A thought on Hungarian States... [solved]

14 posts • viewed 238 times

» Quick access to the last post

I have posted this on the referee forum as well, but then I decided I need a further opinion on this, specially looking for ENGLISH natives, who can help me phrase what I really want to say in the title of this "country":

Hello,

An additional thought on this. The sub-category "Hungarian States" has been created inspired by Italian States and German States... prematurely when Turks were considered Ottomans back in 2013:

However the term "States" is quite misleading as under the category there are various categories: cities, counts, provinces, etc. ... The common thing in them that in one way or other they were under the vassalage of the crown of the Kingdom of Hungary.
So, shouldn't it better to rename it to "Hungarian vassals"? or something? --- or? HELP!

What do you think?

Thanks,
Imre
Hungary - Regional Currencies?
Hungarian Issuing Authorities. Or maybe Hungarian Issuing Entities? Although your suggestion of Hungarian Vassals works...but wouldnt it be clearer to say Hungarian Vassals of the Ottomans or something? Vassals imply that someone else is the bigger authority. Issuers and Entities have the authority implied within themselves.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Quote: "Oklahoman"​Hungarian Issuing Authorities. Or maybe Hungarian Issuing Entities? Although your suggestion of Hungarian Vassals works...but wouldnt it be clearer to say Hungarian Vassals of the Ottomans or something? Vassals imply that someone else is the bigger authority. Issuers and Entities have the authority implied within themselves.
X-D Hungarian vassals of the other Hungarians, rather ;) ... need to think further
Alternately, just follow the precedent of Montenegro and Estonia and dump them all as second-level issuers under Hungary.

(...Not very serious, but it's a possible option. I don't see any problem with "Hungarian states" myself; the German and Italian states are just as diverse.
Possibly something like "Hungary - Feudal"? It seems to be similar to the French situation.)
How about listing them under the issuers they belong to?

I created this topic here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic90521.html

- City of Cattaro under Montenegro (modern day Kotor)
- City of Selmecbánya under Slovakia
- Hungarian possession of Serbia self-explanatory
- Province of Slavonia is a historic region of Croatia
- City of Spalato, modern-day Split, in Croatia
- Hermannstadt under Romania (city of Sibiu)
- Kronnstadt under Romania (city of Brasov)
- Nagybánya under Romania (city of Baia Mare)
- Severin under Romania (county in Romania)
- Transylvania under Romania
More you go to the east, more are historical borders fluid. It is hard to say what was Hungarian, or whether we can call this Hungarian or not and in most cases, what might have been Hungarian at one point might not be Hungarian today.

PS: You can substitute Hungarian with basically any country in the central and eastern Europe. And this makes it very hard to catalogue.
Catalogue administrator
Hello,

My little "grain de sel". As Austria also has that sort of concern.

The main point we should not forget about is that our catalogue is a database, not a printed written on rock document. So we should not try to find THE best order/classification etc.

The most important is that we can find the coins with the search engine. The search is the most important, together with the fields that allow to find. So if something, we need to have fields that inform on the past relationships between regions-countries-issuers etc.

We have to think: is the current structure of the database good enough for that ? Are links designed so that the search engine finds. We can have 1000ds of so called "countries", as far as there is a system that links them (like at a given moment in time, this is within that and within that etc...), then it works. And each user depending on his/her interests will build a proper catalogue.
I don't care if the County of Monfort is in the German States, but I want the system to find it when I search Austria because most of the territory is current Austria (also North Italy).

So we need input from database specialists (I know there are some among the members), I don't know exactly but my guess is that Xavier knows quite a bit.

Maybe would it be feasible for each user to have a "private function" saved in profile that would say, ok, my "Hungary" is x +y+z+t because I decided so. Because I want coins minted there to show up, I collect them (as for example Joseph II coinage with mint letter B).
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
Referee for Austria-Habsburg, Austrian Netherlands, Austrian States, Bohemia, Silesia.
Traducteur, demandez en cas de besoin ! Translator, ask if you need !
Quote: "Jarcek"​More you go to the east, more are historical borders fluid. It is hard to say what was Hungarian, or whether we can call this Hungarian or not and in most cases, what might have been Hungarian at one point might not be Hungarian today.

​PS: You can substitute Hungarian with basically any country in the central and eastern Europe. And this makes it very hard to catalogue.
​Agree to a point :D. But most of these are quite clear no? e.g. "Hungarian possession of Serbia" should be quite obvious... Serbia is not Hungarian.

Some territories are discriminated, and I think this should be more sensitive to current political issues 8~.

I think an easy fix is to call the parent "Vassals of Hungary" or "Vassals of the Hungarian Crown" . "Hungarian Vassals" is still a bit ambiguous (are the vassals Hungarian? or of the Hungarians?).
Quote: "Ecapoe"​​The most important is that we can find the coins with the search engine. The search is the most important, together with the fields that allow to find. So if something, we need to have fields that inform on the past relationships between regions-countries-issuers etc.


​I completely agree. I think a non-hierarchical issuer system with "tags" would work much better and is more suitable for a digital catalog. So we can tag "Spalato" with #Hungary #Croatia #Vassal of Hungary etc.

I think these should at least appear in the "See also" of each issuer. E.g. Spalato should have "See also: Croatia" and it should be in the "See also" of Croatia. Just like Ragusa.
@Stratocaster:
I am the one responsible for the current set-up.
At the point of creation of Hungarian States, the only logic was that the coins issued under the subtitles were issued by ruling Monarchs in their capacity as Kings or Queens of Hungary - without any geographical constraints.
Austrian Joseph II coins with a B mintmark, issued in his capacity as Emperor of Austria, though minted in Hungary, belong rightfully to Austria
This is certainly a questionable logic, but in my view, still the most valid historically.

I certainly strongly refuse retrospective history creation: to put Transylvania under Romania would be like placing ancient Greece under Turkey, just because a later formed country occupies its geography.
Quote: "imreh"​@Stratocaster:
​​​Austrian Joseph II coins with a B mintmark, issued in his capacity as Emperor of Austria, though minted in Hungary, belong rightfully to Austria
​This is certainly a questionable logic, but in my view, still the most valid historically.
Agree. Coins can be minted abroad even today. Josef II also issued coins in Hungary. One example.

Quote: "imreh"​@Stratocaster:
I certainly strongly refuse retrospective history creation: to put Transylvania under Romania would be like placing ancient Greece under Turkey, just because a later formed country occupies its geography.
Sorry to disagree, not like Greece at all :.. Not the place here to go into a historical debate, but here is a small selection of sources discussing this topic from different points of view [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. The most objective ones agree that:
- Transylvania was ruled by Vlach (Romanian) lords until 10-13th century
- conquered by Hungarians 10-13th century
- ruled by Hungarians/Ottomans/Habsburgs/Romanians until 1918
- became part of Kingdom of Romania in 1918
- throughout most of its history, the majority of the population was consistently Romanian, Christian and spoke the Romance Language (Romania).

I think there's an easy fix, see my previous post. Listing Transylvania, Hermannstadt etc as "Hungarian States" can alienate users :(.

Best
strato

[1] Holly Case - "Between States: The Transylvanian Question and the European Idea during World War II"
[2] L. Lôte - "Transylvania and the theory of Daco-Roman-Rumanian Continuity"
[3] Quora discussion - "What points are there in favor and against the Daco-Roman continuity theory? In other words, do Romanians actually descend from Dacians?"
[4] Quora discussion - "Was Transylvania actually of Romanian/Proto-Romanian majority before the Hungarian conquest? If not, when did they become the majority?"
[5] Quora discussion - "Are Romanians indigenous to Transylvania?"
:D... no comments on Romanian fabricated history references.

This post I started with the good intention to find a more appropriate title.
Before it gets overheated, I wish to close the topic, then.
Status changed to Solved (imreh, 29-Dec-2019, 13:01)
Personally, I couldn't care less if the whole Romania was under Hungary, or Greece under Turkey...:.

I pointed out a real, open historical debate. The first source is from Stanford University press. Why fabricated?

I have the same good intentions and suggested:
- "Vassals of the Hungarian Crown" as a name
- using the "See also" section to cross-reference the issuers.


Best
strato

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 07:34.