, not a twelfth-century source. Nevertheless, its source of inspiration must have been the political and social developements which had been taken place over a 300-year period following the counqeusts of Ladislas I and Coloman.'' Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0521815398

It is awful, that the croats simply can't bear that they were conquered by Hungary. They made one ridiculously bad forgery, and lie a lot of other stupidities because of that. This is repulsive. Toroko (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)