|
Post by lvl100 on Aug 3, 2010 10:37:30 GMT -5
Hungary was a recognised European Christian Kingdom/Nation since 1000 AD, where was Austria. Where was USA in 1000 AD ? I don't know if you realize , but those are not really arguments in a discussion. HUngarian cliche alert ! No it was not Hungary, but István Tisza who voted against war ( being the smart guy he was he considered the war a lose - lose situation. If they won, more slavs in the empire , hence more agitation- if they lose , possible break up) But back at home he had zero , nada , nil , nimic , semmi support from the Budapest. The Compromise brought economic boost and of course , what was so dear to Hungarians, an ego boost ( middle power in Europe and shit) created a broad political suport for Austrians. Hungarians troops left Budapest in crowds cheers and the news papers of all colours praised the wise decisin to go to war. Tisza dint had the snowball in hell chance to convince not the Austrians, but his own people to give up on war. HUngarian cliche alert ! Of course they did. But what is always conviently left untold, is that the easiness of those plots came from the Magyar nationalism who antagonized their minorities There is no luck here. Only realism versus "nincs élet Magyarországon kívül" If we look how the topic started we can see : some jokes against Albanians between Romanians blah blah , the first Hungarian troll appears., some chit chat blah blah .then another Hungarian with ZOMG Hungarians are the ownz00rs etc Well at least it might be better for you Hungarians than alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 3, 2010 10:47:47 GMT -5
John Hunyadi The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | Copyright John Hunyadi , Hung. Hunyadi János, c.1385-1456, Hungarian national hero, leader of the resistance against the Ottomans. www.encyclopedia.com/topic/John_Hunyadi.aspx - Janos Hunyadi (Hungarian general and governor) -- Britannica ... www.answers.com/topic/john-hunyadi - Hunyad (today mainly Hunedoara) was the name of a historic administrative county (comitatus) of the Kingdom of Hungary. Its territory is presently in Romania in Transylvania. The capital of the county was Deva ("Déva" in Hungarian). Geography Hunyad county shared borders with Romania and the Hungarian counties Krassó-Szörény, Arad, Torda-Aranyos, Alsó-Fehér and Szeben. Its area was 7809 km² around 1910. Hunyad county was formed in the Middle Ages. It was first attested in 1265 as "Hungnod" by the Papal Quitrent Register. I think this pretty much tells who reads proper history and who indulges in propaganda
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 3, 2010 13:12:51 GMT -5
oszkarthehun, I wouldn't consider Transylvania as "war booty" for Romania, because they never fought Hungary for it, they gained it through secret pacts and alliances. If you look at casualties for the Siege of Budapest in WW2, the Romanian forces were slaughtered by the Hungarians, the soviets had to pull them out and fight on their own. So its obvious to see who would have won any type of war between the 2 countries.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 4, 2010 4:07:37 GMT -5
Yes they were. His army consisted of Hungarian Szekely , Hungarians and Vlachs/Romanians yes. Hunyadi was I would say possibly half Vlach/Romanian but his mother was Magyar and he identified himself as a Hungarian Noble, and he married a Hungarian woman. János (the Hungarian name for John) Hunyadi was a truly universal folk hero of his time. In a Serb epic, he is Sibinyanin Janko; the Slavs generally called him Ugrin Janko (John the Hungarian). To the Romanians, who claim he was of Wallachian extraction, he is Ion of Hunedoara. To the Bulgars and Macedonians he is Jansekula. Greek folk singers arbitrarily changed his name to Janko of Byzantium. Dukas, the Greek historian, compared him to the two most valiant figures of Greek mythology, Achilles and Hector. It is generally believed that Hunyadi was born in 1387. The earliest document dealing with the Hunyadi name is a royal patent signed by King Sigismund on October 8, 1409, in which the ruler donated Hunyadvár, a castle in Transylvania, to Serba Vojk. Vojk, János Hunyadi's father, thereupon changed his name to Hunyadi. There is some doubt over the identity of Hunyadi's real father. According to contemporary gossip spawned by János Hunyadi's phenomenal rise in fame and fortune, his birth was the fruit of an illicit love affair between King Sigismund–a notorious womanizer–and Vojk's wife, Erzsébet Morsina, either before or after her marriage to Vojk. That version of his origin–which, if true, would indicate royal blood–is vehemently disputed by Romanians, who are proud of Hunyadi's Wallachian heritage. Regardless of his background, it is indisputable that his father had become a loyal subject of the Hungarian king. János Hunyadi married a Hungarian noblewoman (Erzsébet Szilagyi), and he reared his children as Magyars. He regarded himself as a Hungarian nobleman and went down in history as one of Hungary's most celebrated heroes.Hunyadi grew up a deeply religious man. His comrades at court frequently saw him slip out of bed late at night to spend hours on his knees in devout prayer in the royal chapel. He was also most definitely a born soldier. Initially fighting as a mercenary condottiere in Italy, he later came to be filled with a zealous dedication to one great cause–fighting the Ottoman Empire, then regarded as the greatest enemy of his country and his church. www.historynet.com/ottoman-hungarian-wars-siege-of-belgrade-in-1456.htmAfter he was appointed commander of southern Hungary, János Hunyadi decided it was time to put a halt to Turkish intrusions. The first to receive his 'calling card' of war was Beg Iszhak, commander of the Turkish garrison occupying Szendro. As punishment for past raids, Hunyadi caught up with Beg Iszhak's troops and forced them to make a stand. Iszhak assumed that, as usual, the Magyars would attack the main body of his army with cavalry. Instead, Hunyadi sent his own elite foot soldiers to meet the central Turkish force in hand-to-hand combat. At the same time, the Hungarian cavalry attacked the flanks of the Turks, who–unprepared for mounted assault–were soon dispersed. Hunyadi's horsemen then turned their attention to the foot soldiers in the Turkish center, who were already flagging from fighting the Magyar infantry. The battle was an unmitigated disaster for Beg Iszhak and put an end to his marauding on Hungarian soil. In the following year, 1438, Hunyadi prepared another fateful surprise for another Turkish potentate, Mezid Pasha, at Nagyszeben, Transylvania. By that time, Hunyadi was so feared by the Turks that the night before the battle Mezid ordered his elite troops to concentrate on Hunyadi and his bodyguards. 'To kill the lion, his heart must be pierced,' Mezid exhorted his men. 'We can defeat the Hungarian army if we get Hunyadi…dead or alive! Don't miss him! He wears a silvery helmet and carries a shield emblazoned with a raven. Mounted on a white horse, he is always found in the thick of the battle!' Thanks to a spy in the Ottoman camp, Hunyadi knew that he would be their main target. Simon Kemény, in an act of the highest loyalty to his leader, offered to don Hunyadi's battle armor to draw the enemy's fire and thus secure freedom of action for Hunyadi. After some hesitation, Hunyadi agreed and ordered his elite Székler troops to surround and protect Kemény.[/b] During the battle the following day, almost everything happened the way Mezid Pasha had calculated. His troops overwhelmed the Hungarian hero on the white horse. Seeing him fall, the Turks triumphantly began shouting, 'Hunyadi is dead! Hunyadi is dead!' But the celebration was premature. Hunyadi, wearing Simon Kemény's armor, suddenly appeared with his troops and swooped down upon Mezid's troops with a vengeance. That was Mezid's last surprise and ultimate terror, for he died at Nagyszeben, together with his son and many thousands of his soldiers. Mezid's severed head, along with rich booty, was sent to Buda. Also among the casualties was Hunyadi's younger brother, also named János. Simon Kemény's self-sacrifice would be remembered in a poem by the great Hungarian poet Mihaly Vörösmarty. www.historynet.com/ottoman-hungarian-wars-siege-of-belgrade-in-1456.htm/2
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 4, 2010 4:12:42 GMT -5
oszkarthehun, I wouldn't consider Transylvania as "war booty" for Romania, because they never fought Hungary for it, they gained it through secret pacts and alliances. If you look at casualties for the Siege of Budapest in WW2, the Romanian forces were slaughtered by the Hungarians, the soviets had to pull them out and fight on their own. So its obvious to see who would have won any type of war between the 2 countries. I meant war booty in that it had already been pre promised to Romania before the war had concluded.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 4, 2010 4:48:09 GMT -5
[/quote] do you think the sentence " Austria gave youy civilisation and you rejected it" is an argument or even factual ?
[[/b] No it was not Hungary, but István Tisza who voted against war [/quote]
Tisza was the Hungarian Primeminister hence was a significant representative on Hungarys behalf.
The Hapsburgs were deliberatly placing and displacing populations by putting ethnic minorities into what were previously Hungarian areas, hence watering down the historical Hungarian populations.
If you look at the amount of teritory Hungary lost to the new and extended nations of Trianon and you look at the fact those countries picked up much land where there was still a Hungarian majority in todays northern Serbia, southern Slovakia and parts of Romania then I think it can be said those countries were rather lucky to get territory in places included in their new borders where they didnt even have an ethnic majority neither did they have significant historical connection to the towns and urban developments of those regions they aquired.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 4, 2010 5:26:22 GMT -5
oszkarthehun, I wouldn't consider Transylvania as "war booty" for Romania, because they never fought Hungary for it, they gained it through secret pacts and alliances. If you look at casualties for the Siege of Budapest in WW2, the Romanian forces were slaughtered by the Hungarians, the soviets had to pull them out and fight on their own. So its obvious to see who would have won any type of war between the 2 countries. You had your chance to regain the land when you declared war on us in 1919. It ended with us occupying the whole of Hungary, but that's a different story.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Aug 4, 2010 8:14:20 GMT -5
do you think the sentence " Austria gave youy civilisation and you rejected it" is an argument or even factual ? Well , it is partially factual, after all you were influenced by Austria. But i can agree that the sentence itself had a mainly flaming role , his target being one of the Hungarian ubiquitous cliches, the western oriented great culture blah blah blah. To which you answered with another galactic Hungarian cliche where simply being older makes you on default awesome. You know, it doesnt matter how many in Budapest wear "I`m older than Slovakia" t-shorts , those silly Tóths in just a few years leaved you behind economically and what not. Tisza was a pawn who probably didnt found enough support even from his own family. Even traditionally anti-Austrian parties ( like Smallholders party IIRC) where at that time pro Austria. But ..but... isnt this what Szent Istvan wanted with his regnum unius linguae et moris imbecile et fragile est How come that something who many Hungarians took pride for becomes evil when others do it ? It seems to me you were lucky. Initial plans had more teritory to be shared between the victors ( borders on Tisza and so on)
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Aug 4, 2010 9:35:26 GMT -5
I was right you have a big complex, the proof is you keep pestering our forum with your stupidity.
Any dialog with the Hungarians is useless, it's like this Spanish guy trying to dialogue with the goat.
The Spanish guy has incredible patience but i think it's useless trying to communicate with this kind of animals.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 4, 2010 21:38:07 GMT -5
The point I made was that Hungary had been around as a Kingdom/Nation sometime before Austria was on the scene. Hungary had already established itself as a Central European country it doesnt matter that it had taken influences from here or there its leadership had chosen to go in the direction that it did. People like Diur always try to do this thing of only tracing history that links Hungary's authority with Austria the Austro-Hungarian Empire, fact is Hungary for a few hundrd years was a significant power by its own right in the region before Austria was on the scene.
The remarks were implied that Hungary was uncivillised before the Hapsburg era, I could refer to much already made references re Romania and civilisation but I wont bother.
when others do it to deliberatly weaken a country it can be considered from that countrys view as evil.
well sometimes even criminals realise when they are going too far.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Aug 4, 2010 23:47:33 GMT -5
when others do it to deliberatly weaken a country it can be considered from that countrys view as evil. Hows that ? All the new population was settled in empty or scarcely inhabited places. Its not like they brought 500k Serbs in Budapest. Its a classical scheme to populate areas in a time when the raw number of people was everything. They did absolutely nothing different than you did.
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 6, 2010 7:24:51 GMT -5
Its interesting how Romanians, Czech/Slovaks and Serbs percieve themselves as victors in WW1, its more like beneficiaries. When an occupying country deliberately resettles foreigners in depopulated areas due to war while not allowing the original populace of that country back is not ..."regnum unius linguae et moris imbecile et fragile est"
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 6, 2010 19:56:53 GMT -5
They were an empire in many ways it suited them to keep their subjects weak, even the initial hostilities between Serbs and Croats was partly as result of Hapsburgs shifting ethnic groups into different areas where they did not originate. when others do it to deliberatly weaken a country it can be considered from that countrys view as evil.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Aug 17, 2010 14:46:00 GMT -5
Its interesting how Romanians, Czech/Slovaks and Serbs percieve themselves as victors in WW1, its more like beneficiaries. Yes , everything happened because Clemenceau woke up on the wrong side of the bed. A simple perception over history , but necessary in the same time to make some people feel good about themselves and explain what is otherwise a very complex matter. First , those areas are relatively small and second , the Magyar population was overstretch already. It didnt matter if you populated Bánság with more Magyars , that would simply mean less Magyars in Partium ( or whatever just an example) Even after the Compromise , when you had total control over the Kingdom , there was simply no enough Magyar population, no mater where you relocated it and regardless the speed of Magyarisation. They were an empire in many ways it suited them to keep their subjects weak, even the initial hostilities between Serbs and Croats was partly as result of Hapsburgs shifting ethnic groups into different areas where they did not originate. Magyars had the historical chance to rise above nationalism and create a supra national identity. A national identity who isnt Magyar, Romanian, Slovak, Ruthenian or whatever , but Hungarian ( inhabitant of Hungariae regnum), as Szent István intended. But you failed, you joined the nationalist bandwagon , thus becoming just one of the small nations bickering for ethnic domination and being at odds with the various other nationalist currents and counter-currents. Of course the Hasburgs took everyone for a fool , but that was in most of the part to Magyars and their constant internal antagonisation of their minorities. As opposite to the Austrians, who due their imperialistic nature were naturally untouched by nationalism. Now, to please our Hungarian friends lets hear the simple version : Everyone lived in brotherly love for hundreds of years. Austrians came and all those ungrateful monkeys didn't know to appreciate the Magyars. Clemenceau woke up on the wrong side of the bad. The End
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 23, 2010 8:29:49 GMT -5
I wouldn't call signing secret alliances, betraying your allies, making false and inaccurate claims at the Paris peace conferences all because you coveted your neighbors land, not to mention the victorious powers overwhelming desire to eliminate the threat of a powerful opponent in central Europe..... as " Clemenceau woke up on the wrong side of the bad. BTW Before the Turkish and habsburg occupations the minorities in Hungary did get along quite well I believe. But how would you expect the Magyar to treat its minorities who sided with our enemy (the Habsburgs) in 1848, conducting terrorist raids on defenseless Magyar villages? Don't over simplify things.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Aug 24, 2010 4:45:14 GMT -5
I wouldn't call signing secret alliances, betraying your allies, making false and inaccurate claims at the Paris peace conferences all because you coveted your neighbors land, not to mention the victorious powers overwhelming desire to eliminate the threat of a powerful opponent in central Europe..... as " Clemenceau woke up on the wrong side of the bad. First of allI would like to point out that all those above are simply emotional and subjective judgments. International politics are amoral by their very nature. On what basis you define the "morality" of "coveting your neighbors lands" , when Hungary itself didn't missed the first opportunity to seize in 1916 from a defeated Romania , significant areas at the foot of Carpathians ? Areas that never belonged to Hungary and taken by the Vae Victis right ? It was "moral" to make secret alliance ? Probably not, but surely it isn't less "moral" than making visible alliances to attack sovereign countries and finally start a world wide war. What would be more "moral" . A crippled Germany plotting for revenge or a crippled France plotting for revenge ? In the end there are no good and bad guys, just conflicting interests ,smart politics and wrong politics ,winners and losers. BTW , there were no "minorities" in Hungary at that time , since ethnicity didnt exist in the modern sens. The real nationalist conflicts started only when Magyars joined the nationalist bandwagon somewhere in the 1700`s. Only when Hungarian = Magyar , when access to power and culture was determined by your ethnicity, etc First you are the one who simplifies things by trying to compress in 2 lines the revolution of 1848. The lack of national cohesion of 1848 did not simply meant some thugs who raided defenseless villages. I would have the same expectation as in every other state. Learn from past lessons, create national cohesion , prosperity blah blah blah. No matter who they sided with, they were a really big part of your own population
|
|
|
Post by dezboy on Aug 24, 2010 13:02:14 GMT -5
there's nothing emotional or subjective about my comments at all, its fact and can be be found easily
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Aug 28, 2010 12:49:48 GMT -5
The alliance between Scanderbeg and Hunyadi became a big propaganda piece when the Albanian king Zog married the Hungarian Geraldine.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 28, 2010 20:24:35 GMT -5
sorry but this does not excuse poor and injust drawing of borders and new countries taking in territory that still has ethnic majority of previous nation.
Hapsburgs wanted to control Hungary and eastern Europe that much is clear, hence there actions and motives can be percieved as suspect.
After the French revolution and leading up to turn of century nationalism and national consciusness erupted right across Europe into Russia and even Anatolia, of course this new wave of consciousness and mentality had an impact on minorities views and actions as well as Magyars.
Yes I would agree Hungary could in hinsight handled certain things better but considering climate of the times its no guarantee that they wouldnt have faced same or similiar problems in the end , everything did not depend on Hungary.
In the end despite your satirical comments , I believe in Trianon for sure an injustice was done to Hungary as a result of overly generous reassignments of territory to other countries , in which Hungary lost much land that still had Hungarian majority.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Aug 29, 2010 6:12:27 GMT -5
unbelievable, Romania vs Hungary, Hungary vs Romania forum war again. Im getting quite sick of this chit, hungarians trying to convince Romanians, Romanians trying to convince hungarians. This chit will never change, a very ultra-conservative conversation.
Hey Romanians, u got Transylvania, so shut up and stop fabricating history without science claiming that ur Dacian, cause end of the day u got Transylvania, not half but the fukn whole lots.
Hey Hungarians, quit whinging about Transylvania or any other stolen territories, u guys are not doing anything about it but sitting on ur lazy butt and whinging, well that wont get those land back to hungary. If Hungarians do seriously want Transylvania, Delvidek, etc, etc then it quite simple....Wage a Jihad against your neighbours and get it back, follow the example like the super-Albanians otherwise shut your mouth.
It's nice to dream and talk but that's not gonna get Hungary anyway.
|
|