Talk:Lands of the Hungarian Crown

Cumania

According to 123Steller, Cumania wasn't an integral part of Hungary. In my opinion, although the Mongols destroyed Bela IV's efforts to consolidate these lands into Hungary, Cumania was clearly under Hungarian control before the Mongol attack. Even Spinei says that Cumania became a target of Hungarian expansionism and Hungary was the main political player in the Middle and Lower Danube region prior to the appearance of the Mongols. (The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century, pp. 157-158). Borsoka, do you agree? Can we say that Cumania belonged to the Crown (for a short time)? Fakirbakir (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What is sure, Cumania was regarded as a Land of the Hungarian Crown. The kings of Hungary styled themselves kings of Cumania up until 1918 and the flag of Cumania was used at their coronations and funerals. ((I refer to, for instance, Pálffy, Géza (2009). The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century. Institute of Habsburg History. ISBN 978-0-88033-633-8). Of course, this was only a claim (similarly, to the English monarchs' claim to France), but the article about the concept of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown. Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I will explain below what I meant when I wrote that "Cuman chieftains acknowledged the suzerainty of the Hungarian King, but Cumania was not an integral part of Hungary".

Béla, who was the King of Hungary, was acknowledged by the Cuman chieftains as King of Cumania. So Cumania was the Land of the Cumanian crown, not of the Hungarian crown. It was a personal union, where the same person was King of Hungary and King of Cumania. Similarly, when the King of Hungary also became King of Naples in 1714, Naples did not become an integral part of Hungary. 123Steller (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So, how do you explain that the Habsburgs acquired Galicia in the 18th century in the name of the Hungarian Crown? The answer is that it was a Hungarian Crown Land in medieval times. It wasn't a personal union. You should not be confused with the latter reign of Louis the Great. Also, Bosnia wasn't an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary, but was a crown land. In other words, it was attached to the Crown. We know it for sure that Cumania was a newly "conquered" Hungarian territory in first part of the 12th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If re-adding, please provide reliable sources for the paragraphs about Cumania, Bulgaria and Serbia being regarded as Hungarian Crown Lands. 123Steller (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Instead of deletion you should have used a "citation needed" tag. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The scope of the article

If "the phrase Lands of the Hungarian Crown denominates the territories of the Kingdom of Hungary", what the reason of having this stand-alone article? 123Steller (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In medieval times quite a lot of territories belonged to the HU Crown. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

KIENGIR what do you think, is this article necessary? 123Steller (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the article of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown has a very similar aim. I don't even understand your question. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@123Steller:,

I think yes because it explaines and provide necessary information about the status quo, reign and hereditary conditions regarding lands, countries that are anyway much complicated in the medieval period, moreover, as it is in lead, the situation has to be distinguished from the "Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen" dualism period, moreover, regarding more complicated affairs, it not just explains for some periods i.e. the Habsburg Kings hereditary posessions in the name of the Hungarian Crown they held - as an independent Crown. Nevertheless, in this article not just Habsburg affiliated matters are shown.

I understand your struggle for precisity, it has to be noted that the Hungarian King crowned (regardless of being from the Árpád Dynasty, Anjou or Habsburg, etc.) also at the same time held sometimes up to 11 titles of being a King of other lands or countries, and these titles were official. Of course, as I see your discussion with Fakirbakir, it is necessary to make clear what was Hungary, Hungary proper, what was a personal union, what was a Land of the Crown, what was a vassal state, other relations in a relevant timeline, etc. I think the current state of the article is already making these things clear (I just checked the so many revisons). It has to be noted, the Holy Crown Doctrine has a twofold view, but it affect mostly the relation towards Croatia, that is accepted by the majority as a famous personal union, however an important regna of the Crown. Of course the borders classic Hungary are well set, nobody told that i.e. Cumania would be annexed by Hungary and the classic border's would be abolished and extended, thus in some cases by your interpratation I think this may have been your problem. Being the Land of the Crown not necessarily is equal with being an integral part of Hungary. @Fakirbakir:, it just came to my mind, the Szörényi Bánság (Banat Severin) was maybe integral part of Hungary or the Crown for a time, and after it was given or divided between/to Wallachia, but were also disputed by Bulgaria....please look on the subject and you may add to the article the proper status and history of it.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC))

Andrew II vs Bela IV

Who bore the title "Rex Cumaniae" first? It's very confusing. I assume Bela IV's page is wrong, because his father's reign lasted until 1235 and even the HU wiki says that Andrew adopted the title "Rex Cumaniae" in 1227.[1]. Borsoka, Norden1990 Could you please help me? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have some problems with the title "King of Bulgaria" too, because Bela IV also used the title, much much earlier than Stephen V. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Béla, who ruled over the Cumans' territory as Duke of Transylvania, adopted the title in 1233. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not true that Cumania = the latter territories of Wallachia and Moldavia. Cumans were encamped on the left bank of the Danube, west of the Szeret River, as it can be seen on this map. Western Wallachia was included into the Banate of Severin, a different political unit. 123Steller (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you clarify what is not true? Borsoka (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This thing. 123Steller (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think, you misunderstand the above quote: it does not write of Cumania, but of the group of Cumans who were first baptized. The link to the map is blind. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)