Talk:List of administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary

See also: Talk:List of historic counties of Hungary

15th century counties in .hr
It somehow doesn't make sense to call Kri&#382;evci, Dubica, Vrbas, Sana, Vara&#382;din, Virovitica and Zagreb "Slavonia" when at the same time have Vukovar, Szerem and Po&#382;ega are in Hungary proper. Juro, are you sure you copied this correctly? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is correct, exactly as you wrote, the latter three were part of Hungary proper, but the region was known as Slavonia. The others were both the part of the region and of Kingdom of Slavonia (K. of Croatia was south of Gvozd mountains until the name slowly migrated north in 16th through 18th century for the sake of continuity of the name and since people fled after Turks conquered almost all of what was known as Croatia by then): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.53.230 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the greatest efforts to copy this correctly. The problem is that parts of later Croatia-Slavonia were part of Hungary (apparently those in eastern Slavonia) and others not and this seem to have been constantly changing or so. There are similar problems with Transylvania. What is definitely missing in the Wikipedia and in the entire internet is a page that would exactly say for the 1000 years: from the year X to the year Y this territory was in this relation to the Hungarian crown and this border region was part of Hungary proper from X to Y and so on. I was desperately trying to find something like that, but without success. And actually I am more confused now about these things than I was before I have written this article...Juro 22:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Közép-Szolnok, Bels&#337;-Szolnok
I just found a map of the Transylvanian counties before 1876:. I think you need to check the Szolnoks again, because it's pretty complicated. There is of course the town Szolnok in present Hungary (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok), the county Közép-Szolnok that became part of Szilágy (together with Kraszna) and the county Bels&#337;-Szolnok, that became Szolnok-Doboka (together with Doboka). Közép means central/middle, Bels&#337; means inner/interior. Markussep 12:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I know that ... so what is the problem with respect to this particular article? Juro 17:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a problem, I was just a bit confused about all the Szolnoks, especially the two Szolnokiensis'es around 1074. I found this list of Hungarian counties:. I think you'll find the first list (around 1090) interesting, since you indicated that you were not so certain about the counties in those days. I guess your Szolnok II had Doboka as capital? Then probably there was no Kraszna county then, unless it had some other name/capital. And Szolnok I was divided into Kunság and Jászság lateron? Markussep 15:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not me who is not certain, it is the sources (by the way, I have allowed for the above web-page too, but note that it shows the 1090s not 1074). As far as I remember the two/three Szolnoks were not among the problematic counties. In most cases, nobody can tell today with certainty which castle was the capital in the 11th century (there are usually virtually no written texts from such a distant period). I guess Szolnok II had Dej as "capital", but I will have to check it. Anyway, Szolnok should have something in common with the Szolnok-Doboka county. And as for Cumania (Kunság) and Iyzygia (Jászság), these were among the various privileged territories, which are always a very complicated case in the Kingdom of Hungary - so I will try to find something but I do not expect to succeed. I can assure you, however, that I had very similar questions when I was setting up the lists.. Juro 22:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't order any hungarian beer. I don't even like it.

Naming issues
I have so far taken care of the list of city names in the 1867-1918 section and translated everything back into Hungarian, since this is an article on the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary, in which the city names should be in Hungarian.

One thing that I found is that some of the counties now in Slovakia redirect to pages with non-Hungarian names. Example: Since Abaúj-Torna was a Hungarian county, I feel that the article should be titled Abaúj-Torna and not Abov. It specifically states that it is a county of the former Kingdom of Hungary and it continues on to mention that Abov is only an informal designation of the current territory in Slovakia. Incidentally, this issue of naming pre-Trianon Hungarian counties in other languages does not occur with the counties now in Croatia or Romania, so I will be changing the Slovak titled ones back to Hungarian. If anyone wants to help out, feel free. --Hungarian83 07:33, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not very consistent now. There have been more discussions about this, for instance at Talk:List of historic counties of Hungary and Talk:Uzh county. See also Talk:Gdańsk and Province of Posen for how to deal with historic names. Before you put a lot of effort in moving, which someone else will revert, let's have a discussion. Some of the arguments I saw:


 * The territories of the counties are now in Slovakia, Romania etc. so their articles should have Slovak, Romanian etc. names.
 * The official language in the Kingdom was Hungarian or Latin (before 1867?), so the articles should have Hungarian names (or Latin?).
 * The inhabitants of the counties spoke mainly Slovak, Ukrainian, Romanian etc., so the articles should have Slovak, Romanian etc. names.
 * The articles are not only about the Kingdom of Hungary county, but also about the present region, so the articles should have Slovak, Romanian etc. names.
 * The county only had a Hungarian name, the Slovak, Romanian etc. names are just the names of the corresponding river, town etc., so the articles should have Hungarian names.


 * Abaúj-Torna is a special case, since Abov/Abaúj is only part of that county. I guess it should have its own article, at Abaúj-Torna or Abov-Turňa. Personally, I agree with moving the counties to Hungarian names. Maybe that means that the Slovak traditional regions should get separate articles. Markussep 09:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The official language in of the Kingdom of Hungary was NOT Hungarian until the 1860s (i.e. for some 900 years) - any other comment is not needed because the fact that the country was called the "Hungarian" kingdom does not imply that its official language was Hungarian. And as far as I remember those counties that are predominantly in Hungary now are in Hungarian. Also, the counties were largely not inhabited by Hungarians, continued to exist in Czechoslovakia and are now officially used as regions for tourism and similar purposes. The articles also clearly say what their Hungarian, German and Latin name was and mention all connections with Hungary. I do not see the least reason in changing the current state, besides what is called Hungarian nationalism even in such ridiculous things. Juro 16:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Independently of the current debate, legally speaking, Hungarian became the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1844. Adam78 17:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

But was replaced by German 4 years later...Juro 02:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

To be sure, if the articles in question were solely about the KoH county, I would be for naming them in Hungarian, but they aren't. On the other hand, it is OK that this article is naming them in Hungarian (when speaking of times after 1867), so thanks for that update.

This means that I'm against moving the pages. The cleanest solution would be to separate the info about the old county and the current region, but I for sure have insufficient time and enthusiasm to do that... KissL 07:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Juro, you'll have to admit that Slovak was never an official language of the kingdom. I can imagine you wouldn't accept the whole Liptov or Spiš article to be under the Hungarian name, I agree that would be silly. However, I would suggest to give Abaúj-Torna and Gömör-Kishont separate articles. Markussep 07:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the point is that Slovak, German etc. was as much/little the official language as Hungarian was - there is absolutely no difference. I understand that the fact that the country is called Hungary is misleading in this context. But in reality, each group, county etc. used it's own language and the official language - the esperanto - was Latin (later also German for some years). And note that the kings were Austrians (speaking German) since 1526. Other examples: Laws were issued ALSO in Slovak (Slovakized Czech) in the 15th century for example and there were even propositions on the part of Hungarian deputies to make Slovak the official language of the Kingdom in the 18th century, etc. etc. The most important point however is that the regions are alive in Slovakia and people/tourists live and visit Liptov (not Liptó, which after all is lingustically only a distortion of Liptov), which is 100% identical with the historical county and considers itself a continuation thereof - i.e. this is not the same case as with modern Romanian counties, for example. Abaúj and Torna can be under the Hungarian name of course (if they are not already), but not Gömor and Kishont, because they are among the still live terms and were predominently Slovak in history and are almost exclusively in modern Slovakia. Finally note that the user who initiated this discussion also tried to rename an island(!) in Slovakia into a Hungarian name in an article, so his true aim should be clear...Juro 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, you must be referring to my modification in the article entitled "Komárom county". The article in which it says "was a historic administrative county (comitatus) of the Kingdom of Hungary".  I should note that my addition of the island name "Csallóköz" is not something I made up.  That is what it is called in Hungarian.  I should also note that Komárom county had and still has a significant (I believe current majority) Hungarian population.  Your comment "do you want me to rename islands in Hungary into Slovak names?" in the history section is quite irrelevant.  I should note that I made my change in the Komárom county article (dealing with HUNGARY), and not the Komárno article (dealing with SLOVAKIA).  I am only making changes to articles about HUNGARY.  I am not going to go change the Slovak articles.  There is no logic to that.  What I find interesting though is that you totally deleted the Hungarian name of the island in the Hungarian article.  One more comment: "so his true aim should be clear..."  Really...what is that?--Hungarian83 19:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting...I just checked the 2001 Census data from the website of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/english/census2001/tab/tab3a.htm). The district of Komárno has a total population of 108,556 and a Hungarian population of 74,976 (69.07%). --Hungarian83 19:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You may be right, for the KoH before 1867. After that, the only official language was Hungarian, wasn't it? I've been in Liptov and Spiš, so I know it would be silly to rename them. Same probably for Gemer (I've seen several place names starting with Gemersk), but are you sure "Gemer-Malohont" is still in use now? I made a separate article Abaúj-Torna. Markussep 17:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, but that are "40 years" as compared to "900 years or so before that + above all the last 100 years after that"...And it is not known as Gemer-Malohont, but as "Gemer" and as "Malohont"...Of course it is in use: for example, the government has special investment plans for "Gemer" (currently one of the poorest regions of Slovakia ) etc... Juro 01:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 51 years, and a lot closer to present than the 15th century. I totally agree that "Gemer" should stay where it is, but what I meant is whether the combination Gemer-Malohont is still in use or not. I guess not. Markussep 07:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes 50 of course...but 10th instead of the 15th century and the 20th century is closer to present than the late 19th century...Just to be precise.Juro 03:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've refrained from either renaming county articles for .hr or commenting on this issue because in their case it was pretty clear that the article spoke of the counties created in the 19th century, and I made it clear in their articles that they were part of the autonomous part of KoH rather than the whole (this makes it much cleaner than the Slovak and Romanian case). I didn't complain about the normalization of references to them here, because it doesn't make much difference either way. A case could be made for not using Hungarian if for example the Croatian counties were proclaimed by the Croatian ban, or if they had Croatian or other language names that were used instead of Hungarian, or if some similar legal ground exists for renaming them. I'm not aware of any at this time, so I'm not touching it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My one true aim in the corrections I was doing was to create some consistency. To me it does not make sense to have most article titles in Hungarian and some of the article titles not in Hungarian, when they are solely about the county in the former Kingdom of Hungary.  I should also note that I am completely for the idea of including the names of the counties/cities in both languages.  This is especially the case if 1.) the predominant language or culture was not Hungarian, and 2.) the city is now located outside of Hungary.  However, being that these are articles on Hungarian history, it is in my opinion that the Hungarian name be the first/primary name in the article (when dealing with counties/cities/districts, etc.).  What astonishes me is that certain users are accusing me of doing this in the name of Hungarian nationalism.  I feel this from comments in this discussion like, "I do not see the least reason in changing the current state, besides what is called Hungarian nationalism..." and "rename an island(!) in Slovakia into a Hungarian name in an article, so his true aim should be clear...".  This is ridiculous.  I first of all did not rename the island.  1.) Csallóköz is the Hungarian term; 2.) I made the change to the article "Komárom county" (article on historical Hungary) and not the article on "Žitný ostrov" (article on modern-day Slovakia); 3.) I simply added the term Csallóköz and kept the Slovak name of Žitný ostrov; 4.) The user who is accusing me of "renaming" the island, actually went on to delete the Hungarian name of the island from the article on the Hungarian county!  (yet supposedly I am the one with an agenda!).  I would assume that the term Csallóköz is actually used more by residents of that island than the Slovak term, being that the two Slovak districts that occupy most of the island are Dunajská Streda, and Komárno.  Incidentally, these two districts have the highest proportion of Hungarians anywhere in Slovakia: Dunajská Streda (83% Hungarian), Komárno (69% Hungarian).  These figures are from the 2001 Census from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, and I will gladly leave the link...again: http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/english/census2001/tab/tab3a.htm.  Frankly, I am not going to spend much more time pursuing this since my aim is being blown out of proportion, and the logic of consistency is lost on this issue. --Hungarian83 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding counties from former Croatia-Slavonia, I think that their names should be in Croatian. Croatia-Slavonia was autonomous within Kingdom of Hungary and Croatian language was official there + population there was mainly Croatian and Serbian and their territory is now in Croatia and Serbia. If the names of the counties from the territory of present-day Slovakia are in Slovak (and Slovakia was not autonomous like Croatia-Slavonia neither Slovak was official regional language like Croatian), then names of the counties of Croatia-Slavonia should be in Croatian. I propose these names for the articles: Varaždin (now Varasd), Križevci (now Belovár-Kőrös), Požega (now Pozsega), Virovitica (now Verőce), Srijem (now Szerém), Zagreb (now Zágráb), Modruš-Rijeka (now Modrus-Fiume), Lika-Krbava (already have this name). Srijem could be named Syrmia instead since the article about present-day Croatian county is named Vukovar-Syrmia, not Vukovar-Srijem. Opinions? PANONIAN   (talk)  23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

lands belonging to the Hungarian crown (1000 -1918) ??
This is POV fork. Bonaparte  talk  17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's history. ;-) bogdan 17:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your joke doesn't fit here Bogdan. Actually there are many periods of time when it wasn't like this. Just to remind you 1599-1601 :) and Transylvania was most of the autonomous. Bonaparte   talk  17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So actually what I noticed here is that reading this one may believe that for 918 years Transylvania "belonged to the Hungarian crown". That's false. Even Hungary was under Turkish rule for many years meanwhile Transylvania wasn't. There were also the Habsburgic Empire, Austro-Hungary, and other forms of ruling... Bonaparte  talk  17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Demographics
Most county articles have their own demographics section, so there is no reason that we writte demographics here too, especially not simplifistic one. We really would have a problem to choose which census year we will present here. It is well known that number of Hungarians in these counties much increased between 1715 and 1910, thus should we use here data from 1715 or from 1910? The proper manner would be to use for both years (and for all other years), but then this article would be too large. So, let just keep demographics in county articles, which are proper place for it. PANONIAN  (talk)  14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Communes
Geoffrey Drage (p. 383) says there were about 13,000 communes in Hungary. Are they pertinent to this article? Does anyone know anything about them? Did they exist in all counties or all but the urban counties? If Drage is correct, they are very small - average population just over 1000 in 1900, or less if urban counties don't have them. Boris B (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently the article only discusses one level of administrative divisions. I think a chapter should be added about the divisions below that level, for instance the districts (járás), and the different types of municipalities/communes (törvényhatósági jogú város, rendezett tanácsú város, nagyközség), and what their powers were through the ages. Does your book give information about that? Markussep Talk 10:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Geoffrey Drage's book is on Austria Hungary so everything I've seen on the subject of districts applies to the Austrian part. Britannica answered my question about the 26 "urban counties" - they are really municipalities with more people and more power than a commune, and little or no dependence on the counties they are in, so I'm pretty sure they are not broken into communes.  The best source is probably Foreign Reports of 1894-5, which I am going to peruse and try to incorporate into the article.  Boris B (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your pointers Markussep. My sources are all translated and leave out the original words a lot, and when they do, can't agree on whether to use German (like Obergespan) or Hungarian (like Foispán, which I think is the same).  So I will often have vague English where I need specific Hungarian.  I think járás is the same as processus which is a type of district but I haven't found anything saying what they did; I suppose they are smaller than a comitatus and larger than a commune.  Would be interesting to figure out the discrepancy between Britannica's 26 urban counties/municipalities (1910) and Foreign Report's 46 towns with municipalities (1893). Boris B (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe there were 26 urban counties (törvényhatósági jogú város, according to this website "town with municipial rights") and 20 other towns with independent councils (rendezett tanácsú város, "town with settled council"), giving 46 more or less independent towns in total. You can find the 1882 situation here, unfortunately only by county, no list for all of Hungary. Markussep Talk 17:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the excellent resource, Markussep. I found 40 szkv, 6 tjv, and 90 rtv., which adds to 136. Oddly I only found 134 városok (Háromszék and Gömör both had an rtv. that wasn't a városok).  Speculation: 20 of these (incl. e.g. 4 in Pozsony megye) lost autonomy by 1910. This 1914 source counts 27 independent municipalities and 111 incorporated towns - the numbers are different but they add up to about the same - supporting the conclusion that between 1882 and 1910, about 20 urban county / royal free / town with munic. rights lost this status but became settled council / incorporated towns.  Boris B (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fine 1897 source. Based on the numbers and the way the various sources have ordered them, I am guessing that "towns with settled councils" (numbering 103 in 1882 for Hungary, Transylvania, and Croatia), "towns with magistrate appointed by the crown" (114 in 1893), "towns with organized magistracy" (126 in 1897), and "incorporated towns" (124 in 1914) are pretty much the same thing.  Which is to say, they are towns free of district (processus) control but not county control.  Towns free of county control are described as "urban counties" or "towns with municipal rights" and are much rarer (50 in 1882, 46 in 1893, 28 in 1897, and 31 in 1914).  The sums are quite constant, indicating a total of from 153 to 160 important towns in Transleithania with an ongoing shift of (presumably the smallest) municipalities into county control. Boris B (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050603084523/http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/hhcounty.htm to http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/hhcounty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Period of the counties
Hi ,

I will try to explain again because what you did is fallacious and inconsistent and definetly not the proper solution.

Regarding this article, the stress pattern is not on that that what is the state form of Hungary sometimes, not even states that she would be a kingdom at all this timeline, it is covering the classic period of the Hungarian state with it's classic, historical borders and county sytem, that existed between 1000-1920. Please also notice that during this era, sometimes Hungary was partitioned, part of it became a principality, or the status or state form changed etc., but what is the most important in the beginning - 1000 A.D - and in the end - 1920 4 June - The state form of Hungary was as well Kingdom -" republican", etc. forms ended and in 29 february 1920 the Kingdom and the monarchy was reinstated - so it is a clear delimiter, moerover is is totally consistent since the historical administrative divisons has been ended as well in 1920, it has zero connection to the multiple form of the state in the past millenium.

The fact that until now 1918 was written is the common fallacy of those who confuse the dissolution the Monarchy (1918) with the Treaty of Trianon (1920), although the subject (Hungary) and her administrative divisions did not change, they were dissoluted in 1920. I repeat, what is the most important of the article's consistency, that the time of creation (1000), and the end (1920) Hungary was a kingdom, so your concern is void with this.

However, if you see the initial sentence "lands belonging to the Hungarian crown" is written, and these lands also in 1920 belonged to the Hungarian Crown (!Do not confuse with "Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen"!), until the Treaty of Trianon, it is not true that this belonging would end in 1918, since it is false, as proving my statement of the fallacy of those who confused originally writing the details this article, this is fixed with my edit that you reverted too early before properly discussed.

Based on the same argumentation, the page move you made is uneccesary and fallacious (Counties of the Kingdom of Hungary), since those also cover the period from 1000-1920, until the Treaty of Trianon, as it is also stated and put in chronology in the article, as evidently those counties were dissolved after the Treaty in 1920, moreover regarding your comment in the edit log the "article does not deal with the 1920-1946 period", we don't separate this things like so, since mainly for this period the list of administrative divisions 1941-1944 is valid, with Hungary's new territorial gains. Consequently, there is a 1000-1920 period for the classic era with the classic counties, after there is an 1920-1938 period, then a 1938-end of WWII period that differs from the near present county system of Hungary's modern borders, thus the page move has to be undone. Please note also that the 1941-1944 article is named for simplicity because despite Hungary started the new territorial gains in 1938, by the time of 1941 those were finalized and then was a stable new county system introduced. All in all, the cutting edge is that before and after the Treaty of Trianon - clear delimiter of the classic borders and counties - the state was a kingdom, called Kingdom of Hungary. On your concern, a new article - as I see it is missing right now - should be created for the period from the Treaty of Trianon until 1938, as having a stable different county system for the "truncated" Hungary before the territorial revisions. As a later improvement, the specialities and legal administrational forms between 1938-15 March 1939, 1939-1940, and 1940-1941 would fill the gap until the end of the territorial revisions, consequently before the "list of administrative divisions 1941-1944" article, or these should be included in the latter or having another article for the 1938-1941 period, just before the territorial gains from the abolished Yugoslavia.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC))