Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1848

Images

This article could use another image. Here's one I would add, but I don't really know what it is. Can anyone help? - TheMightyQuill 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) It's the Hungarian painter Mihaly Kovacs's work, titled "Redcap" (elite troopers of the Revolutionary Army's 9th and 11th Battalions, the red cap was a distinctive feature from regulars, it was an aknowledgement of their bravery.). It probably depicts early days (1848) of the Revolution, when Serb raiders instigated by the Austrian tyrants robbed Hungarian villages and these guys were ordered to restore peace in the Southern Lands (the killed agressors lying on the ground apparently Serbs).--http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vörössipkások-- The painting on the upper right doesnt depict Petőfi, its Lajos Kossuth recruiting men to the Hungarian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.211.14 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

unreferenced tag

I reverted the deletion of the intro paragraph and unreferenced tag because even though there are no references yet (anywhere in the article) the intro itself is a summary of the article whereas the main body requires references. (there is nothing controversial or POV in the intro). The tag is not inapropriate but the intro should remain. István 20:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to delete the lead. Sancho McCann 20:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Placement of un-reffed tag

I've noticed some other editors preferring to place that tag at the bottom of the page too. My reason for liking it at the top is that it doubles as both a request for references and sort of a caution to certain readers who might make the connection between an unreferenced article and an inaccurate article. However, this article just seems to be lacking references, not inaccurate, so the placement at the bottom is fine with me. Sancho McCann 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really think it looks nicer there. Your concern is totally valid though. The whole History of Hungary series is poorly referenced, if at all. The main article has only 5 footnotes! - TheMightyQuill 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Name

Minor, but... first, why plural revolutions, and second, to standartize it with others, why not Hungarian revolution of 1848?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I feel the same way. It was done to standardize it with the other articles that are part of Template:Revolutions of 1848, but I think a singular title would make more sense. - TheMightyQuill 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - no reason not to leave the Template title alone (since it does deal with many concurrent revolutions) and change the titles to each article to singular (unless it indeed deals with more than one revolution, e.g. "Habsburg") - it's at least a more correct, less ambiguous presentation. István 19:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Revolution, but Ethnocratic War

When the so-called Hungarian Revolution started, the lands of the Krown of Saint Stephen had a multiethnic population of Romanians, Serbs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Germans, Jews and Hungarians. The Hungarian - speaking population (including the Jewish, German, Serbian townspeople) was merely 29% and the Hungarian ethnic group was abb 25% of the total population. The aim of the rebelious group under the dictatorial command of Lajos Kossuth was to impose an APARTHEID STYLE society all over the St. Stephen Lands (the actual Hungarian Republic, Slovakia, parts of Romania, Ukraine, Austria, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia).Only the Hungarian ethnic group would enjoy full freedon and full citizens rights. According to the rebels "Revolutionary Programme", accession to the status of full citizens would imply the rejection of the national identities of the native peoples (75% of the population in 1848) and inclusion into the "Hungarian Nation". Therefore, it is excessive to call the 1848-1849 uprisings of Hungary a "Revolution". It was in fact a sort of military attempt to replace the Austrian imperial administration by an Hungarian ethnocratic system by force and extensive massacres among the native peoples during the period 1848-1849. Of course, the success chances of this kind of ethnocratic attempts are meagre or short-lasting. It's usefull to see the situation of South Africa, where the white minority (20% of the population in 1945 and 9% of the population in 2005) hardly mantained the Apartheid Regime, against the world-wide condemnations. The so-called "hungarian revolution" was very far from European democratic way of thinking an is an example of anti-democratic movement, but successfully sold to the outside world as a "very democratic attempt". Maybe that style of twisting the events was the main success for the Hungarian Ethnocratic Oligarchy during the years after 1849. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Very interesting analysis. I know next to nothing about this revolution, so I encourage such "revisionist" voices to chip in here. Zezen (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, no....the original motivation for the revolution independence (of some sort or another) from the Habsburg Empire! The Habsburgs had been taking much more control over Hungary than they were supposed to, not to mention enforcing a backward feudalist system that kept the country (except for the mostly Austrian nobility) impoverished and uneducated. The leaders of the revolution, Kossuth Lajos and Petőfi Sándor, were certainly nationalists but they were also progressive liberals and reformers, steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment (you know, liberté, egalité, fraternité and all that). Misjudgements by Kossuth, agitation by outside powers and clever Machiavellian meddling by the Habsburgs all conspired to bring the ethnic element into what was originally a purely political, idealistic and liberal revolution firmly in keeping with the spirit of 1848. To call this revolution an "ethnocratic war" and say that its true goal was establishment of "apartheid" is simply ridiculous. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but there's no other word for it. K. Lásztocska 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is really strange to consider Kossuth, Petofi and the rest of the gang as "progressive liberals and reformers". Long before any Habsburg conspiracy and Machiavellian meddling, this gang clearely stated that inside the Carpatian Basin ONLY HUNGARIANS will benefit from "liberty, equality and fraternity" and they wrote this loud and clear in the ORIGINAL Budapest Proclamation. No Habsburgs and no outside forces teached them to kill 40.000 Romanian childrens, women and elders in Transsylvania. 50 years of Apartheid regime in South Africa did less victimes than 2 years of "Hungarian revolutionary regime" and ETHNOCRATIC WAR. Moreover, it's very interesting to observe that Avram Iancu, one of the leading figures of the Romanian inteligentia in 1848-1849 proposed in his writings the formation of a "European Union" with democratic Constitutions, equality for ALL THE CITIZENS, irrespective of ethnic, religious origin, free universal vote, common assemblies, free trade and cultural excanges. Please note that the actual European Constitution is strikingly similar with the political ideeas of Avram Iancu, written in 1847-1850 ! The response of the Hungarian gang was ... several massive military offensives against the Highlanders of Avram Iancu. It's wierd to see, even in the contemporary Hungary, which is a member state of the European Union, monuments of war criminals as kossuth, petofi and bem !

Petofi was a poet, not a criminal. And y'know, I've heard some not-so-nice things about Avram Iancu, so let's not pretend this is a black-and-white issue. Among other things, Kossuth emancipated the peasants, ended the nobility's immunity from taxation, emancipated the Jews, put an end to feudalism, and did his best to modernize the economy (although it could be argued that Szechenyi was more effective at that). Again, you have not convinced me, and as for your cheap shot about statues of "war criminals" in a member state of the European Union...sir, I like Romania and the Romanians so I'd prefer not to fight, but be advised that I could come up with a VERY large catalog of, shall we say, unfortunate things that happened and still happen in Romania, now a member state of the EU. Nobody's country is as pure as fresh snow, not mine, not yours. K. Lásztocska 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I could come up with a VERY large catalog of, shall we say, unfortunate things that happened and still happen in Romania - bring it on! Biruitorul 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't really want me to do that, do you? I knew we'd end up like this. K. Lásztocska 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not aware of the "unfortunate" things you're referring to, so if you'd kindly name a couple, that would be nice. Biruitorul 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. I'm just a Hungarian, so anything I say would be wrong anyway. I've heard some stuff about Hungarians getting beat up in the streets for speaking Hungarian, the occasional blatant Hungarian-baiting provocations by a prominent political figure, marginalization of the Székely and their desire for autonomy...but of course I must just be mistaken, nothing like that could ever happen in perfect golden Romania, the pinnacle of civilization! K. Lásztocska 01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Ignore the heck out of this whole exchange, please. I wasn't thinking and I wasn't myself. K. Lásztocska 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've heard about Romanians being beat up in the Székely land, and of them leading rather marginalized lives there; Funar is no longer in office; the Hungarian political party has been in government for most of the post-Revolutionary period; and the Romanian Constitution defines Romania as a "unitary and indivisible" state, so the issue of autonomy is moot. So I think Romania has a pretty good record here. On the other hand, could the IP editor(s) please type in lowercase letters and tone down the rhetoric? It's silly, for instance, to speak of "racism" in this context. Biruitorul 07:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Glad to hear I was misinformed, and things aren't as bad as I feared. :) Sorry for my instability yesterday--sleepless editing, like you said...K. Lásztocska 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The "not so nice things about Avram Iancu" is the fact that he considered that the only feasible government is a FULLY democratic one and the fact that he rejected hungarian and habsburg tirany in Transsylvania (as the vast majority of the Transsylvanians). Another "bad thing" about Avram Iancu was the fact that he encouraged the good human relations between hungarians and Romanians. The fact that he married a hungarian women enraged the narrow minded backward hungarian nationalists. Another "bad thing" is that Avram Iancu condemned the ethnic cleansing and the massacration of the civilian as a barbaric act and therefore he enraged the kossuth, petofi and bem's gang of ETHNOCRATIC FANATICS. If you remember, the Emperor Joseph II von Habsburg emancipated the peasants and the jews, ended the nobility's immunity from taxation and put an end to feudalism but his reforms was halted by the Hungarian ETHNOCRATIC RULE because Josephine illuminist reforms threatened the HUNGARIAN ETHNOCRATIC RULE inside the Carpatic Basin. Do not compare the war criminal kossuth with the administrative genius, count Istvan Szechenyi. The Hungarain nation have admirable personalities as count Istvan Szechenyi, but also horrible criminals like kossuth and extremist and racist artists like petofi alexander (born Petrovics, as a Serbian, but of course, rejected by the Serbs). As a conclusion, one of the greatest mistakes of the kossuth ethnocratic gang was to extend them apartheid-style movement into Transsylvania. Of course, in Transsylvania there is a Hungarian Szekler minority (abb 6% of the total population) and an Hungarian speaking minority, most of them the offspring of Hungarized Romanians and Germans (abb 12% of the population) but his is not a valid argument for the intervention of the ETHNOCRATIC GANG's armies of fortune in this province ! It's cruel, barbarian, anti-democratic and shamefull by ALL STANDARDS of human behaviour ! Get real, Start to think as an democratic European ! Reject apartheid style racists as kossuth, petofi, bem, batthyany ! It's not an academic stand to defend and EHNOCRATIC GANG in Wikipedia. The 21th century Europe shoud NOT pay hommage to cruel and antidemocratic criminals and ethnocentric racist poets. The Hungarian people has enough admirable personalities and outstanding accomplishments to be hailed and presented to the wide World.

I am not even going to bother with a political response to that. You just accused me of being anti-democratic, racist, and ethnocentric, not to mention "shameful by all standards of human behavior" because I'm "defending an ethnocratic gang." Regarding my comments about Avram Iancu, I appear to have mixed him up with someone else and I apologize for that. In light of that, I would now like an apology for your description of Sándor Petőfi, one of my favorite poets and one of my country's most beloved historical figures, as an "extremist" and a "ethnocentric racist." K. Lásztocska 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uummmm, I am neither hungarian nor even european, but reading petofi makes it clear that he was an extremist and racist... I know he is celebrated in hungary, but this does not change his (literally) extreme nationalist views on hungrian greatness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.123 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Three words: Unio Trium Nationum. Biruitorul 17:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry I don't understand, what is your point? K. Lásztocska 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, just trying to be witty. But persecution and de-nationalization of Romanians in Transylvania did continue until 1918 - is there any reason to believe the 1848 revolutionaries had different intentions? Biruitorul 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the original intent of the revolutionaries was political, not ethnic. The ethnic element made its unpleasant appearance well after the revolution began, and crimes were committed on all sides btw. Not everything in Hungarian history has a sinister ethnic-cleansing/apartheid motive, get that into your head. K. Lásztocska 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that came out way grumpier than I intended. No offense meant. K. Lásztocska 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Not everything in Hungarian history has a sinister ethnic-cleansing/apartheid motive". What a priceless quote. I guess the minorities in that "great" hungarian kingdom have other views on this, something that it seems the hungarians are keen to forget... or never to learn? Ethnic oppression is so lovely to reminisce about, especially when you were the ones holding the power. It seems that many europeans have highly selective memories... 80.254.148.123 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.123 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I will decide what I do or don't get into my head, thank you very much, but for the record, I never claimed that "everything in Hungarian history has a sinister ethnic-cleansing/apartheid motive". However, given the previous, inauspicious 850-year record of Magyar-Romanian relations, "trust but verify" appears to have been a proper attitude for Romanians to take at the revolution's outset, followed in relatively short order by "don't trust - leave Hungary as fast as you can!" Biruitorul 03:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inauspicious history indeed. I assume it's all my country's fault, as usual? You want me to apologize for that terrible day when Árpád led his band of pagan savages into the heart of Christian Europe and ruined everything for good? K. Lásztocska 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No and no. I didn't lay blame on either side; I merely stated an opinion. Biruitorul 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any contradiction here. Leaders of the revolution wanted to establish a liberal nation state. The project was supposed to be "liberal" as this word was understood in 1848, not in 2007. And nation-state building included ethnic cleansing at that time. I do not think it is fruitful to apply present-day normative standards to any historical event. It is much better just to describe facts and explain causes and consequences, without pushing any moral judgments. Tankred 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, I generally agree, but I think "ethnic cleansing" is FAR too strong a term to use. Ethnic cleansing is what happened at Srebrenica and Auschwitz. Ethnic cleansing means annihilation and genocide. Kossuth and his comrades did not want to exterminate anyone. K. Lásztocska 03:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I agree that a more accurate description would be forced assimilation. By the way, ethnic cleansing does not need to involve mass killing. Unfortunately, journalists use the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide as interchangeable. Tankred 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if the original definition of ethnic cleansing didn't involve mass killing, it sure does now, post-Srebrenica and all. So the term has de facto come to mean "genocide" (don't know if that's the journalists' fault or what...) and we should be veeeeery careful in using terms like that--you and I have both seen what happens around here when someone uses a controversial or inflammatory description about anything in Central Europe! :) By the way, I'd like to publicly apologize here for my grumpy and trollish snide remarks to Biru in the above paragraph--there's no excuse for that sort of childish and asinine sniping, and it won't happen again. K. Lásztocska 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I too am sorry for any untoward aggressiveness. Biruitorul 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Austria turned the nationalities against the Hungarians, mainly playing out the era's Pan Slavism against the Hungarians, saying the things you say above. For example Josip Jelačić (a devote supporter and protagonist of the Illyrian movement) got promoted as ban, in exchange for raising an army aganist the Hungarians. BTW more Slovaks fought on the Hungarian side, than against them. Romanians were, and are eastern orthodox ppl. In a catholic country it meant secondary citizenship. Whom wanted to be promoted or simply get higher in the hierarchy, simply left orthodoxy and rebaptized as a catholic. It is misleading do define a 19th century event with 20th century definitions and viewpoints. "Nation" and "ethnicity" does not counted before the French revolution, or in a broader sense, before the enlightement. And Hungary, as the whole region was in at least 50 yrs, but that time even more of lag (and is still in it :) comparing to Western Europe. For example Hungary was still feudalistic in the 1890s (!), when feudalism was demolished in the 16th-17th century. Just remember Széchenyi's writing about how backward country was Hungary in the 1830s, comparing to the West. But divide et impera does existed. And Austria had a long history of using it. - üdv: László

I find this whole discussion too much in black-and-white , with too much childish nationalistic mythology that got entagled in something that should be a historical debate. YES, Austria used slavic ethnicities against the Hungarians, and YES the revolutionaries were liberal (in the 19th century sense of the word), and YES, the prominent men of the revolution at that time were not prepared to acknowledge equal rights to non-Hungarian minorities (which made the Austrian task of playing the other ethnicites against the Hungarians easier). These facts are NOT mutually exclusive, except in the heads of Hungarian/Romanian/Croatian/Austrian&etc nationalists. Explaining a complex and massive process like a revolution in a hundred words and using "us and them" mindset is, mildly put, stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.207.67 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not transpose the political status we have now, with the status there was in 1848. First: it was a fight for independence, this is better statement than "revolution". Second, it was not an ethocratic war as you write, as the ethnicity was mixed, even the army was mixed! Moreover, in very short and in general, the society at that time was "nobles" and "not nobles", and yes, the Romanians and other ethnicity were non-nobles, but hey, can you please check what was the situation in USA, England or France ? The difference between the French/English revolution and this revolution is that the Hungarian revolution raised the "non-nobles" to the noble level, meaning all people under the Doctrine of the Holy Crown had the noble status. The French revolution abolished the nobility creating "citizenship". Moreover, the Kingdom was retained, without the king, Kossuth being the governor. Before you call these people "gang" you should check wat they have been writing, doing and then you can judge them. I recommend not to read from the brainwasher Romanian schoolbooks, but from original sources. Then you can come and troll around. Hétszűnyű Kapanyányi Monyók (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Compare the minority rights in Kingdom of Hungary with other European powers

In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in the world. (The next such laws were in Switzerland.) But these were overturned after the Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. When Hungary made a compromise with the dynasty in 1867 one of the first acts of the restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).

Again, ethnic minority rights didn't exist in other countries of the pre ww1 Europe, France Britain Italy and German legal systems didn't know the term of ethnic and minority rights before ww1. France was a multinational country sin similar degree as Hungary. (Only 50% of the French population spoke French as first/mother tongue in 1870 !!!) Minority newpapers theatres and schools were banned in France. The official language was French in offices, only foreign citizens had right to use translators. Great Britain was a multinational "united" kingdom with unquetionalbe English cultural and linguistic hegemony (Irish Scottish question). (only English schools theatres newspapers were tolerated in the British Isles), Russia was also multiethnic The russian hegemony was unquestionalble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.188.166 (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep.90.244.82.231 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Move?

If we were to move this article, what would you name it?

• Revolution of 1848 in Hungary
• Hungarian Revolution of 1848 (parallel to Hungarian Revolution of 1956)
• Hungarian Revolution and (Civil?) War of 1848
• Or would you move it at all?

Any other ideas? - TheMightyQuill 07:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard "Hungarian War for Independence", but I'm not sure how standard that is. K. Lásztocska 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK.90.244.82.231 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Consensus was in favour of the move to Hungarian Revolution of 1848. --bainer (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And the others?

Looking over the long list of others, similarly named "Revolutions of 1848 in XX" one may easily advocate changing to "XX-ish Revolution of 1848" with one notable exception: France. It doesn't seem right to use the title "French Revolution of 1848"; since "French Revolution" is already so iconic and much more significant. One could simply make an exception for France (certainly without breaking precedent) allowing a redirect to stand as a special case, but does anyone else have a solution to propose? István 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the French Revolution of 1848 is quite appropriate. French wikipedia has fr:Révolution française for the iconic revolution and fr:Révolution française de 1848 for the one we're discussing. I'm no expert on revolutions of 1848, but from what's available on wikipedia, it's the other article titles prove more difficult. In the Hapsburg Empire, there were at least two revolts (modern Hungary and Austria). In the italian and german states, there seem to have been a number of distinct revolts, with the latter leading into 1849. Still, German wikipedia does list it as de:Deutsche Revolution 1848/49 so maybe German Revolution of 1848/49 would be okay? Maybe we should ask some German historians... - TheMightyQuill 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TMQ, "French Revolution of 1848" seems fine to me (I see your point, though.) K. Lásztocska 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cockade picture is incorrect

The Hungarian cockade (kokárda) puts the red on the outside, gathering up the green on the inside. The picture seems to be of an Italian cockade. 72.81.57.8 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Demands

Hungary had autonomy before the revoultion, and the demands (the twelve points) were about a democratical goverment, not autonomy, which already existed. Otherwise, Kossuth became governer in 1849. Toroko (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction

Hungary wasn't in war with Croats, but with troops from Croatia.
Because of circumstances, Croats from southern Hungary stood by Hungary. Because of that, later in Kingdom of Yugoslavia acts of those Croats were viewed as treason and those Croats as traitors, because they were not on the same side as Serbs (and Croats).
Simply told, Croats from southern Hungary were too close to huge Hungarian troops to take side against them, and too far away from friendly controlled territory, like Serbs from southern Hungary had. Croatian troops were engaged westwards.
Choice was: either with numerous Hungarians against less numerous Serbs, or siding with less numerous Serbs (that had some dissatisfaction against Croats) against much stronger Hungarians. Kamarad Walter (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I copied the infobox from hu wiki word by word. In fact there were Croats, Slovaks, Serbs etc. on Kossuth side as well, but as far as I know they weren´t organized in some kind of independent units (as Jelačić soldiers were) but rather as part of Hungarian revolutionary army. In cases like this it is hard to decide who was on which side but since Croats on Hungary side didn´t have independent units with Croatian commanders we can´t include them into the infobox in my opinion. It´s like including Hungary on the Austrian side because there were Hungarians fighting against the revolution. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually your argument falls apart right there as Hungarian royalists and Habsburg supporters did fight on the side of the Habsburg King. Revolutions tend to have this setup, the King and his supporters, and everyone else who opposes the King, regardless of anything else. Hobartimus (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and there were also Soviet soldiers fighting on side of Nazi Germany during operation Barbadossa. The question - so what? Bytheway: what is the reason of removing the infobox? I found it quite informative (it´s in Magyar, Czech, Dannish and Russian wiki as well). If it is flag of Slovakia - it is flag of Slovak National Council established in 1848 in Vienna which was in charge of Slovaks fighting in revolution against the Kossuth army. Serbian flag is flag of Serbian Vojvodina, Romanian flag was also the correct one and Croatian was copied from commons where authour states that it is flag of Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia from 1848. If it was only about un/sourcing of casulties than there was nothing more easier than copied the name of the books from hu wiki instead of deletion. So? --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, ElsswothSK. Croats that fought on Hungarian side were part of Hungarian units. I haven't seen in sources that there were some particular Croat units in Hungarian army.
I disagree with user Baxter9 that made an revert [1] and left Wikipedia, without discussing his action. Triune Kingdom existed before Croatian-Hungarian Agreement.
[2] "Hrvatsko plemstvo bilo je zatečeno agresivnošću mađarske politike, ali joj je pružalo odlučan otpor u skladu s politikom formuliranom banskim protestom izrečenim u samom Ugarskom saboru: »Regnum regno non praescribit leges!«...Ono je branilo svoj kolektivni identitet kao staleška »natio croatica«. Branilo je zasebni politički identitet političkog teritorija i svoj položaj nositelja njegova suvereniteta, nepovredivost »realnog« teritorija Hrvatske i Slavonije te prava na obnovu teritorijalne cjelovitosti »Kraljevina Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije«. Njegov hrvatski staleški protonacionalizam manifestirao se i u uporabi jedinstvenoga hrvatskog imena za tu »trojednu kraljevinu«. U svojoj su se izjavi u Ugarskome saboru protiv uvođenja mađarskoga jezika hrvatski nunciji 1790. izjasnili kao »nunciji Kraljevine Hrvatske« (»nuncii Regni Croatiae«), izričito napominjući da pod jedinstvenim imenom »regnum Croatiae« razumijevaju teritorij pod povijesnim imenom »Regna Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae«"
Translation of the last sentence;
"In 1790, In Hungarian Diet, in their declaration against introduction of Hungarian language in Kingdom of Croatia, Croatian deputees have declared themselves as nuncii Regni Croatiae, nuntius of Kingdom of Croatia, explicitly noting that under common name "regnum Croatiae" they mean the territory under historical name "Regna Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae" (Kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia).
I believe that this is also available in Hungarian literature. Kamarad Walter (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is too less content in 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania, there is no need to create a separate article for a content that could be included in other already existing ones (Iaaasi (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Disagree. This is essentially the head article for all the topics about the battles, the people and so forth, of which I and my partner have translated very faithfully from the head article. I think it needs to stands as the head article for others to link. I am trying to improve the links, if SmackBot doesn!t keep taking them all out again. I have complained about this to the owner of that bot, and not to my surprise got absolutely no response at all. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Convert to British English

The topics on the various battles, the biographies of the people involved etc, are written in British English as I happen to be British. This subject is in American English, and I have no problem with that as such, but I think it would flow smoother if it were put into British English.

I should appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On a quick scan it seems to be a bit of both. It would be better in one or the other and if someone (i.e. Si Trew) is prepared to copyedit so be it. The difference would not be big.Orenburg1 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK I make it British English. I possibly made it half and half without noticing, I was trying to stick to American English, but probably kinda failed there as my mother tongue is British English. Nothing against Americans, just it is very hard when you are British to realise your own dialect.

Sincere regards Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I converted the references into harvnb form and did a general tidy up so that the sentences didn't all run backwards until reeled the mind. The third para about the war itself still needs a lot of tidying but I have been doing the gnoming for seven hours and am a bit tired now. Hope it is looking better than it did. Si Trew (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks better - congratulations Si Trew. I will try to proofread it line by line when I have a minute. Regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the proofreading and corrections - lots of silly typos etc. When you are in the middle of it you don't notice 'em.

You may notice Marx and Engels comes out as Marx Engels, though the harvnb doc says it should come out as Marx & Engels (or Marx, Engels). Not sure what I have done wrong there that the separator (comma or ampersand) does not appear. It is minor, but without it the link to sources does not work. I always struggle like this with harvnbs. At least they are properly referenced in the text, but I have probably somehow made some minor flaw in the {{cite book}} in the Sources section. I always struggle to get these right. If you can, please do. Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have word blindness myself when editing stuff I have written - just can not seem to spot those typos and obvious mistakes.

I had a quick look at the cite thing but can not immediately figure out what the problem is. I will have another go when I have time but it will not be for a few days. Maybe there is someone smarter than me out there who is interested and can fix it quickly, otherwise it may have to wait a bit. Orenburg1 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Temesvar

The article claims "After securing all of Transylvania, Bem moved his 30,000–40,000-man Hungarian army against Austrian forces in the northern Banat capturing the city of Temesvár (now Timişoara, Romania)". Although Engels is mentioned as a source for this, it never happened. While the city was under siege from hungarian revolutionary forces, the imperial garrison held the city until it was successfully relieved by Haynau, after he won the battle of Temesvar against Bem, just as the linked article states. Dead-cat (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberal, Right-winger

What is with all the loaded politicking? First of all politics is not a straight line as most in the US think, second it is almost impossible to map 1848 political spectrum to today's; so why the need to use these slanted high-inference language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.121.242 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Status of Kingdom of Hungary: Monetary and fiscal status

Why do you thing that monatary and fiscal status is "out of context" ?Litricsor (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the section is called "Status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution", and your text includes phrases like "After the revolution of 1848-1849" 86.127.24.105 (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Number of Russian Troops

In this article the Russian forces entering Hungary are dismissed as less of ten thousand people, easily won by the patriots. In the article "Revolutions of 1848" it is said that Russian soldiers were over than 300.000. The difference is big and unavoidable. I think Russians were at least 190.000 and, mainly, were determining in crushing the Hungarian troops, since Austrian army was engaged against other uprisings. Lele giannoni (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Scanned section?

Some of the article looks to be copied from scanned documents, given odd typographic errors such as "Paris reached Pressburg 1 (March i)" and "I3" instead of "13" for a date. The language of those same paragraphs also reads less like neutral journalism. Sorry to come and nitpick, instead of just rewriting the content, but I thought it would be worth calling out in case someone is inspired to look for plagiarism. Owlmonkey (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution

a. "Article X of 1790". What treaty or other instrument is being referenced? b. What is a "Hungarian Diet"? Presumably, not the latest fad in weight loss. Should this link to another page describing what it is? (Later note: a link appears later in the paragraph to the Diet of Hungary.) c. What is a "rescript"? Ditto link to another page. d. A word of explanation of "the common monarch" would be welcome since this paragraph makes it clear at the start that Hungary was a separate monarchy. Common and separate mean different, nearly opposite, things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.182.9 (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Common Monarch can rule legally independent countries. Have you ever heard about Personal union? It was frequent phenomenon in England Hungary France HRE Spain and in many other European countries. --Konglich (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed some contradictory remarks that are not entirely supported by the underlying source. Laszlo clearly states that in 1804, Hungary became formally part of the Austrian Empire, albeit with almost the same rights as it had before. See the articles on Ausgleich and Austrian Empire. I've included the quote from the source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Bombastic POV style

I mean this:

the forces of reactionary absolutism were everywhere supreme. But beneath the surface a strong popular current was beginning to run in a contrary direction. Hungarian society, not unaffected by western Liberalism, but without any direct help from abroad, was preparing for the future emancipation. Writers, savants, poets, artists, noble and plebeian, layman and cleric, without any previous concert, or obvious connection... 

I am slapping "personal essay" tag on it. Zezen (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it a translation from Hungarian? I tried to at least fix the grammar, see my changes, but got stuck at:

 In contrast, Kossuth believed that the society could not be forced into a passive role by any reasons through the social changing.

I do not grok it, so I stop and leave it to our Hungarian speaking colleagues to elucidate. Ping me when the article can be read in extenso, please. Zezen (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

it's not bombastic, it is reasonably accurate and not very controversial. --that's just an old-fashioned style used by scholars in 1910 and popular historians more recently. The text is word for word from the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1902-- a great many of the historical articles in Wikipedia in fact were directly copied from that encyclopedia. Somehow the tagline indicating the source got dropped. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I added this tag This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Do you understand the second quote then?

1. What I mean by bombastic: "reactionary absolutism were everywhere supreme. But beneath the surface a strong popular current... "

• reaction to what? The revolution was about to start, I presume?
• hyperbole: "everywhere supreme". Should be added: the gut-wrenching tyrannical yoke of the evil dark forces for more POV effect.
• Writers, savants, poets, artists, noble and plebeian, layman and cleric, - they forgot to throw in the Khlysty nuns, folk dancers, babies in the cradle and Gypsy circus performers thereto.

The style is not elegant. It is not encyclopedic. It is not objective. It should be rewritten. Zezen (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's straight out of major encyclopedia--one Wiki copied for tens of thousands of articles. The style sound elegant and objective to me. -- is there an error? The author is James Wycliffe Headlam-Morley, a well-known scholar. He wrote numerous articles that were copied into Wikipedia, see [for EB text] on "Hungary" which matches the quote in question here. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. It reads like something from a Hungarian nationalist opera. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Bombastic or not, but the first quote is from the "Hungary" article of the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. (Which is free to use in Wikipedia) We don't need transform it, just keep the original. It is an archaic, but good English. Reactionary means pro-feudal or anti-liberal in the era. During the era communist dictature, the "reactinoary" means capitalist liberal or even nazi in the books of Eastern European authors.

"they forgot to throw in the Khlysty nuns, folk dancers, babies in the cradle and Gypsy circus performers thereto" These had no effects on the contemporary societies and politics.

Yes, utmost all contemporary Western (English French American etc..) authors , encylopedias considered the Habsburgs and Russians, as the "evil dark forces" of the feudalism, because they crushed the liberal bourgeois revolutions. --CTVRTLANIK 1975 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1848/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Felhívnám mindenki figyelmét,hogy a kokárda színei fordítva vannak/the cockade's colors are inverse,now it's more like an Italian one.

Last edited at 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

13 Martyrs

"It's an old tradition (although nowadays not held by everyone) that Hungarians do not clink beer glasses or beer bottles. This is due to the legend that Austrians celebrated the execution of the 13 Hungarian Martyrs in 1849 by clinking their beer glasses, so Hungarians vowed not to clink with beer for 150 years." https://www.gapyear.com/countries/hungary/local-customs Marcin862 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716180039/http://dragon.unideb.hu/~kltegimn/CLASSES/12C/HTM/PZ/HU/APR21.HTM to http://dragon.unideb.hu/~kltegimn/CLASSES/12C/HTM/PZ/HU/APR21.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925141902/http://www.vasidigitkonyvtar.hu/vdkweb/vm_honvedseg/honvedseg.html to http://www.vasidigitkonyvtar.hu/vdkweb/vm_honvedseg/honvedseg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401053017/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3822491.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3822491.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence section American Civil War

A sentence from the section "American Civil War" appears incomplete a fragment with the problem is included below. Likely intent was "of this comparatively small number [ there were 999? ] who rose to the rank of", with 999 clearly needing to be set to an accuratish number.

"... testimony to the military qualities of the Magyar people that of this comparatively small number who rose to the rank of Major-General, while five became Brigadier-Generals, fifteen Colonels, two Lieutenant-Colonels, ..." Ronaldws r d (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Marx and Engels

Are not WP:RS for claims of historical fact or for that matter for anything other possibly their own views (though even that - “what did Marx and Engels really mean?” - is an entire secondary literature onto itself). Aside from obvious bias, they’re also outdated and close to the events. Volunteer Marek 01:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

They were writing history in the work cited—a biased, 19th century history about a subject that they were personally invested in—but I would recoil at the idea of it not being a source of some reliable utility—they were biased, but they had academic scruples. I am concerned about its framing being reflected in it being the only source for many passages in the article though. Remsense留 01:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The tag you added is fine for now, but all of this stuff should be cited to recent scholarly secondary sources. Volunteer Marek 02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Remsense留 02:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

My edit cited contemporary historians whose work uses primary sources in clear, scholarly ways. The original cites old sources with strong ideological biases, ones historians today (including Hungarian ones like Deák, Rady etc.) view as unreliable. It's obvious the reversions were political. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason we can't cite it to recent scholarly secondary sources is that these sources reject the Marx-Engels narrative. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You are too harsh but the other edit is nationalist propaganda using 19th century historical research that has been debunked since. Page needs serious work. 88.216.39.30 (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Marx and Engels are not reliable sources. They have strong ideological biases against non-Magyar and non-German groups e.g. 'In Austria, apart from Poland and Italy, it is the Germans and Magyars in 1848, as during the past thousand years already, who have assumed the historical initiative. They represent the revolution.

The Southern Slavs, who for a thousand years have been taken in tow by the Germans and the Magyars, only rose up in 1848 to achieve their national independence in order thereby at the same time to suppress the German-Magyar revolution. They represent the counter-revolution. They were joined by two nations, which had likewise long ago degenerated and were devoid of all historical power of action: the Saxons and the Rumanians of Transylvania.' (https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm) Unfortunately, most Magyar publications from the communist era are biased in the same ways; the Orbán government promotes similar narratives. The solution is to use contemporary, non-nationalist sources that provide a much more comprehensive, measured account of events e.g. Rady (who happens to be Hungarian, as do I); Judson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.38.31 (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The idea that Engels and Marx are credible sources on this topic is ridiculous. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The earlier edits seemed a bit anti-revolution and anti-Hungarian. However, clearly Marx and Engels aren't good sources on 1848: they held strong prejudice against non-Hungarians and non-Germans. From historians writing now, using. wider range of sources from different linguistic and ethnic groups, we also know much of what Marx and Engels said about 1848 in Hungary is not right. Revolutions are not an easy conflict between good and evil; Hungary in 1848 is no exception. I try to bring in edit that is neither Hungarian nationalist nor anti-Hungarian. 88.216.39.14 (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Marx and Engels were even restrained about the situation in Hungary when compared to the liberal politicians and intellectuals of the Western democratic free world of the time (USA, UK, France). In the eyes of the free democratic world of the West, the Habsburgs and their helping nationalities were depicted as the bad guys and the bad villains.-

The contemporary Western perception of Tsar Alexander or Nicholas were no better than that of Putin, and the perception of Franz Joseph was no different from that of Lukashenko--Hefty-priced (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not about Marx and Engels, the Anonym IP forces to rewrite the war of independence chapter to a national conflict subject with an anti-Hungarian propaganda and tone. The IP removes many sources and info not only Marx and Engels, like the Hungarian government made the first minority law in Europe favoring to ethnic groups, while he cherry pick and emphasize that "some Hungarians" wanted to forbid the language of the minorities, which statement really contradict the existence of that minority law itself. Also 40% of the soldiers fought for Hungary against the suppressor foreign Habsburgs were ethnics. I also checked a source provided by IP (Jeszenszky) of course I did not find in the source the content which was added by the IP. The IP started those anti Hungarian edits, complete changing and removing contents, and instantly started to talk about "stop using wikipedia for propaganda" :) he showed his real purpose. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A lot to unpack here. First, their revision refers to the minority laws. 'In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted limited laws on ethnic and minority rights, the first of their kind in the world.' Second, I don't see a reference to language bans. It's also true that 'many Magyar politicians were hostile toward the national aims of Slavs and Romanians.' Third, their revision is consistent with the claim that 40% of revolutionary soldiers were non-Magyar. Their edits suggest we can't break the revolution down along ethnic or linguistic lines. In contrast, the original makes broad, untrue statements from a nationalist point of view e.g. "In 1848 and 1849, the Hungarian people or Magyars, who wanted independence." Some Magyars wanted independence; some did not. Relatedly, the original's tone is also inappropriately moral e.g. "the Austrian monarchy and those advising them manipulated the Croatians, Serbians and Romanians." "Manipulated" is not a morally neutral verb. Fourth, for non-Hungarians reading, Jeszenszky is a Hungarian politician with a background in international relations. The other sources are fine, and fit the citations. Deák, Rady, Judson, etc. are also world experts in 19th century central European history. I suggest removing Jeszenszky. Fifth, their revision doesn't seem anti-Hungarian (I'm also Hungarian, for what it's worth; their IP is Budapest.) The revisions are just based on what Hungarian and non-Hungarian historians argue today, using various sources from the 1840s onwards. If you don't like the contemporary scholarship, then go find better sources to support your view. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

First, can you support that with sources? We have a different picture from Deák, Judson, Rady, and other leading historians writing today, and their sources. Second, the main point is Marx and Engels exhibit clear anti-Romanian and anti-Slav bias. There are better primary sources, and much better secondary ones. 88.216.39.26 (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not about just Marx Engles, you removed a lot of other modern sources and complete rewrote the war chapter and converted it to anti Hungarian ethnic conflict chapter. That article is about the 1848 revolution war as the title suggest. Even earlier you renamed total the subchapter removing the “independence war” title and rewrite to “identity nationalities” and you removed article realted battle/siege images. That was extra fun, when you even made a time travel to force extra anti Hungarian tone regarding Kossuth and slavery, Kossuth left US in 1852 and you wrote about the USA civil war which was 15 years later. You removed the Hungarian war of independence section and you converted that to USA civil war, but that is the Hungarian war of independence article… What is the business the Hungarian 1848 revolution with the USA civil war and slavery morover in the future? Or even just itself with Afro American slavery? Absolute nothing. Also I would be really curious on your marked sources where are the contents what you added, I think the marked sources do not support your content as I checked some. You kept some source but you rewroted the content which is the falsifying of the content. The Hungarian government made the first ethnic laws in Europe wich favored to the minorities, but this fact does not match with your anti Hungarian agenda, first your comeplete removed many times then you decreased it to "limited laws". The anonym edit of your purpose is clear...OrionNimrod (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it wasn't 88.216.39.26 who wrote about Kossuth in the US. I did. I added the information because the entry already includes related e.g. 'Many of Kossuth's comrades-in-exile joined him in the United States, including the sons of one of his sisters. Some of these "Forty-Eighters" remained after Kossuth departed, and fought on the Union side in the US Civil War. Hungarian lawyer George Lichtenstein, who served as Kossuth's private secretary, fled to Königsberg after the revolution and eventually settled in Edinburgh where he became noted as a musician.' If this is relevant, then so are Kossuth's difficulties navigating tensions between abolition and slavery while he was in the US. Plainly, it isn't time travel either. The tensions in question predate the onset of the American Civil War. You can read the sources here e.g. Roberts, Timothy Mason, "Louis Kossuth and the Campaign of 1852." Distant Revolutions: 1848 and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism (Charlottesville: University of Virginia: Univ. of Virginia, pub. 2009), 146-67 Tochman, G., ""Kossuth.:Hungary and the United States. Address of Louis Kossuth to the People of the United States. Preliminary Note. Kossuth's Address.""New York Times New York City (20 Oct. 1851): n. pages.

Clearly, you didn't check Deák, Rady, Judson, etc, as they support the edits. Again, if you don't like contemporary scholarship, find sources that support your view. Why should we have an entry that reads like a Hungarian nationalist pamphlet from the 19th century? It's very weird. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

How interesting that instantly after you an another IP made the same edits as you :) Your sockpuppet blocked proxy IP does not help. This behavior also show us your real purpose of edit. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the other IP. This page is doing the rounds in history circles atm. Maybe that's it. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

IP's sources are complete books without attached page numbers, and inaccessible through the internet. I dare to say that they don't actually contain the written information.

But anyway, the original text is clear, giving a fitting explanation of ethnic feelings at the start of the war and imperial policy. The IP edits instead draw an overly long analysis at the end of which no reader gets the answer to who supported the revolution and who didn't. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see how many blocked proxy IP were used by the IP user who want force to the article the same content

Special:Contributions/88.216.39.30

Special:Contributions/88.216.39.14 OrionNimrod (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian money called "Kossuth bankó" with inscriptions in the language of the nationalities on it

Still I do not understand what is the business with the American slavery and civil war 1865 with the Hungarian revolution war in 1848... The Siege of Buda was a really important event in the Hungarian revolution, but IP user removed that battle image, a real war event of the article, instead to write about the US slavery here. :) This is clearly a bad faith edit, morover as we can see he connected the US slavery content with the situation of the minorities in Hungary, while he removed the existence of the ethnic laws which favored to minorites, which was the first and uniqe at that time in Europe. IP also emphasized that a evil "hungarianization" while I see the money by Hungarian government was the first which used the languages of the minorites. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

'Still I do not understand what is the business with the American slavery and civil war 1865 with the Hungarian revolution war in 1848...'

Then remove all the other references to American politics. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that we use academic books that aren't available for free online! They're available through university logins and Amazon.

' I dare to say that they don't actually contain the written information.'

They do. They also represent the current academic consensus on 1848 in Hungary. It may be that consensus is flawed. However, it has much more evidence in its favour than Marx and Engels.

'But anyway, the original text is clear, giving a fitting explanation of ethnic feelings at the start of the war and imperial policy.'

Except, it doesn't. For example, the text says 'In 1848 and 1849, the Hungarian people or Magyars, who wanted independence.' It isn't true that all Magyars wanted independence. Moreover, both armies were ethnically and linguistically mixed; national identity in the modern sense wasn't a factor for many participants. Hence Rady,

'The extent to which members of the various national groups were aware of their separate identities, or regarded them as politically significant, differed. There were plenty of people, including Hungarian speakers, who when asked their identity simply explained they were Catholics or 'the people from here.' Slovaks in northern Hungary alternated between a regional identity and a broader Slavonic one. Many Ruthenes [Ukrainians] in north-eastern Hungary considered themselves completely Hungarian, although they spoke not a word of the language, while Romanian intellectuals in the Banat preferred to describe themselves as 'Hungarians of Romanian language...Many repudiated the authority claimed by the new Hungarian government, holding to a larger Austrian identity.' (pp. 250-251, as per the edit) 144.138.60.195 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

144.138.60.195 my quoted words continue by: "the IP edits instead draw an overly long analysis at the end of which no reader gets the answer to who supported the revolution and who didn't". Your version omits the inference that the Hungarian population fought for the independence of Hungary (present in the normal version) and replaces it with humbugs about the position of Hungarians in the imperial army who didn't. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

'he IP edits instead draw an overly long analysis at the end of which no reader gets the answer to who supported the revolution and who didn't'

The IP edits tell us who supported the revolution and who did not. The IP edits do not analyse. Rather, they present information from credible sources. "Overly long" seems irrelevant if the edits result in a more nuanced, accurate picture.

'the Hungarian population fought for the independence of Hungary'

This is simply false, though. Some people in Hungary fought for independence, others did not. LotusEating (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You say incorrect to write “Hungarians wanted independence”, the full article is about that. Academic Hungarian history teaching also that. Just check out Petofi and his poems. It was a 2 years long bloody independence war and the Habsburgs was able with a Russians help to crush the Hungarians, but you say th Hungarians did not want independence :):):) so just they made a war for fun.

Of course every single people are different, but in other battle articles I did not see that we need to mention all the time that probably some people did not want that battle.

Fact, purpose of the article: Hungarians fought a 2 years long bloody independence war. Bad faith: Ip completeley removes that "Hungarians wanted independence" to pretend the independence war has no reason but IP replaces it the "Hungarians supported the Habsburgs"... that is why Hungarians fought 2 years war against the Habsburgs? Where is the logic?

OrionNimrod (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

No one claims anyone made a war for fun. The claim is that it is incorrect to write 'the Hungarian people or Magyars, who wanted independence.' It is incorrect because some Magyars did not want independence. This is obvious. We're not talking handfuls either. For example, between a third to a half of Hungarian men of fighting age fought for the Habsburgs; around 2000/9500 Habsburg officers were Hungarian, where the honvéd had 830 field-grade and general officers, only 68% of whom were Hungarian (Bona, Deák.) All this against the backdrop of peasants of all ethnicities forming the bulk of the Habsburg Army (Deák, Judson, Rady)

Modern academic Hungarian history does not teach all Hungarians wanted independence. Deák, Rady, and other Hungarian historians of the period recognise that both sides were ethnically and linguistically diverse.

Of course Petőfi supports nationalist interpretations of 1848. He was a strident nationalist! 144.138.60.195 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That article is the "Hungarian independence war" and that is exactly the official Hungarian historiographical name: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848–49-es_forradalom_és_szabadságharc, according to IP "Hungarians did not want independence" and remove that info completely, instead he put "Hungarians supported the Habsburgs" against whom the war was fought. IP said that "1/3 Hungarians did not want independence" (I do not know what is the source, however that is well known that certain Hungarians supported the Habsburgs, mostly certain nobles who had good relationship or business with them), anyway it is a very big double standard that removing totally 2/3 people and emphasizing 1/3 people, morover the article itself about independence war, the IP edit is a 2x double standard that removing those groups totally about whom the article is about. It would be the same logical nonsense: "an article is about the Ukrainian war against the Russians, but Ukrainians supported Putin..."

What next, Petőfi will be a Nazi? OrionNimrod (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Magyar Nemzet.

The new version doesn't say „Hungarians did not want independence." Everyone can see that. It says some did, and some did not.

„is well known that certain Hungarians supported the Habsburgs, mostly certain nobles who had good relationship or business with them), anyway it is a very big double standard that removing totally 2/3 people and emphasizing 1/3 people”

Right, so the original entry was mistaken when it said "the Hungarian people, or Magyars, who wanted independence," Thanks for proving my point. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If it were true that a 1/3 of Ukrainians supported Russia, then we would say a third of Ukrainians supported Russia. Not illogical, far from it. Try this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition 144.138.60.195 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A magyar oldalt elolvastam. Sajnos nem túl jó. Szerencsére sok magyar tanul magyar történet egyetemen. Az angol oldalt a jelentősebb! 144.138.60.195 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see you generated a Hungarian text by google translation, Hungarian is complicated language so easy recognize that machine translation :) OrionNimrod (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

lol Sem jól magyarul olvas. Magyar vagyok. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That is an English wiki, please communicate in that way that every user would understand it. I really do not understand what is your purpose to put sentences with very broken Hungarian. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If there's no horse...

Your argument depends on there being no difference between English determiners ("all," "some," and "most.") I don't understand your purpose in reiterating it in broken English, but here we are, 144.138.60.195 (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hungarian Revolutuon of 1848. The discussion is about the topic revisions. Thank you. LotusEating (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Objectivity and nationalism

This page needs a lot of work. The latest edits go some way to improving it, citing contemporary scholarship from a varied range of sources, including world experts on the topic at hand. The original cites Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, ideologues with clear biases against Romanians and Slavs. The contemporary sources are also much less bombastic and emotive. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks people to improve the article - let's do it in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.60.195 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The communist Marx and Engles are relatively calm towards the nationalties which helped the Habsburgs and Tzars, but the Western European and American liberals of the era had even a much more negative attitude towards the pro-Habsburg nationalities than Marx or Engels.. It is enough to read contemporary British American or French newspapers about the events in Hungary--Hefty-priced (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Many sources are biased. That's why historians use a range, including Slovak, Romanian, German, and Magyar sources. 144.138.60.195 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

These ethnic groups had very backward social development, thus they did not even have well developed and specialized newspapers.--Hefty-priced (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

1. "Backward social development?" Come on, we are trying to write an objective encyclopedia entry here.

2. By any standard, Hungarian Germans were at least as "socially developed" as Magyars.

3. Widespread or not, Slovak- and Romanian-language newspapers existed, and expressed views on the events e.g. 'Gazeta de Transilvania' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazeta_de_Transilvania.)

2. German, Slovak, and Romanian writers left other records besides newspapers. Historians use them, along with Hungarian-language sources. It helps us build a more complete picture of events. LotusEating (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

My view: we use various primary and secondary sources, Hungarian and non-Hungarian.

Your view: we use political writings from Marx and Engels because some British, American, and French newspapers expressed more negative views about "pro-Habsburg" minorities, ignoring non-Hungarian language sources due to 'backward social development.' (FWIW, British, American, and French newspapers of course gave a range of views)

Which approach is more likely to be biased? LotusEating (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear IP & LotusEating!

"(FWIW, British, American, and French newspapers of course gave a range of views)" Wrong idea, of course there were so-called "range of views", like there are pro- Putin views in some negligible western newspapers nowadays, but the was majority of newspapers and news portals TV companies are against Putin. That was the case in the Habsburg - Hungarian conflict of 1848-49.

Romanians and Serbians were Orthodox countries, which had not better societal infrastructural and cultural development level than a typical Asian British or French colony. Learn about it, especially worth to memorize the 16 points: https://orthodox-eurasian-civiliazation.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-asianization-of-greco-roman.html

--Hefty-priced (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"like there are pro- Putin views in some negligible western newspapers nowadays, but the was majority of newspapers and news portals TV companies are against Putin. That was the case in the Habsburg - Hungarian conflict of 1848-49."

The comparison is silly. For one thing, Western European public opinion and newspapers were much more evenly split than today. Please read some authoritative books on the topic. Good places to start: https://www.amazon.com/Lawful-Revolution-Kossuth-Hungarians-1848-1849/dp/1842121480; https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674986763 LotusEating (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

First, your source is a political blog. Let's use credible sources. Second, the level of societal or cultural development is beside the point. We have Romanian- and Serbian-language primary sources from 1848. Historians use them to develop better accounts of events. LotusEating (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"Western European public opinion and newspapers were much more evenly split than today." It is just wishful thinking. The free and democratic world (US UK France) condemned the absolutist Habsburgs and their helper nationalities , as the enemies of the democratic ideas and freedom. With modern American slandg, they were the "bad guys". My sources are not a political blog, because it is written by academic historians, and not simple journalists. "Historians use them to develop better accounts of events." Unfortunatelly they do not represent the contemporary Western democratic public opinion. That1s why Lajos Kossuth was welcomed as a demigod, physical embodiment of freedom and democracy in Western countries during his American British etc. jouney.--Hefty-priced (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

'It is just wishful thinking. The free and democratic world (US UK France) condemned the absolutist Habsburgs and their helper nationalities'

1. The UK was not a democracy at that time. 2. Any review of the sources shows the picture is more nuanced than you say e.g. The London Times writes the Magyars treated Slovanians with 'contempt bordering on injustice' (18 Sep, 1848.) What are your sources?

'My sources are not a political blog, because it is written by academic historians'

Your link is to a blog that cites academic historians. The blogger is not an academic historian. Cite historians directly.

'That's why Lajos Kossuth was welcomed as a demigod, physical embodiment of freedom and democracy in Western countries during his American British'

1. This language is hyperbolic. 2. Kossuth was also criticised in the US, for failing to condemn slavery. LotusEating (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This disagreement is anyway beside the point. We have Croatian-language, Romanian-language, and Serbian-language primary sources. We also have German-language and Hungarian-language ones. We should use a range of these sources to develop an objective account of events, like historians writing today. We shouldn't give undue weight to Marx and Engels and their strong biases. The result is an article that reads like nationalist panegyrics rather than an informative encyclopedia entry. LotusEating (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Lajos Kossuth, a Hungarian political leader and statesman, played a significant role in the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849. After the revolution was suppressed by the Austrian Empire, Kossuth sought refuge in the United States and later visited the United Kingdom. His visit to these countries garnered considerable attention and resulted in a range of reactions. While I don't have access to real-time information, I can provide you with an overview of the reception Kossuth received in the USA and the UK based on historical accounts up until September 2021.

Reception in the United States: 1. United States Congress: Kossuth's visit to the United States in 1851 was met with great enthusiasm. He was invited to address the United States Congress, becoming the first foreign leader to do so. His speech received a standing ovation, and he was widely praised for his commitment to liberty and democracy. 2. Public Support: Kossuth's visit sparked widespread public support, particularly among those sympathetic to the cause of Hungarian independence and democracy. His speeches drew large crowds, and he was hailed as a champion of freedom. 3. Media Coverage: Kossuth's visit received extensive media coverage. Newspapers published his speeches, and his activities were reported on a daily basis. The media generally portrayed him positively, emphasizing his fight against oppression and his eloquence as a speaker.

Reception in the United Kingdom:

Public and Intellectual Support: Despite the government's reservations, Kossuth received significant support from the British public and intellectual circles. Many British liberals and intellectuals admired his struggle for Hungarian independence and democratic ideals. Public meetings and rallies were organized in his honor, demonstrating the support he enjoyed among the British people. 3. Media Coverage: Kossuth's visit received substantial media coverage in the United Kingdom. Newspapers reported on his speeches and activities, and his message of liberty and national self-determination resonated with many readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefty-priced (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I'm familiar with Kossuth Lajos, thanks.

2. 'becoming the first foreign leader to do so' Strictly, the first foreign leader to address the US Congress was David Kalakaua, King of the Hawaiian Islands.

3. I've not claimed Kossuth lacked support in other countries. I claimed the media and public opinion were more divided than you say. LotusEating (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was only the southern elite (slave owners) who were against Kossuth. It tells a lot about the situation.--Hefty-priced (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Kossuth was invited in America too in 1851 (after in England, which is clearly indicate the western powers' sympathy for the Hungarian revolution and their anti-Habsburg stance). In USA, Kossuth talked about the situation in Hungary. Garrison was an American abolitionist, and he said "Kossuth talks only about the Hungarians, Kossuth do not mention the situation of the slaves in America, who lived more badly than the Hungarians". That is. Kossuth did not involve himself in the American politic, he arrived for political support and not to make new political issues. Today also we could blame every single politicians, that X politican why mentions only A and does not mention B thing. That USA slavery thing has really no business with the 1848 revolution article or what was the opinion from Kossuth by every single person years after the revolution war, which is POV (point of view) (of course IP does not mention the much more positive opinions), of course Habsburgs hated Kossuth because of the revolution war, which is also their view, that is why they executed the Hungarian generals. Kossuth was a Hungarian freedom fighter not an USA freedom fighter, that is. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

'That USA slavery thing has really no business with the 1848 revolution article or what was the opinion from Kossuth by every single person years after the revolution war, which is POV (point of view) (of course IP does not mention the much more positive opinions)'

I can't speak for IP, but I agree. All the irrelevant comments should go, whether negative or positive. LotusEating (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

'Yes, it was only the southern elite (slave owners) who were against Kossuth.'

1. If this were true, then it would be evidence of divisions in public opinion. That is, it would support my point. 2. It is not true. Some slave-owners were against him, yes. And some abolitionists were against him because he failed to condemn slavery while he was in the U.S., despite public pressure. Like everything else, the reality of Kossuth's reception in the US was complex e.g. some secessionists identified with the Hungarian revolution. You can read all this in various sources e.g. 'Louis Kossuth and the Campaign of 1852.' https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wrhkw LotusEating (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Orionimrod, you can't even understand the reason why was Americans and Brits mentioned. I just try to teach the very simple fact, that the public opinion of free and democratic world (the West) supported the Hungarian Revolution, and condemned the unconstitutional and unlawful deeds of the absolutist Habsburgs.--Hefty-priced (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I know that, as I said that is why Kossuth was invited because the Western powers supported the Hungarian case. I just talked about the IP edit, who wants to push topic alien US slavery to the 1848 Hungarian article. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair to IP, the the American Civil War features in the original and current 1848 article LotusEating (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hungarian Revolutuon of 1848. The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. LotusEating (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, as I said many times, the issue is not MarxEngels but that you completely falsify the things to make it anti-Hungarian, it is an irony that you worry about the “neutrality”. Even you added “Hungarians restricted the language usage of ethnics” which is not true, even it was a law which supported them, but you at any cost wanted to remove or distort that law. That was a bonus bad faith revealing your real purpose when you tried to compare the Hungarians with the USA slave masters and the situation of minorities in Hungary with the not at all related USA slavery. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

1. There is nothing false in the edits. The sources are credible and the citations support the revisions.

2. "Anti-Hungarian" is not a legitimate objection to facts.

3. The current version contains false information e.g. 'in 1848 and 1849, the Hungarian people or Magyars, who wanted independence' False. Some Magyars wanted independence, and others did not.

4. The current version contains misleading information e.g. 'On 28 July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in Europe' This was the National Assembly, and these laws were not enacted e.g. 'Despite this effort from the Hungarians, the Romanians sought the fulfilment of their demands from the emperor, which led to a bloody civil war between them and the Hungarians.' It is not clear it was a civil war, and there is no clear causal relationship between Romanian natonionalists appealing to the emperor and the war.

5. The current article contains inappropriate language e.g. 'Austrian monarchy and those advising them manipulated the Croatians, Serbians and Romanians' 'The Slovak volunteers units were a reactionary'

6. The current article contains irrelevant, politicised information e.g.

As early as August to September 1848, the Hungarian Parliament's Nationality Committee drafted a nationality bill for the Romanians, promising them such wide rights that could meet even today's democratic standard.

7. None of my edits contain the sentence "Hungarians restricted the language usage of ethnics."

8. " faith revealing your real purpose when you tried to compare the Hungarians with the USA slave masters and the situation of minorities in Hungary with the not at all related USA slavery." No one drew this comparison. IP's earlier edit added information about Kossuth, citing credible sources. LotusEating (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"you completely falsify the things"

Please give examples of false claims in my edits. LotusEating (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the brand new LotusEating is the same as the IP. It could be some things which could be extend, but the overall edit of the IP distorted everything as discusses here. It could be true that some Hungarian nobles (need check) was Habsburg supporter, (like a Habsburg was Hungarian supporter https://mandiner.hu/belfold/2019/03/istvan-nador-a-habsburg-aki-a-magyar-forradalom-oldalara-allt) but the majority of Hungarians and nobles were against them, that is why it was revolution war. It is clear a distortion that IP removes completely “Hungarians wanted independence” instead he put “Hungarians supported the Habsburg” which make a logical error in the article “I supported but I made war against him”… and other edits are the same distortion like removing important battle event, removing or distorting ethnic law, adding USA slavery…etc It would be good to see what the marked sources exactly say, page number. I think even the content in those provided sources are falsified as I checked some and I did not find the content. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. The edit says 2000/9500 Habsburg officers were Magyar, 68% of honvéd officers were Magyar, and 10% of all Habsburg officers sided with the honvéd. The citations support these claims. Do you have alternative sources?

2. The edit says both sides were ethnically and linguistically mixed, providing citations. Do you have alternative sources?

3. The original implies all Magyars supported the revolution. Do you have any sources to support this claim?

4. The edit does not say "Hungarians supported the Habsburgs." Why are you claiming it does?

5. 'It would be good to see what the marked sources exactly say, page number.' The citations include page numbers.

6. 'I think even the content in those provided sources are falsified as I checked some and I did not find the content.' With respect, you clearly have not checked them. They claim exactly what the edit says. The edit even includes a verbatim quote from the Rady book.

7. References to the US in the 1850s seem more relevant than references to modern politics, which the original contains.

Please try and engage in good faith. LotusEating (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The original uses conservative blogs as sources. Why are these better sources than peer-reviewed journal articles and books from university presses? LotusEating (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There were two phase of the events

Hungary did not want independence from Austrian Emppire, because simply Hungary was not really part of that Empire. You can read the details of legal history here: in the historical background section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867#Historical_background

The first phase was the Batthiány government, where the Hungarian government strugled for democracy and freedom, and which were bonded to the revolutionary ideas, but it was still loyal to the Habsburgs as Monarchs. (Hungary that time did not relate to the Austrian empire, it was just a mere personal union based on the person of the monarch. The strugle was related to the preservation of the April laws

Second phase was the Szemere Goverment, where Lajos Kossuth became head of state. It started as a reaction to the illegal/unlawful March Constitution (Austria). The independence war started with the Szemere government.--Hefty-priced (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

'Hungary did not want independence from Austrian Emppire, because simply Hungary was not really part of that Empire. You can read the details of legal history here: in the historical background section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867#Historical_background'

1. It is more complicated than that. Read the Deák book (https://www.amazon.com.au/Lawful-Revolution-Kossuth-Hungarians-1848-1849/dp/1842121480.)

'The first phase was the Batthiány government, where the Hungarian government strugled for democracy and freedom, and which were bonded to the revolutionary ideas, but it was still loyal to the Habsburgs as Monarchs. (Hungary that time did not relate to the Austrian empire, it was just a mere personal union based on the person of the monarch.'

1. It is misleading to say the Regnum Independens did not relate to the Austrian Empire. That Empire was defined by its realms, of which the Regnum Independens was one. 2. 'The strugle was related to the preservation of the April laws.' None of the edits are inconsistent with this claim.

'Second phase was the Szemere Goverment, where Lajos Kossuth became head of state. It started as a reaction to the illegal/unlawful March Constitution (Austria). The independence war started with the Szemere government.'

1. None of the edits are inconsistent with these claims. The edits correct false claims and inappropriate, non-NPOV language. LotusEating (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The edits say X. Rather than saying not-X, you say Y. You should respond to the edits with not-X. LotusEating (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Footnote 9 and claim

The claim is controversial, and the source is the Hungarian Conservative, a political website. https://web.archive.org/web/20230730110111/https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/culture_society/hungary_europe_liberal_conservative_foreign_policy_reform_era/. I suggest removing the claim till we can find a source that does not violate NPOV. LotusEating (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Edits and discussion

Some time has passed since I suggested good faith edits and the page remains in a poor state. If there is no way to get nationalists to agree to substantive changes in line with contemporary scholarship, can we at least remove the political language? (e.g. "reactionary" Slovak forces)? LotusEating (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You want to remove political language from an article about a political revolution? Be more specific. Remsense诉 05:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"Royalist" or "Pro-Habsburg Royalist" are more netural and fitting than "reactionary". 2604:3D09:D07F:E580:0:0:0:A28A (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reactionary means anti revolutionary and pro-Habsburg.

I suggest to read that Book. Hungary was not an Austrian province, it became Austrian province only after 1849.

https://www.google.hu/books/edition/Constitutional_Law_in_Hungary/R-CSEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=habsburgs feudalism 1849&pg=PT22&printsec=frontcover

Photo of page 22: https://i.ibb.co/yY6P9w0/k-p.png

Constitutional Law in Hungary By Zoltán Szente · 2022

ISBN: 9789403544427, 9403544422 Page count: 360 Published: September 20, 2022 Format: ebook Publisher: Wolters Kluwer

--Mandliners (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Royalist" or "Pro-Habsburg Royalist" are more netural and fitting than "reactionary". 2604:3D09:D07F:E580:0:0:0:A28A (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Contribution

Glad to see someone stated with sources (Deak, Rady, Woloch etc) the linguistically and racially diverse nature of Imperial armed forces, with bulks of soldiers and officers came from all ethnic groups (including Italian - Michael Embree's book North Italian Campaign, Polish and even Hungarian). Such case was common with multinational nations. Of course the reasoning for joining army were various and complex (form of employment, better pay, voluntary or forced conscription etc). In addition, good to see a few Slovakian and Serbian source has been added, more sources from different ethnic groups such as Croatian, Romanian etc are needed as history is such a topic of complexity and being inclusive and objective is always welcome.

Also according to Laszlo Peter and Robert B. Pynsent in Intellectuals and the Future in the Habsburg Monarchy 1890-1914, and Raphael Patai's the Jews of Hungary, during Bach's period, the internal tariffs which had earlier separated the Crown Lands were removed, economical reforms foresaw rapid growth of towns and industrialization, emancipation of serfs, common currency, credit and transport system with changes in social institution, as Austrian Civil Code was introduced together with the judicial system. Also, educational life of Jews were changed greatly changed. A network of Jewish schools were established. Prior to 1848 only 20 to 30 Jewish elementary schools existed in Hungary, after 1848, 304 elementary schools were maintained by Jews. The same period also saw an increase in the number of Jewish student in high schools and higher education. By 1851, there were 584 Jewish students in academic high schools and in 1858, 128 Jewish students attended universities (they went to Austrian or aboard and their talents were proved after graduation). Also the economic condition of the Jews improved as customs duties between Hungary and other realms of Austria were abolished which benefitted Jewish commercial activity. in 1851, the imperial government decreed that nobody could be excluded from engaging in commerce and industry because of religion, nationality or birth. The Factory Act of 1859 removed all religious distinctions and the last surviving restrictions were obliterated a year latter, permitted the Jews to engage in dispensing pharmaceuticals, distilling spirits, milling flour and settling in mining towns. All distinctions between Jews and Christians were thus definitely eliminated until the introduction of anti-Jewish laws on the eve of World War II.

Jews began to establish large-scale industries in Hungary following these 1859-60 governmental measures (textile printing factory of Goldbergers in Obuda, Austrian National Bank opened branch in Pest by 1852 and establishment of warehouses that served growth of commercial traffic and export by the effort of Jacob Kern... During the decade of the 1850s many Hungarians Jews became intoxicated by the first whiffs of freedom, by signs of impending equality with their Christian compatriots, manifested in their success in medicine, education, literature and journalism and their elevation by imperial grace into the ranks of knights, nobles and court councilors 216.10.229.109 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it was not as simple or clear cut or vague as X supported Y. As stated by a student of Deak's Hungarian history class (later became a historian as well) said there were even officers who fought on hungarian side and their family members fought on imperial side (defied simple characterization). The problematic displaines of armies at that time (eurpean or american, regular or militia or armed citizens etc) posed major chanllegens (e.g. forced conscription, looting) as well as general disregard for civilian populations during wars and conflicts (white or non-white, especially non-Caucasian/non-white population at the hands of conquests and efforts of colonization by European or American. Of course this still exists in the present world). 199.189.26.196 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I remember someone provided "Slovakian Perspective" on the article, with responses of Slovakian villages to forced conscription, some villages revolted and some complied and some voluntarily joined. Unfortunately, that entry was gone. We definitely need specific Slovakian sources on this one instead of vague A supported B. 216.10.229.109 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)