Talk:Peace of Zsitvatorok

Untitled

This relates to the headings in the 'List of Treaties':

- 1526-1848 (Royal Hungary to Independence)

- Austria-Hungary to the end of World War I (1848–1922)

The first heading would suggest that Hungary became independent in 1848 and the second would indicate that Austria - Hungary, or to be precise the Austrian Empire of Austria-Hungary, began in 1848.

However:

a) The Kingdom of Hungary did not gain independent from Austria until the end of WWI; if one defines independence as being the attribute of a sovereign state in the 19th century, shaping its own domestic policy and foreign affairs.

b) The 'Ausgleich' happened in 1867 which gave Hungary a certain degree of autonomy in the domestic affairs in the territories of the Kingdom of Hungary only. I wish you got your facts right. But then again this is Wikipedia.

Also, in the ‘List of Treaties’ section on the miniature map, you opt for rendering all cartographic detail in Polish. – Fine; though somewhat anachronistic (looks like Hungary had been part of the Polish Commonwealth in those years). What is even more surprising is the fact that you write 'Preszburg' rather than 'Pożoń'; both do exist in Polish I hasten to add. The choice of names could be interpreted as some kind of deep seated, visceral hatred against all things Hungarian, which would explain your choice of the German name over the Hungarian with a Polish spelling. How interesting. Things just never seem to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.170 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Bocskai sentence - the Hungarian uprising was finished with the Treaty of Vienna in the same year but not part of the Treaty of Zsitvatorok

This wasn't the first peace treaty with the Turks, see the Treaty of Edirne in 1568. Zello 12:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ad1: No, it was not, Bockays condition was that he stops fighting when a peace with the Turks is signed and in addition he was involved in this peace.

ad2: Of course. And...? Juro 18:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bocskai began talks with the Habsburgs in November 1605 according to the decision of the Hungarian Diet in Korpona/Krupina. The peace treaty was signed on 23 January 1606 in Vienna and it consisted a clause that the Habsburgs have to finish the Ottoman War as soon as possible. This happened in November 1606.

I have to work on something now. I will look at that later. Remind me, if I forget. Juro 21:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I look after this tax paying case, something is not OK yet. Zello 21:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ad2: I only explained why I deleted the sentence about formal borders as something new in Habsburg-Ottoman relationship which wasn't true.

ad3: There was a mistake about tax paying that I corrected. I think it was due to the translation from the Hungarian wiki article. Zello 20:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

17th paragraph

"Ha a hódoltsági falukban nemesek laknak, vagy azokban házuk van, ezek a töröknek se adót, se dézsmát ne fizessenek. És a törökök a falukra ki ne szálljanak, hanem jövedelmeiket a falusi bírák utján szedjék..." Zello 21:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Implications of Treaty - Fixed and Peaceful Frontiers

I came across this as I was reading an Ottoman History section out of this book.

Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power (Palgrave Macmillan 2002).

On page 71, there is a paragraph on this treaty, although it isn't named. Here is the paragraph.

In 1606, peace negotiations began at Zsitvatorok in the no-man's-land between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, focusing on the territorial arrangements, the tribute due to the Sultan and the settlement of cross-border disputes. Some issues the negotiators could not settle, with the curious result that both sides signed slightly different versions of the treaty. When Habsburg negotiators travelled to Istanbul in 1608 to ratify the text, they rejected it since they found that parts of it had been changed and that the clause on the equality of the Emperors had been dropped. It was not until 1612 that they ratified the final version (54) The treaty nonetheless worked. There were no hostilities between the two sides until the 1660s, while the clause forbidding raids across the border and introducing a procedure for the settlement of cross-border disputes gave a formal expression to the concept of a fixed and peaceful frontier. The kleinkrieg of former centuries had finally come to an end.

I was trying to find more information about this treaty because of the mention of the "fixed and peaceful frontier" procedure that seemed to work. Furthermore, kleinkrieg is a Clausewitz reference, and it seems to be what is going on in Iraq now, so I thought this might be a good historical reference point. Since this article doesn't mention the trouble with ratification, I thought I would point out this source as it seems quite interesting. No time now to do anything about it myself, and am hoping someone with language abilities can provide some excerpts of the treaty in English. Would so much be grateful if this treaty could be elaborated upon, and it seems like an important treaty if it is the first to define "fixed and peaceful" frontiers, so the law people might want to take notice as well.

--Hhoblit 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Peace of Žitava → Peace of Zsitvatorok or Treaty of Zsitvatorok

I'm requesting the move of the article Peace of Žitava to the title Peace of Zsitvatorok or Treaty of Zsitvatorok. Reasons:

• The article states that Zsitvatorok is the Hungarian name for the place, while Žitava is the Slovak name, and that the peace treaty was established in 1606 between the King of Hungary (who also happened to be the ruler of the Habsburg Empire) and the Ottoman Sultan Ahmed, with the help of a Hungarian nobleman, István Bocskai. (Despite of what this article says, the treaty was between Rudolf I and Sultan Ahmed. Archduke Matthias wouldn't have been in the position to sign a treaty in the Empire's name without the Emperor's consent. So the treaty was between the de jure Hungarian king and the Ottoman sultan.) It had clearly nothing to do with Slovakia, which exists, as an independent state, only since 1993, so it couldn't have had been effected by a treaty made in 1606. (As of 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC), Slovakian Wikipedia does not even have an article on the subject.)
• The treaty itself was written in Latin, Hungarian and Turkish. Not even German – the native language of the Habsburg imperial family – was included, so I don't see why Slovak, which was at that time clearly a minority language with no official status, should be in the article's title.
• Zsitvatorok means "estuary of the Zsitva" in Hungarian. It is completely irrelevant that now a Slovakian village stands where the peace treaty had been signed in the 17th century. At the time of the treaty, that place was far from any inhabited settlement – as a matter of fact, it was chosen for that very reason, approximately halfway between Pressburg (then Habsburg territory) and Buda (then Ottoman territory), but outside of anyone's zone of interest.[1] (Hungarian only)
• Google has several hits for "peace of Zsitvatorok" and "treaty of Zsitvatorok", and lots of other, now obsolete spelling variations (Zsitva-Torok, Sitvatorok) also have numerous hits. Google has no hits for "treaty of Zitava" and only one for "peace of Zitava".
• The page was moved from its Hungarian name to the present name with no reason cited.
• I have nothing against Slovakia or its people, but both Wikipedia's naming guidelines and common sense say this article should use the name Zsitvatorok, not Žitava – a name in a language which didn't have official status in any country until Czechoslovakia was formed in the 20th century, centuries after this peace treaty.

Any comments are appreciated. – Alensha ^talk 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Survey - Support votes

• Support - as per above. I would also add that I too have nothing against frustrated medieval scholars who may try in vain finding "Peace of Žitava" among the contemporary sources in their dusty libraries. WP is a wonderful tool to start serious research, so long as we can get the names right. István 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as per above. Peace of Žitava is a modern Slovak version that wasn't used in the 17th century. Zello 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The Peace of Zsitvatorok seems to be the most common name for this treaty, and naming it this way would be in line with the naming of other historical articles. Ronline ✉ 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I would support the original version, having been used by historians for centuries. --KIDB 13:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per the reasoning above + the comment below by István KissL 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Peace of Zsitva-Torok is also used frequently in English. Olessi 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per reasons listed above. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

• Comment - I think everyone participating in this survey should read first the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Basically, the "widely accepted historical English name" of the locality should be identified (using Google Scholar and Google Books hits, English-language encyclopedias published after 1993, and other standard histories and scientific studies, such as the Cambridge Histories) in this case. If it is impossible to identify a widely accepted historical English name, the modern official name of the place should be used. I will cast my vote only after the evidence proposed by the naming convention is showed to support either of the sides. Until then, any outcome of this survey may be challenged as opposing WP:NCGN. So, I encourage you to provide the required evidence before voting. Tankred 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember, we are discussing the name of a treaty, not a location. WP:NCGN is quite clear about this in the given example of Battle of Stalingrad (event) vs. Volgograd (location) that the historical name be used for the historical event, and the modern name be used for the modern location. At hand is "Peace of Zsitvatorok" (event) and not Žitava (location). István 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar results:

• Zsitvatorok
• Zsitva Torok
• Zitava
• Žitava

The latter two are practically all in languages other than English and do not reference the treaty, as far as I can tell. Olessi 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.