This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Croatia in personal union with Hungary is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
I restored the article title to
Croatia in personal union with Hungary, the last one I remember being stable, and consolidated the talk page archives as subpages. I do not have a strong opinion about it, I just saw a series of botched moves that left the archives divorced from the page, so I moved it back. If there was a formal consensus title, please ping me and I'll move it back properly. Otherwise, please fill an entry at
WP:Requested moves.
No such user (
talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This title is more accurate and correct, suppport.(
KIENGIR (
talk) 00:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC))reply
What is the article's subject?
When reading the article, I had the impression that it is dedicated to the history of Croatia between 1102 and 1526. In this case, the name is misleading because several parts of present-day Croatia were not in any kind of union with Hungary. For instance, the
Republic of Venice ruled northern and central
Dalmatia on the Croatian coast of the
Adriatic for centuries, whereas the southern Dalmatian city of
Dubrovnik/Ragusa and its region formed
an autonomous republic from 1358. [(1) Goldstein, Ivo (2007) [1999]. Croatia: A History. Translated by Nikolina Jovanović. McGill–Queen's University Press. pp. 28–30.
ISBN978-0-7735-2017-2.; (2) Tanner, Marcus (2010) [1997]. Croatia: A Nation Forged in War (Third ed.). Yale University Press. pp. 25–27.
ISBN978-0-300-16394-0.
Alternatively, the article may be dedicated to the constitutional aspects of the shared history of Croatia and Hungary. In this case, the timeframe is the first problem because the shared history lasted from 1102 to 1918. Further problem is that "personal union" is only one of the mainstream terms describing the relationship between the two countries. For instance, "union of crowns" or "union" are alternatively used. Finally, the use of the term "personal union" is absolutely misleading when dealing with specific regions: the
City of Rijeka/Fiume was never in personal union with Hungary although it was one of the
Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen; the territory of some modern Croatian counties, such as
Osijek-Baranja was part of the Kingdom of Hungary for centuries; and neither Croatian nor Hungarian authorities had jurisdiction in the
Croatian Military Frontier. [(1) Bideleux, Robert; Jeffries, Ian (1998). A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change. Routledge. p. 195.
ISBN0-415-16111-8.; (2) Goldstein, Ivo (2007) [1999]. Croatia: A History. Translated by Nikolina Jovanović. McGill–Queen's University Press. pp. 41, 48.
ISBN978-0-7735-2017-2.; (3) Tanner, Marcus (2010) [1997]. Croatia: A Nation Forged in War (Third ed.). Yale University Press. pp. 37–38.
ISBN978-0-300-16394-0.; (4) Magaš, Branka (2007). Croatia through History: The Making of a European State. SAQI. pp. 72, 94, 189, 303.
ISBN978-0-86356-775-9.
I see what you mean. What do you suggest to change?
OrionNimrod (
talk) 10:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
(1)
Venetian Dalmatia was only on the coast (initially around Zadar) always contesting with Croatia-Hungary, and only since 1420 started to actually dominate over the coastal cities, but not in the hinterland (2) This is how the history of Croatia is divided everywhere. Yes, it was always part of Hungary, but a separate kingdom with pre-Habsburg and post-Habsburg history.--
Miki Filigranski (
talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
(1) Yes, so large territories in present-day Croatia were not in personal union in Hungary in any way. Furthermore much of Dalmatia was under Byzantine rule for decades in the 12th century. (2) Perhaps, but two of the three major monographies published in English about Croatian history do not use this division: Tanner writes of "Croatia under the Hungarians" when writing about Croatian history between 1102 and 1526, whereas Magaš describes the period as "The Tripartite Kingdom". I would suggest a more neutral title: "Croatia in the High and Later Middle Ages" or "History of Croatia (1102–1526)".
Borsoka (
talk) 13:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
To the discussion at hand, this is an interesting proposal. I would support splitting this article to have "Croatia in the High and Later Middle Ages" and an article on the "Personal union of Hungary and Croatia" - the former on history, the latter on relevant constitutional/administrative arrangements between the two realms from the 12th to the 19th century.--
Tomobe03 (
talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The creation of a separate article about the relatinship between Croatia and Hungary is a good idea, but a neutral title should be found because the term "personal union" is neither neutral nor precise as per the reasons listed above.
Borsoka (
talk) 15:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
For an article on the "Personal union of Hungary and Croatia" about relevant constitutional/administrative arrangements between the two realms from the 12th to the 19th century - it is the scope of an article we already have,
Pacta conventa (Croatia).--
Miki Filigranski (
talk) 17:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the article on the several aspects of common public law should have a wider scope than a document. We could not summarize British constitutional history under the title "Magna Charta".
Borsoka (
talk) 17:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There are ample sources directly and explicitly backing up the relationship has been named a personal union by scholars. Moreover, they are found in diverse authors (i.e. not only Croatian): Here's a British one Auty 1978, p. 29., a Hungarian one Rácz 2017, p. 54., a Polish one, Kopyś 2022, p. 376., and a Dutch one Trifunovska 1994, p. 240. Here's Bideleux & Jeffries 2006, p. 195. stating that Croatian sources also use that term and specifically that it is the Hungarian nationalist historians who avoid it. Granted, there are other alternatives, but "personal union" appears sufficiently commonly used to be the commn name and it appears entirely appropriate (as explicitly stated by Trifunovska who analysed research of all leading European state-law scholars in her work). Details of the sources are as follows (page numbers are found in this paragraph):
(1) Auty is a philologist specialised in Slavonic languages
[1], Rácz is an economist specialised in regional politics and urbanism (
[2]), Bideleux & Jeffries write that the term "personal union" is one of the two terms used by Croatian historians, but they describe the relationship as "Hungarian domination of Croatia". (2) I would be grateful if you tried to concentrate on my concerns instead of making new and new google searches for "Croatia Hungary personal union". The relationship between Croatia and Hungary was changing during the centuries, and relationship between different regions of present-day Croatia and Hungary was not the same: some regions of present-day Croatia were integral parts of Hungary for centuries (
Osijek-Baranja), others were administered as a special unit (the
City of Rijeka/Fiume); in the medieval period Slavonia was in a closer relationship with Hungary than Croatia proper. When describing the constitutional links between Hungary and Croatia, all these differences should be taken into account. (3) Bideleux & Jeffries do not write that Hungarian nationalist historians avoid the use of the term (as I have alredy explained it to you). They write that Hungarian nationalist historians prefer an alternative term: annexation. You should not suggest that editors who express concerns about the use of the term are Hungarian nationalists. For instance, Bideleux & Jeffries also use an alternative term: "Hungarian domination".
Borsoka (
talk) 16:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There exists other reliable sources. Anyway, for such a substantial change of scope and title you'll need a long discussion, list of substantiated arguments and general consensus for change. However, considering your editing quality, if you have some details and different perspectives which would like to edit in the current revision, you're welcome to present them here or make an edit example in a sandbox or simply make a bold edit (perhaps will be followed by BRD, but at least something will be going on and possibly something constructive could emerge).--
Miki Filigranski (
talk) 17:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your kind words. I would not change the scope of the present article (although a splitting around 1301 could be useful). I would only change its name. Of course, this change could not be unilateral. On the other hand, I think a separate article about the public law aspects of the shared history of Croatia and Hungary would be useful but this article is still to be created and named.
Borsoka (
talk) 02:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply