Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867)

Demographics
Citation needed on the demographics. I can come up with such numbers. Need sources!

BoKriF (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"province"?
According to the Art. 1741 XVIII, 1.§, Maria Theresa recognizes that Transylvania is part of the Kingdom of Hungary. "She, her heirs will possess and rule Transylvania -which belongs to the Holy Crown of Hungary- as Kings of Hungary." It doesn't mean that the territory of Transylvania was incorporated into Hungary proper, however, the Habsburgs acknowledged that it was part of the Hungarian kingdom.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Fakirbakir, how do you interpret the fact that in the Austrian Constitution of 4 March 1849 the Kingdom of Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania are defined as different crown dominions (Section I, Art. I)? Also, Art. LXXIV affirms: "The internal administration and constitution of the Principality of Transylvania will be fixed by a special statute; on the principle, however, of its entire independence of Hungary, and of equal justice being done to all races inhabiting the country and in harmony with this Constitution."
 * The opinions ofUser:Hebel and User:KIENGIR are also welcome. 95.141.36.119 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Fakirbakir has right. The proper explanation:


 * 1. Since the Habsburg-house held the Hungarian Crown, the formed the right to all lands included the Holy Crown of St. Stephen


 * 2. After 1526, the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and the Calvinist affiliation of Transylvania and it's Hungarians meant a clear protest against the Catholic Austrians and their aspirations. Legally two Hungarian successor states emerged after the loss of the Ottoman invasion.


 * 3. After the Principality of Transyvlania were formed, legally still a Hungarian state (now I don't mention or details the later suzerainty/Ottoman/Habsburg affiliations)


 * 4. The Habsburg did not stop their claims, having the crown of Royal Hungary. Since legally they hold the crown of St. Stephen, they claimed all the lands included legally as the proterty of the Crown they hold.


 * 5. It's an evidential fact, Habsburgs/Austrians have any right to the mentioned lands (including the former successor state Principality of Transylvania) only trough the Hungarian Crown as hereditary lands of it.


 * 6. Nobody debates the Hasburg's introduced a separate administration to Principality of Transylvania, but this does not contradict Fakirbakir's statment of legalty. (and also regarding of the Habsburg rule, there were times still the official language/Diet was Hungarian)


 * 7. Thus: Hungary proper remained as it was, by status unchanged, Transylvania became a Habsburg dominion through the legal inheritance of the Hungarian Crown, administered separately.


 * 8. During 1848/49, Hungary and Transylvania were re-united. After the fall of the revolution, Austria returned to the separate administration as it was.


 * 9. Finally, after 1867, Hungary and Transylvania re-united again, as Kingdom of Hungary with it's old, historical borders became the part of Austria-Hungary as a separate state.


 * 10. Thus Fakirbakir's introduction is fair and legal, without any contradiction of what you've mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

OK, Maria Theresa recognizes that Transylvania is part of the Kingdom of Hungary, but there is no evidence that her successor, Joseph II, "the hatted king", considered the same thing. Joseph II did not have himself crowned king of Hungary so that he would not have to swear the coronation oath and be bound by the Hungarian constitution. Rgvis, please comment on this subject. 123Steller (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that Joseph II's ten-year-long reign determines the status of a realm which had been and was ruled for decades before and after him? Should we describe the 20th-century status of Norway based on its union with Sweden before 1905? Borsoka (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a question: in your view, was the Principality of Transylvania a "land of the Hungarian crown" between 1570–1711? With arguments, of course. 123Steller (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP: my view is not interesting. However, the voivodes and princes of Transylvania several times declared that they know that their realm is (theoretically) part of the Kingdom of Hungary. For instance, Stephen Báthory "formally [held] the title of voivode and [swore] allegiance to Hungary's monarch" in 1571 . Nevertheless, you have been engaged in an edit war. Borsoka (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So we have a virtual Kingdom of Hungary (including Transylvania) and a real Kingdom of Hungary (not including Transylvania)? 123Steller (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 123Steller, please, international agreements, status, affiliations are valid until "hic rebus stantibus", Joseph II did not overriden i.e. Maria Theresia's recognition, regardless he chose to be coronated or not. Austrian before-after acknowledged what is belonging the Holy Crown of St. Stephen, that they so much struggled for to have. Your last "poetrical question" about virtaulity we cannot take serious! Administratively, there was Royal Hungary and Principality of Transylvania, two states as the Land of The Hungarian Crown and both of them belonging to the King of Hungary. The fact the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and later Principality of Transylvania protested against having a King of a Habsburg House that was already were achieved with other part of Hungary, does not change anything. The Austrian struggles and aspirations were based on the same legalty that you want to erase from the page...check all diploma's, paper's, etc. just because they were separately administered - a natural result of the happenings - the legalty of the Hungarian Crown was not abolished. Austrians acknowledged it also after, trough the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, there is no debate on what means "Land's of the Hungarian Crown". Moreover, with your reverts you remove other information that refers of the 1848 revolution. Do not make more reverts, talk first if you have a problem!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC))
 * (1) I suggest that all who participate in this discussion should respect WP:NOR. (2) Sorry, it was my mistake, there were no two Kingdoms of Hungary. Transylvania was a realm of the Holy Crown of Hungary (one of the lands ruled by the Habsburg monarchs as Kings of Hungary), as it is shown in the infobox. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is (or at least should be) based upon verifiable statements from third-party sources. In this form, (the intro of) this article does not meet the criteria (requirements) in terms of reliable and entirely independent sources of the subject being covered.
 * We have to bear in mind that verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's most important policies. Thanks, (Rgvis (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Agree. We should use reliable sources. The following quotes verify the statement that Transylvania was regarded as a land of the Hungarian Crown. "The ... pro-Rákóczi estates [of the Principality of Transylvania] were among the signatories of the Szatmár Peace in 1711, but that treaty did not represent a crucial landmark in the political history of Transylvania. It did not alter the constitutional foundations of Habsburg rule, which were laid when, in 1690, the Habsburgs gained possession of Transylvania by right of the Hungarian crown." "Finally, in April 1791, the [Transylvanian Diet] took up the agenda originally submitted by the monarch. ... In the law defining Transylvania's constitutional status and the monarch's rights, article II was the most significant. It laid down that the Habsburgs held Transylvania by virtue of the latter's link to the Hungarian Crown, and that the province could not be attached administratively to any other part of the empire."  Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Of course, Hungarian perspective in the subject is only a point of view (and, for sure, is not always considered as a NPOV). (Rgvis (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you really say that the Diploma Leopoldinum issued by the Habsburg monarch presents a Hungarian POV? Or do you really think that the law adopted by the Three Nations of Transylvania and signed by a Habsburg monarch is biased towards the Hungarians? Please remember your own remarks above and avoid OR. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am confident you know what I meant! :) (Rgvis (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Rgvis, please provide the sources that offer a different perspective. I am interested to check them. 123Steller (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sure that I do not know what you mean. Can you refer to a reliable source stating that Transylvania was not regarded as a Land of the Holy Crown of Hungary or we can close this debate, concluding that Transylvania was one of those lands? Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These two statements are not equivalent at all: Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Hungary = Transylvania was regarded as a Land of the Holy Crown of Hungary! Anyway, we are not in a hurry :) I am still waiting for you to update the current content as per Wikipedia basic editing standards. Thanks, (Rgvis (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Anyway, who said that they are equivalent? Both statements are true, also the second sentence without "regarded". The second statement is natural consequence of the first statement, as it is/was reinforced (officially) also. The term "Lands of the Hungarian Crown" is clear, before and after 1526. Moreover, if something was part of Hungary, it was naturally the Land of the Hungarian Crown, so in this way your two statements can be also (regarded) equivalent. Precisity may be increased if we do not mix necessarily the terms "Transylvania" and "Principality of Transylvania", but in this case regarding the earlier term the equivalence is self-evidential - as a sub-part/territorry of a country is (regarded) always the land of it's own, naturally -, by the latter term also since it was a successor state officially akcnowledged by the Habsburg's that their dominion is only legal trough the Hungarian Crown.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
 * A conclusion that cannot be verified based on a reliable source is OR. We should avoid it. For the time being, we can verify that the Principality of Transylvania was a realm of the Holy Crown of Hungary which was ruled by the Habsburgs as Kings of Hungary. On the other hand, the claim that the principality was a constituent land of the Austrian Empire between 1711 and 1867 was not verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rgvis, please present your editing proposals in a clear manner. It is not a good idea to delay the solving of the POV issue. 123Steller (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , would you clarify what do you think is a POV issue to be solved before reverting my edits? Please remember that edit warring may have serious consequences in our community (please read WP:edit warring). Borsoka (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's give Rgvis (the editor that added the tag) the chance to expand his statement about the lack of neutrality. If he is not doing this in the next 24h, I will support the removal of the tag. 123Steller (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The text of the article significantly changed after the POV-tag was placed in the article. You reverted my edit without being able to mention any POV issues. I suggest that you should edit exclusively based on your own knowledge from reliable sources available to you if you want to avoid edit wars. Borsoka (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The given source http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/329.html says:

<<Finally, in April 1791, the diet took up the agenda originally submitted by the monarch. The outcome was a spate of legislation not seen before, or since in Transylvania: one hundred and sixty-two bills, a rationally structured legal code, and a late-feudal, estates-based constitution.

In the law defining Transylvania's constitutional status and the monarch's rights, article II was the most significant. It laid down that the Habsburgs held Transylvania by virtue of the latter's link to the Hungarian Crown, and that the province could not be attached administratively to any other part of the empire.>>

So I modified the article accordingly. 123Steller (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Question for Mr. Borsoka: When did Transylvania become a part of the "Lands of the Hungarian Crown"? 123Steller (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, I acknowledge your Wikipedia expertise regarding the rules and sources, etc. that I am not much professional as you, I approach things primarily on a kind of factual knowledge level and making inferences and longer explanations in case I see argumentations or questions where the necessary precisity or logic fails. Only this was my intention since we have to make some other parties to understand some things in order to avoid any unnecessary conflicts later. I know, you could say Wikipedia has different roots, but the struggle for a truthful content also needs these negotiations, to put all sources - opinons (not necessarily all the time facts, since Wikipedia does not represent necessarily the truth) in a coherent way. 123Steller, however you asked Borsoka (and of course wait for his answer), I think you should check the Lands of the Hungarian Crown article for the answer to your question. If I'd answer, I'd tell 1000 A.D.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC))
 * , if you had read the cited sources (and the above quotes), you would have realized that the Habsburgs acknowledged from the beginning (in the Diploma Leopoldinum) that their right to rule the Principality of Transylvania was based on their status as Kings of Hungary. This fact was later confirmed by the Habsburg monarchs several times, including in the Peace of Szatmár. Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The concept of "land of the Hungarian crown" is not very clear to me. Some questions:


 * 1. Why is 1711 the turning point in the history of the Principality of Transylvania? Here it is written: The principality's pro-Rákóczi estates were among the signatories of the Szatmár Peace in 1711, but that treaty did not represent a crucial landmark in the political history of Transylvania. It did not alter the constitutional foundations of Habsburg rule, which were laid when, in 1690, the Habsburgs gained possession of Transylvania by right of the Hungarian crown. Nor did it change the administrative system that had been solidly implanted in the 1690s. The political order created in 1690 was merely consolidated in the aftermath of the Szatmár accord. According to the article Governor of Transylvania, Habsburg monarchs were represented by governors since 1691, not since 1711
 * 2. Habsburg Croatia was simultaneously a "land of the Hungarian crown" and "in Personal union with Kingdom of Hungary"? 123Steller (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have questions about the Lands of the Hungarian Crown (that is about the realms ruled by the Kings of Hungary), I suggest that you should raise them on the relevant Talk page. As the above quote shows, the Habsburgs' reign in Transylvania was consolidated only by the 1711 Peace of Szatmár. You may have not realized, but even the author of the above quote (historian Zsolt Trócsányi) starts its narration of "Transylvania in the Habsburg Empire" with the year 1711 . Why do you think we should not accept his sectioning of the history of the Principality of Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Endre Haraszti, "The year of 1690, - which was the year when Transylvania, the independent Principality became only one of the provinces of the Habsburg Empire, - was a very stormy one". This is the first phrase from a chapter called "TRANSYLVANIA AS A PROVINCE OF THE HABSBURG EMPIRE. ( PART 1.)" 123Steller (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never read of the independent Principality of Transylvania. Why do you think it is a reliable source for WP purposes? Which academic institution published it? Borsoka (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea which academic institution published it. Do you aseert it is an unreliable source? If the answer is affirmative, I will also remove it from other articles where it is used (e.g. History of Transylvania) 123Steller (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never cited it and I do not know whether it is a peer reviewed source. If it is not a peer reviewed publication, we cannot refer to it. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as there is no proof that it is a peer reviewed source, I also removed it from the article History of Transylvania. 123Steller (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, the book "A History of Hungary - Peter F. Sugar,Péter Hanák, Tibor Frank", publication at Indiana University Press, affirms that Diploma Leopoldinum "essentially settled Transylvania's fate until 1867". Also, "in this document, Leopold took the title of prince of Transylvania, reconfirming her independence". So, there is another source thak mentions Transylvania's independence. According to the article Governor of Transylvania, 1691 is the important year, not 1711 123Steller (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1691 is also an important date. However, in the book dedicated to the history of Transylvania, 1711 is the turning point . Why do you think we should not accept that sectioning of the history of the Principality of Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, I fail to understand which is, according to your knowledge, the major difference between the status of pre-1711 and post-1711 Transylvania. Wasn't Translyvania before 1711 a "land of the Hungarian Crown"? Wasn't it also ruled by the Habsburg Kings of Hungary before 1711? In the articles Governor of Transylvania and List of Chancellors of Transylvania, the year 1711 is not marked at all.


 * Károly Kocsis wrote in his article called Historical predecessors and current geographical possibilities of ethnic based territorial autonomies in the Carpathian Basin "As a consequence of the Diploma Leopoldinum issued by Emperor Leopold I in 1691, Transylvania became a province of the Habsburg Empire as a country of the Hungarian Crown and with a Hungarian public law status, but with its own statehood as a principality, and as a grand principality after 1765."123Steller (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above questions and remarks. Why do you think we should not accept that sectioning of the history of the Principality of Transylvania as it is provided in a reliable source dedicated to the history of the principality? Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should not accept that sectioning. In my opinion the turning point was the year 1691 and I will reiterate the already written arguments:


 * 1.Diploma Leopoldinum "essentially settled Transylvania's fate until 1867" (Peter F. Sugar,Péter Hanák, Tibor Frank)


 * 2. The Szatmár Treaty in 1711 "did not represent a crucial landmark in the political history of Transylvania" (Trócsányi) 123Steller (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Trócsányi says that there is no great difference between the status of the principality in the Diploma Leopoldinum of 1691 and the 1711 Peace of Szatmár. However, this does not mean that nothing happened between the two dates: the Transylvanian Diet elected a non-Habsburg prince, Francis II Rákóczi in 1704 who ruled till 1711 . I highly appreciate the results of your own research, but the scholar to whom you refer (Trócsányi) concluded that 1711 is an important date. His sectioning of the history of the Principality of Transylvania coincides with an other specialist's POV who says that the period between 1660 and 1711 representet the "last decades of the independent principality" . I suggest we should not create our own approach when writing of the history of the principality in accordance with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you refer to a similar infobox where the royal family is mentioned when writing of the status of the polity? Borsoka (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A random example is the article about the Banat of Temeswar. 123Steller (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you refer to a well-sourced GA or FA? Sorry, but an article that lacks references and has not been evaluated in accordance with WP rules cannot be used as a reference point. Borsoka (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How many well-sourced GAs or FAs about historical polities exist? They are extremely rare. Also, Habsburg Monarchy is one of the few polities described by the name of the ruling royal house. Margraviate of Moravia is described as "Crown land of the lands of the Bohemian Crown (1348–1918) ,Crown land of the Habsburg Monarchy (1526–1804), of the Austrian Empire (1804–67)
 * In a book from 1834, Trasnylvania was described as a "principality of the Austrian Empire" 123Steller (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please try to remain serious or look at the calendar. Now we are in the year 2016. Borsoka (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , would you refer to an infobox which describes a polity as a "county/principality/duchy under the sovereignty of the .... dynasty"? You may have not realized, but the version I suggested "Realmof the Crown of Hungary (within the Habsburg Empire)" is also substantiated by the above sources, including this one . Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , would you refer to a reliable source which verifies that the Lands of the Hungarian Crown were part of the Austrian Empire? Borsoka (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , sure: . 123Steller (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Provisionally OK (although the cited source does not say that the Lands of the Hungarian Crown were incorporated in the Austrian Empire, it only writes of the Habsburgs' attempt to include those lands). Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if we refer to other articles, why is Principality of Transylvania a disambiguation page? Kingdom of Hungary is not a disambiguation page, even if it is split into Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301), Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) etc., like Principality of Transylvania is split into Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) and Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867)? 123Steller (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Flag of the Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867)
I was not able to find any proof that this flag was ever adopted. also wrote at Talk:Transylvania the following: "I've made a little research and it seems such flag would officially never been adopted". If other editors find relevant sources, the flag can be re-introduced in the infobox. 123Steller (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

that map?
Can we talk about that? As far as I can tell that map was created in 1818 depicting an earlier situation, probably ca. ~1780 given the existence of Salzburg and Venice as independent entites here and the general state of Poland. It is certainly not the Austrian Empire but depicts, rather, the Habsburg Monarchy. Spelf (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * -erhaps you may want to weigh in on this since you edited it out. I understand your point and the map is sourced 1818, but it doesn't depict a situation 1818. I'm just afraid it's misleading more than anything. Spelf (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, not I was editing out the map. I've only made a research, as referred above.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC))


 * I know this thread is over 4 years old at this point but I thought I'd comment since I have changed the map's caption. The situation the map depicts can be unambiguously placed some time between 1795 and 1797, as 1795 is when the Habsburgs gained West Galicia (Third Partition of Poland) and in 1797 Venice was annexed by France/Austria (Treaty of Campo Formio). Other evidence includes Salzburg being a separate Archbishopric (lasted until 1803) and Tarasp being separate from Grissons/Swizerland (was a Habsburg possession until 1803).


 * According to the listing on Geographicus (linked on the map's Commons page) the atlas it is taken from is actually an 1818 American reprint of Pinkerton's atlas from 1808-15. This version (also on Commons) claims to be from 1810 although the linked page on the David Rumsey Map Collection says 1815. (It also has slightly different coloured areas, showing Szolnok as part of Transylvania and a few other minor differences, although the borders themselves, printed in black, are the same.)


 * Incidentally it shows part of Styria attached to Lower Hungary and small parts of Moravia attached to Austrian Silesia, which may also be misleading. (I presume this how they were dealt with militarily.)


 *  Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)