Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary

Article title

I restored the article title to Croatia in personal union with Hungary, the last one I remember being stable, and consolidated the talk page archives as subpages. I do not have a strong opinion about it, I just saw a series of botched moves that left the archives divorced from the page, so I moved it back. If there was a formal consensus title, please ping me and I'll move it back properly. Otherwise, please fill an entry at WP:Requested moves. No such user (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This title is more accurate and correct, suppport.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

What is the article's subject?

• When reading the article, I had the impression that it is dedicated to the history of Croatia between 1102 and 1526. In this case, the name is misleading because several parts of present-day Croatia were not in any kind of union with Hungary. For instance, the Republic of Venice ruled northern and central Dalmatia on the Croatian coast of the Adriatic for centuries, whereas the southern Dalmatian city of Dubrovnik/Ragusa and its region formed an autonomous republic from 1358. [(1) Goldstein, Ivo (2007) [1999]. Croatia: A History. Translated by Nikolina Jovanović. McGill–Queen's University Press. pp. 28–30. ISBN 978-0-7735-2017-2.; (2) Tanner, Marcus (2010) [1997]. Croatia: A Nation Forged in War (Third ed.). Yale University Press. pp. 25–27. ISBN 978-0-300-16394-0.]
• Alternatively, the article may be dedicated to the constitutional aspects of the shared history of Croatia and Hungary. In this case, the timeframe is the first problem because the shared history lasted from 1102 to 1918. Further problem is that "personal union" is only one of the mainstream terms describing the relationship between the two countries. For instance, "union of crowns" or "union" are alternatively used. Finally, the use of the term "personal union" is absolutely misleading when dealing with specific regions: the City of Rijeka/Fiume was never in personal union with Hungary although it was one of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen; the territory of some modern Croatian counties, such as Osijek-Baranja was part of the Kingdom of Hungary for centuries; and neither Croatian nor Hungarian authorities had jurisdiction in the Croatian Military Frontier. [(1) Bideleux, Robert; Jeffries, Ian (1998). A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change. Routledge. p. 195. ISBN 0-415-16111-8.; (2) Goldstein, Ivo (2007) [1999]. Croatia: A History. Translated by Nikolina Jovanović. McGill–Queen's University Press. pp. 41, 48. ISBN 978-0-7735-2017-2.; (3) Tanner, Marcus (2010) [1997]. Croatia: A Nation Forged in War (Third ed.). Yale University Press. pp. 37–38. ISBN 978-0-300-16394-0.; (4) Magaš, Branka (2007). Croatia through History: The Making of a European State. SAQI. pp. 72, 94, 189, 303. ISBN 978-0-86356-775-9.]

Borsoka (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. What do you suggest to change? OrionNimrod (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) Venetian Dalmatia was only on the coast (initially around Zadar) always contesting with Croatia-Hungary, and only since 1420 started to actually dominate over the coastal cities, but not in the hinterland (2) This is how the history of Croatia is divided everywhere. Yes, it was always part of Hungary, but a separate kingdom with pre-Habsburg and post-Habsburg history.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) Yes, so large territories in present-day Croatia were not in personal union in Hungary in any way. Furthermore much of Dalmatia was under Byzantine rule for decades in the 12th century. (2) Perhaps, but two of the three major monographies published in English about Croatian history do not use this division: Tanner writes of "Croatia under the Hungarians" when writing about Croatian history between 1102 and 1526, whereas Magaš describes the period as "The Tripartite Kingdom". I would suggest a more neutral title: "Croatia in the High and Later Middle Ages" or "History of Croatia (1102–1526)". Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Disclaimer: for the background for Borsoka taking interest read Talk:Janko Drašković at your own risk.

To the discussion at hand, this is an interesting proposal. I would support splitting this article to have "Croatia in the High and Later Middle Ages" and an article on the "Personal union of Hungary and Croatia" - the former on history, the latter on relevant constitutional/administrative arrangements between the two realms from the 12th to the 19th century.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The creation of a separate article about the relatinship between Croatia and Hungary is a good idea, but a neutral title should be found because the term "personal union" is neither neutral nor precise as per the reasons listed above. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

For an article on the "Personal union of Hungary and Croatia" about relevant constitutional/administrative arrangements between the two realms from the 12th to the 19th century - it is the scope of an article we already have, Pacta conventa (Croatia).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the article on the several aspects of common public law should have a wider scope than a document. We could not summarize British constitutional history under the title "Magna Charta". Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There are ample sources directly and explicitly backing up the relationship has been named a personal union by scholars. Moreover, they are found in diverse authors (i.e. not only Croatian): Here's a British one Auty 1978, p. 29., a Hungarian one Rácz 2017, p. 54., a Polish one, Kopyś 2022, p. 376., and a Dutch one Trifunovska 1994, p. 240. Here's Bideleux & Jeffries 2006, p. 195. stating that Croatian sources also use that term and specifically that it is the Hungarian nationalist historians who avoid it. Granted, there are other alternatives, but "personal union" appears sufficiently commonly used to be the commn name and it appears entirely appropriate (as explicitly stated by Trifunovska who analysed research of all leading European state-law scholars in her work). Details of the sources are as follows (page numbers are found in this paragraph):

• Auty, Robert (1978). "Pannonian Parallels and Divergences: Thoughts on the History of the Croatian and Hungarian Literary Languages". Filologija (8). Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts: 29–35. ISSN 1848-8919.
• Rácz, Szilárd (2017). "Main characteristics of Hungarian-Croatian political relations and Cross-Border Co-operations". Geographica Pannonica. 21 (1). Novi Sad: University of Novi Sad: 54–67. doi:10.5937/geopan1701054r. ISSN 0354-8724.
• Kopyś, Tadeusz (2022). "The Crown of St. Stephen as a Symbol of Legal Continuity and Hungarian Constitutionalism (Historical Background)". Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa. 15 (3). Kraków: Jagiellonian University: 353–367. ISSN 2084-4115.
• Trifunovska, Snežana (1994). Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9780792326700.
• Bideleux, Robert; Jeffries, Ian (2006). A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. ISBN 9781134719853.

--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) Auty is a philologist specialised in Slavonic languages [1], Rácz is an economist specialised in regional politics and urbanism ([2]), Bideleux & Jeffries write that the term "personal union" is one of the two terms used by Croatian historians, but they describe the relationship as "Hungarian domination of Croatia". (2) I would be grateful if you tried to concentrate on my concerns instead of making new and new google searches for "Croatia Hungary personal union". The relationship between Croatia and Hungary was changing during the centuries, and relationship between different regions of present-day Croatia and Hungary was not the same: some regions of present-day Croatia were integral parts of Hungary for centuries (Osijek-Baranja), others were administered as a special unit (the City of Rijeka/Fiume); in the medieval period Slavonia was in a closer relationship with Hungary than Croatia proper. When describing the constitutional links between Hungary and Croatia, all these differences should be taken into account. (3) Bideleux & Jeffries do not write that Hungarian nationalist historians avoid the use of the term (as I have alredy explained it to you). They write that Hungarian nationalist historians prefer an alternative term: annexation. You should not suggest that editors who express concerns about the use of the term are Hungarian nationalists. For instance, Bideleux & Jeffries also use an alternative term: "Hungarian domination". Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There exists other reliable sources. Anyway, for such a substantial change of scope and title you'll need a long discussion, list of substantiated arguments and general consensus for change. However, considering your editing quality, if you have some details and different perspectives which would like to edit in the current revision, you're welcome to present them here or make an edit example in a sandbox or simply make a bold edit (perhaps will be followed by BRD, but at least something will be going on and possibly something constructive could emerge).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I would not change the scope of the present article (although a splitting around 1301 could be useful). I would only change its name. Of course, this change could not be unilateral. On the other hand, I think a separate article about the public law aspects of the shared history of Croatia and Hungary would be useful but this article is still to be created and named. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)