What is your opinion of Austria-Hungary?

[Blondie]

Btw just a question to Peterski, what do you mean by North Hungary? Because not only the present day Slovakia is part of it. This is the historical North Hungary (Felvidék) these northern hilly and mountainous area:



This area in the medieval age:



and in 1910:

[Peterski]

Btw just a question to Peterski, what do you mean by North Hungary? Because not only the present day Slovakia is part of it. This is the historical North Hungary (Felvidék) these northern hilly and mountainous area:

Thanks for the interesting maps!

I meant just Slovakia, not all of North Hungary.

By the way, Southern Slovakia - where Slovakia's Hungarians live - is mostly a lowland good for agriculture, unlike the rest of Slovakia which is mountainous.

And I've heard, that it was a Czech idea to draw the border of the Slovak part of Czechoslovakia along the Danube River, and to include agricultural lowlands.

Perhaps if Czechoslovakia never formed as a country, Hungary would have never lost these territories to the Slovaks.

BTW, in the late 1930s there were some negotiations between Poland and Slovakia concerning a possible Polish-Slovak union (creation of a "Poloslovakia"). Because Slovaks got tired of their union with Czechs by that time, they were looking for alternatives (including the possibility of seceeding from Czechoslovakia and creating a "Poloslovakia" instead).

If such Poloslovakia was formed already in 1918/1919, then perhaps the Poloslovakian-Hungarian border would be more favourable to Hungary - because the Poles did not need more of farming lands, unlike the Czechs (who were the ones pushing for a Slovak border further south than what ethnic grounds indicated - according to what I've heard).

The slovaks as ethnicity was formed in the 18-19. century, before that there were no slovaks, just various slavs (poles, czechs, rusyns) with different dialect.

I don't think this is true. They were not Poles, Czechs and Rusyns. Slovaks were Slovaks, even if they had a different name (or no name at all).

Slovenes for example also had a different name before - their previous name was Winds (just like Wends, but with the letter "i' instead of "e").

And in the Early Middle Ages, there was a Slavic Principality of Carantania, considered a Slovene state - even though the name didn't exist yet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania

There was a Polish minority in Slovakia, though:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7352699

[Dušan]

This is for year 1784.



Green - Romanians
Pink - Serbs
Orange - Hungarians
Blue - Croats
Yellow - Germans
Purple - Slovaks
Light Orange - Ruthenians

Year 1990.





Year 2011.

[Blondie]

Thanks for the interesting maps!

I meant just Slovakia, not all of North Hungary.

By the way, Southern Slovakia - where Slovakia's Hungarians live - is mostly a lowland good for agriculture, unlike the rest of Slovakia which is mountainous.

And I've heard, that it was a Czech idea to draw the border of the Slovak part of Czechoslovakia along the Danube River, and to include agricultural lowlands.

Perhaps if Czechoslovakia never formed as a country, Hungary would have never lost these territories to the Slovaks.

BTW, in the late 1930s there were some negotiations between Poland and Slovakia concerning a possible Polish-Slovak union (creation of a "Poloslovakia"). Because Slovaks got tired of their union with Czechs by that time, they were looking for alternatives (including the possibility of seceeding from Czechoslovakia and creating a "Poloslovakia" instead).

If such Poloslovakia was formed already in 1918/1919, then perhaps the Poloslovakian-Hungarian border would be more favourable to Hungary - because the Poles did not need more of farming lands, unlike the Czechs (who were the ones pushing for a Slovak border further south than what ethnic grounds indicated - according to what I've heard).



I don't think this is true. They were not Poles, Czechs and Rusyns. Slovaks were Slovaks, even if they had a different name (or no name at all).

Slovenes for example also had a different name before - their previous name was Winds (just like Wends, but with the letter "i' instead of "e").

And in the Early Middle Ages, there was a Slavic Principality of Carantania, considered a Slovene state - even though the name didn't exist yet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania

There was a Polish minority in Slovakia, though:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7352699

If you mean just the medieval Slovakia then yes, i think slavs were majority but this is just my opinion and still not sure.
And slovaks have right to live in their own country, but the slovak-hungarian relationship will always be very special, because both country are successor state of Kingdom of Hungary and it's history, statehood, national symbols etc. Hungarians should feel themselves at home everywhere in Slovakia, just like slovaks should feel themselves at home everywhere in Hungary because this all thing are common heritage.

[rothaer]

(...) And slovaks have right to live in their own country, but the slovak-hungarian relationship will always be very special, because both country are successor state of Kingdom of Hungary and it's history, statehood, national symbols etc. Hungarians should feel themselves at home everywhere in Slovakia, just like slovaks should feel themselves at home everywhere in Hungary because this all thing are common heritage.

I'd always promote good relations, but the "common heritage" that you here do emphasise is not that of two partners, but that of master and slave. So not really something to connect to for Slovaks, I guess.

In comparison to this the pre-1918 German-Czech relation history was far better. Bohemia was not just (corresponding to what Slovakia was to Hungary) a part of the German Empire for roughly 1,000 years, but also an own political entity. The crown of Bohemia in the past posessed also Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia and was for quite a period of time ruling huge ethnic German settlement areas. And Bohemia was such an important part of the German Empire that Prague for a period of time was even the capital of the entire German Empire (deliberately, without any Turks or other enemies forcing such a decision). The indigenous Czech nobility was all the time existent and powerful and not replaced by Germans (unlike in Brandenburg, East Prussia and Upper Saxonia as well as partly in Pomerania and Mecklenburg). So unless the Czechs ethnically were a pronounced minority in the German Empire they had a stunning position on one level with ethnic Germans. Conditions, that Slovaks just could have dreamt of in Hungary.

Maybe there is a Slovak user with an opinion. I'd be curious.

[Peterski]

The indigenous Czech nobility was all the time existent and powerful and not replaced by Germans (unlike in Brandenburg, East Prussia and Upper Saxonia as well as partly in Pomerania and Mecklenburg).

Are you sure that the indigenous nobility in East Prussia, Pommern and Mecklenburg were replaced? AFAIK, they were rather Germanized over time.

There are a lot of noble families from East Prussia, Mecklenburg and Pommern with surnames that sound Slavic (or Prussian in case of East Prussia).

Brandenburgian policy towards Slavic nobility was probably more hostile, IIRC.

As for Czech nobility - it was massacred and decimated in the Thirty Years' War.

[Blondie]

I'd always promote good relations, but the "common heritage" that you here do emphasise is not that of two partners, but that of master and slave. So not really something to connect to for Slovaks, I guess.

In comparison to this the pre-1918 German-Czech relation history was far better. Bohemia was not just (corresponding to what Slovakia was to Hungary) a part of the German Empire for roughly 1,000 years, but also an own political entity. The crown of Bohemia in the past posessed also Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia and was for quite a period of time ruling huge ethnic German settlement areas. And Bohemia was such an important part of the German Empire that Prague for a period of time was even the capital of the entire German Empire (deliberately, without any Turks or other enemies forcing such a decision). The indigenous Czech nobility was all the time existent and powerful and not replaced by Germans (unlike in Brandenburg, East Prussia and Upper Saxonia as well as partly in Pomerania and Mecklenburg). So unless the Czechs ethnically were a pronounced minority in the German Empire they had a stunning position on one level with ethnic Germans. Conditions, that Slovaks just could have dreamt of in Hungary.

Maybe there is a Slovak user with an opinion. I'd be curious.

The slovak-hungarian relationship was not like master and slave. Most hungarians were also just simple peasants without any human rights, the hungarian elite didn't consider them hungarian because only the nobility could be part of hungarian nation in the feudalism and there were slovak nobles too. The problem is hungarians and slovaks are also brainwashed by this chauvinist propaganda, but in the reality, the slovak-hungarian relationship was very good before 1867, slovaks have never rebelled against hungarians like croats, serbs, romanians did, slovaks have fought along with hungarians against the mongols, turks, the habsburgs under Rákóczi's flag, just like they supported the hungarian government in 1848 against serbs, croats, romanians, habsburgs. This good relationship was broken only after 1867 when hungarians wanted to magyarize them, and they didn't give slovak autonomy what they promised in 1848. Also slovaks and hungarians are catholic so there were many intermarriage between them.
The birth of slovak nation is connecting to the Kingdom of Hungary, they were active figures in every historical events, they have fought together with hungarians side by side against the enemy, they contributed a lot to the success of Kingdom of Hungary. The slovak state identify itself as successor state of the Kingdom of Hungary thats why they use it's heraldry as their national symbols for example the double cross, the trimount etc:



The slovak identity is connecting to St. Stephen's state, it's history, it's success, and this 1000 years old heritage what slovaks and hungarians feel like it's own. I know because i have talked with tons of slovak about it, the problem is there are some very loud ultranationalist minority in the both country who like to generate hate.

[rothaer]

The slovak-hungarian relationship was not like master and slave. Most hungarians were also just simple peasants without any human rights, the hungarian elite didn't consider them hungarian because only the nobility could be part of hungarian nation in the feudalism and there were slovak nobles too. The problem is hungarians and slovaks are also brainwashed by this chauvinist propaganda, but in the reality, the slovak-hungarian relationship was very good before 1867, slovaks have never rebelled against hungarians like croats, serbs, romanians did, slovaks have fought along with hungarians against the mongols, turks, the habsburgs under Rákóczi's flag, just like they supported the hungarian government in 1848 against serbs, croats, romanians, habsburgs. This good relationship was broken only after 1867 when hungarians wanted to magyarize them, and they didn't give slovak autonomy what they promised in 1848. Also slovaks and hungarians are catholic so there were many intermarriage between them.
The birth of slovak nation is connecting to the Kingdom of Hungary, they were active figures in every historical events, they have fought together with hungarians side by side against the enemy, they contributed a lot to the success of Kingdom of Hungary. The slovak state identify itself as successor state of the Kingdom of Hungary thats why they use it's heraldry as their national symbols for example the double cross, the trimount etc:



The slovak identity is connecting to St. Stephen's state, it's history, it's success, and this 1000 years old heritage what slovaks and hungarians feel like it's own. I know because i have talked with tons of slovak about it, the problem is there are some very loud ultranationalist minority in the both country who like to generate hate.

When Nelson Mandela was released, he build his private house as a copy of his prison flat, because he was used to that. Incredible, but true. So I wouldn't derive too much from that double cross usage.

[Peterski]

The idea was something like Deutscher Bund. It's borders from 1815 are here (in red).



Give or take the exact borders (it has too much in the south f. i.), I wanted to demonstrate that not just Austria (yellow) but actually also Prussia (blue) had lands outside of Deutscher Bund! Btw. this state Deutscher Bund was realised and existent. But it was constructed so weak that it did not gain any big importance.

Rougly, yep. But this kind of united Germany should not have non-German areas, which would just weaken its cohesion. The only area that I would not immediately reject is the Czech inhabited one as it lays almost like an island in Germany and Czechs are very close to Germans in most aspects (except language). But if they would prefer to have a state of their own, they should have. It would be in line with the ethnic borders, i. e. like in November 1938.

If you want a Deutscher Bund in year 1815 without Non-German areas, you would need to cut off - in the Prussian part - nearly all of Oppeln Regency (except Kreise: Grottkau, Neisse, Leobschütz, Falkenberg, western half of Prudnik), as well as the north-eastern part of Breslau Regency (so called "das polnische Nieder-Schlesien"), and also Lauenburg, Bütow and eastern part of Kreis Stolp. I'm talking about Non-German inhabited areas in 1815 to the west of that red line, within the Kingdom of Prussia.

=====

When I was researching this ethnic composition from the early 1800s, it surprised me that regions such as Upper Silesia and Southern East Prussia actually at that time had much fewer ethnic Germans, than Provinz Posen. Many areas of Provinz Posen had significant percentages of Germans already according to data from 1816/1821 (the earliest available census I found). 1816 is still few decades after the first partition of Poland (1772), but also just one year after the termination of the Duchy of Warsaw (1815).

=====

BTW Rothaer this is something interesting about your Leszno ancestors (maybe you didn't know this - that they moved "en masse", not individually!):

Quote (about the 1500s-1600s emigration of Lutherans from Silesia - persecuted by the Habsburgs - who took refuge in religiously tolerant Poland):

"Sometimes group resettlements [from Silesia] to cities and towns of south-western Wielkopolska took place. In such a way about 3000 inhabitants of Guhrau migrated to Leszno, while Lutheran populations from Glogau, Schwiebus and Reichenbach migrated to Wschowa, Babimost and Zduny."

Source: Wojciech Kriegseisen, "Ewangelicy polscy i litewscy w epoce saskiej" ("Polish & Lithuanian Protestants in the Saxon period"), page 68.

So as you can see your ancestors did not migrate from Guhrau to Leszno individually, but rather as part of a large group migration by 3000 people!

And those resettlements were organized like this:

Guhrau > Leszno
Glogau > Wschowa
Schwiebus > Babimost
Reichenbach > Zduny

[rothaer]

(...) slovaks have never rebelled against hungarians (...)

Then the following must be a misunderstanding by all other people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak...848%E2%80%9349