Talk:Ottoman Hungary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maps[edit]

User 84.0.57.111 wrote: "Please don't force a map which was correct only for 3 years(1682-1685).Please,redraw the borders of Ottoman eyalets and Thökhöly's Upper Hungary with black border-lines instead of grey.Upper Hungary have never seen ottoman army in history"

Answer: I already gave you answer about Thökhöly's principality on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PANONIAN#The_map However, I will also copy-paste that answer here: Well, I would not agree that "Principality of Upper Hungary is a wrong name". Certainly, there are several names used for this principality and all of them are valid. Here you can see that name "felső-magyarországi fejedelemség" ("Principality of Upper Hungary") is clearly used in the sources: [1]. Other name that was used is "Principality of Central Hungary" (or "Orta Macar" in Turkish). See quotation from this source as example: "Imre Thokoly who for a brief period was installed as an Ottoman client ruler in an area which previously had belonged to Habsburg Hungary, and was known to the Ottomans as Orta Macar". So, this source and published source that I have in my personal library are both claiming that Thokoly was Ottoman client ruler - it is similar status as was the status of Transylvania. Here is also translation from published Serbian source that I used ("Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002"): "Intention of Thokoly was to unite all Hungarian territories under Ottoman suzereinity. Ottoman Porta proclaimed him for a king of Hungary, but he took for himself only title of a prince of Upper Hungary. According to Ottoman document (berat), Thokoly ruled over 13 northern Hungarian counties and this area was called Orta Macar (Middle Hungary) in Turkish. It was defined as an Ottoman vassal autonomous principality and it was obligated to pay 20,000 ducats per year to Ottoman authorities." So, I based my map on these sources and if you think that this info is not correct, please present quotations from some other sources that claiming opposite things and we can analyze these quotations then. Also, you perhaps do not know exact meaning of term "vassal state" - an "vassal state" is not directly ruled by its foreign suzerains; it usually completely run its own affairs, with only obligation to provide certain amount of money or soldiers to its suzerain. That is exactly how Principality of Imre Thokoly was described in these sources.
Also, 84.0.57.111, if you claim that I "force a map which was correct only for 3 years(1682-1685)" why you did not removed that map but another one that show situation in 1572? Do you claim that this map is incorrect too? And map "Hungary 1683.png" that you included is incorrect - it does not list any references and it show wrong borders of eyalets and mix borders from completelly different time periods. Do you have some sources or evidences that borders of eyalets in that map are correct? Notably, do you have evidence that Sanjak of Segedin was part of Budin Eyalet insted part of Egir Eyalet in 1683? Or do you have evidence that Sanjak of Semendire was part of Rumelia Eyalet instead part of Budin Eyalet? Or do you have evidence that Sanjak of Kule was part of Varat Eyalet instead part of Temesvar Eyalet? These are just few mistakes in map named "Hungary 1683" - that map have just too many errors, it is completely unsourced and looks like an original research of its uploader. Regarding my own maps, I listed references for them on appropriate page of each map in Wikimedia Commons. If you present here some sources that showing that some parts of my maps are incorrect, I will change these maps in accordance with these sources. I cannot change maps only in accordance with somebody's comment on talk page, especially in the case when such comment contradicts to sources that I used. PANONIAN 06:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Now, let examine what some other sources are saying about Imre Thokoly and Upper Hungary:

  • [2] - Quotation: "Thokoly was received with great pomp by the pasha of Buda in the summer of 1682 and at once a joint army of kurucok and Turks embarked on the conquest of Hungary. They spedily captured the north-eastern strongholds of Košice, Prešov, Levoča and, at the cost of 4000 Turkish dead. Fidiakovo. Thereupon the pasha Ibrahim delivered to Thokoly the antham of Mehmed IV which declared Thokoly to be king of all Hungary and Croatia, as tributary vassal of the sultan..."
  • [3] - Quotation: "Thokoly was crowned the king of central Hungary by the governor of Buda, Ibrahim pasha, and thus became a Turkish vassal."
  • [4] - Quotation: "In 1682 the Turks decided to help Imre Thokoly, the Hungarian leader, and Thokoly agreed to be a vassal of the sultan."
  • [5] - Quotation: "the insurrection continued until it culminated in the expulsion of the Germans out of the whole of Upper Hungary by Thokoly. He was recognised by the sultan as vassal king of Upper Hungary"
  • [6] - Quotation: "In 1682 a Turkish army invaded Northern Hungary and placed Thokoly on the throne of Northern Hungary as a vassal of Kara Mustafa."

I doubt that all these sources are wrong, and there are more in google books search: [7] PANONIAN 14:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true. Thököly's state was a short lived Turkish vassal 'state'. Nothing is wrong with that map.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Hungary during Ottoman administration → Ottoman Hungary – More concise, but still precise. 935 Google Books results: [8]relisting -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Jaro88slav (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the current name of the article is surely awkward, but I am not sure whether "Ottoman Hungary" would be the best choice. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there were no such territories as "Ottoman Hungary", "Ottoman Serbia", "Ottoman Albania", etc. All these articles should speak about "Ottoman period in the history" of present-day countries, not about fictional non-existing entities. If current title is not good I would propose something like "Ottoman period in the history of Hungary". PANONIAN 09:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has to be noted that this article was named Ottoman Hungary for 5 years, and it was retitled by PANONIAN without a prior discussion, on 16 November 2006‎ (to History of Ottoman Hungary) and 18 March 2012 (to current title)
The article intro History of Hungary during Ottoman administration refers to the history of parts of the Ottoman Empire situated in what today is Hungary is not accurate, cause the article treats the fate of the parts of Kingdom of Hungary (medieval) that fell under Ottoman occupation, not the part of the present-day Hungary that was under Ottoman control (for example Temeşvar Eyalet, part of Ottoman Hungary, is divided today between Romania and Serbia) Jaro88slav (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Temeşvar Eyalet was not part of Ottoman Hungary because of simple reason that Ottoman Hungary did not existed. That eyalet included parts of present-day Romania, Serbia and Hungary and it is part of the Ottoman history of all three countries. Note that no matter of what name should be used for this article ("History of Hungary during Ottoman administration", "Ottoman Hungary", "Ottoman period in the history of Hungary") it cannot refer to any part of present-day Romania or Serbia. PANONIAN 19:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been renamed, again. Shouldn't we have an agreement before such a move? Anyway, the current title ("Ottoman period in the history of Hungary") is better, however, it suggests that the article only talks about the area of the present-day Hungary, while from the historical point of view, it would be more natural to discuss the history of those parts of the Kingdom of Hungary which became parts of the Ottoman Empire. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we discuss "those parts of the Kingdom of Hungary which became parts of the Ottoman Empire" here? After these areas were included into Ottoman Empire they were no longer either part of Hungary or connected to Hungary in any way. These areas should be discussed within articles about Ottoman period in Serbia, Romania, Croatia, etc. Also, while some sources using term "Ottoman Hungary", the term is purely geographical and does not refer to specific area with specific borders. In fact, there is another geographical term - "Rascia" (Serbia), which was also used by various sources to refer to large parts of Pannonian Plain populated by Serbs. So, where was the border between "Ottoman Hungary" and "Rascia"? Regarding the name, I am trying to find most suitable name for several similar articles - I also renamed article Ottoman period in the history of Serbia as well as few other to same name versions. PANONIAN 08:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article expounds the situation of 2012 territory of Hungary during Ottoman rule, the title is OK. I thought that Ottoman Hungary refers to the yellow area from here http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/eceurope/hun16cen.gif Jaro88slav (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That map is just simplistic and fully inaccurate view. Parts of the Ottoman Empire inhabited by South Slavs simply were not known as "Hungary" within Ottoman Empire. These lands were known as Bosnia and Rascia (and note that term Rascia designated lands north of the Danube in Ottoman times). Also, Ottomans did not conquered all territories of medieval Kingdom of Hungary at once - the Ottoman conquest was a long-term event. Also note that medieval Kingdom of Hungary controlled much larger area than the "yellow area" from that map. For example the whole Serbian Despotate and the whose medieval Bosnia were vassals of the Kingdom of Hungary, so the criteria by which map from external link used such borders is fully unclear. PANONIAN 13:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


@Pannonian: Serbians came to the territory of former medieval kingdom of Hungary only in the 1600s. Read the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Serb_Migrations First serb refugees in small numbers arrived to kingdom of Hungary only in the 1400s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.27.196 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support to return the article to its original name "Ottoman Hungary", which is a name used for that period and geographical area widely by bibliography [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per convincing rationale by the nominator and sources provided by Focal Point. --RJFF (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An obvious and concise title with good rationales provided. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnic aftermath of Ottoman wars[edit]

Some problems on this addition:

  • There is no source at the following link: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+hu0028)
  • The following text: The population growth in Ottoman Hungary during the 17th century was from 900,000 to 1,000,000. However most of these newly migrated inhabitants were non Hungarians. is unsourced (the part about non Hungarians) and not logical (the population growth can be the result of a higher natality / less plagues/ less wars / etc not necessary becausae immigration).
  • Apparently the following information: The proportion of Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin was at an almost constant 80% during the Middle Ages. The Hungarian population began to decrease only at the time of the Ottoman conquest, reaching as low as around 39% by the end of the 18th century. The decline of the Hungarians was due to the constant wars, Ottoman raids, famines, and plagues during the 150 years of Ottoman rule. is not mentioned in the source http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html.
  • Should it be The Hungarian population began to decrease or The percentage of Hungarian population began to decrease?79.117.207.8 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I will take a look at it. Tag the questionable parts in the text, if no sources are found in a reasonable amount of time, then they can be removed. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't restore the addition from 29 September in the lack of a consensus. I am not against adding info about the ethnic evolution, but the section must be good-written and respect wiki policies. 79.117.207.8 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not notice that it was a recent addition. Then, I agree to keep the old version until better sources are found. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for understanding. 79.117.207.8 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another questionable statement is this one: The proportion of Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin was at an almost constant 80% during the Middle Ages.. Middle Ages or Medieval period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century, and for the period 400 AD - 900 AD, this was clearly not true (Magyars had not come yet). Also, according to the sourced estimations from Demographics_of_Hungary#900–1910, Hungarians represented 66% in 900 AD and 60–70% in 1370 AD (less than 80%). 86.123.40.170 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

80% hungarian population in the Carpathian basin?[edit]

80% hungarian population in the Carpathian basin has no credible source of proof. It cites modern estimation. The statement is speculative and the link to back up the statement does not proove the statement Alex an dru one (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not speculative, it states "according to" and where it points, there are sourced estimations like that. Nobody said they are carved in a stone.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Ethnic Changes[edit]

@DeCausa the piece of information I added is not POV as you claimed so, as the reduction of Hungarian population during the Ottoman rule is a widely accepted cause that led to the Treaty of Trianon. Hence I did'nt added a source in my first edit there. But appearantly you might not be familiar with this, which is pretty normal as it is impossible for us human beings to know every piece of information on earth, so I added a source that supports the information I wrote. If you still have doubts come to the talk page and let's talk here instead of waging an edit war against each other as it would be a detrimental incident that would harm the page and noone would achieve anything at the end. HungarianRoyalist (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HungarianRoyalist: since you appear to be only on 83 edits I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me explain how Wikipedia works. Here are the main points:
  1. When you add material to an article there is no "right" to have it accepted whether or not it is sourced. This is explained in WP:ONUS. Please read that. If you are reverted in an attempt to change the article then it is for you to leave it as it is and argue the case for your change on the Talk page. This is explained in further detail in WP:BRD. This is because the existing text is deemed to be supported by consensus - this is explained in WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
  2. However, in your original edit here, you added no source whatsover. that is unacceptable and would inevitably be reverted. Saying it is "widely accepted" and so a source isn't needed isn't something that works in Wikipedia for that type of edit. Don't do it again. This is explained in more detail in WP:V
  3. With regard to your to your last revert, the source you cite is behind a paywall so I can't check it. But in any event there's two problems with your edit, both relating to WP:NPOV: (1) The way you have expressed the point is obvious nonsense. there are multiple reasons for the "carve up" of Hungary at Trianon. attributing it solely to the depletion of the population of Ottoman Hungary is either a misrepresentation of the source you cite or the source you cite fails WP:DUE and shouldn't be used in that way. (2) Talking about the "carve up" of Hungary is not neutral language and displays a "right great wrongs" tone.
for these reasons I'm reverting your edit. As set out in WP:BRD your obligation is to leave the text as it was originally until there is agreement on the talk page to change it. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution but hear me out for your points:
1.First of all, although I added the appropriate source that was absent thus doing what you asked for when you reverted, you reverted again rejecting the source I added before reaching a consensus in the talk page.
2. For your second point yes you are right I should have added the source in my first attempt.
3. As mentioned here WP:SOURCEACCESS you should cooperate with other users instead of deleting the information based on a source that you are unable to access. FYI direct quotation is "In the relevant volumes of the Magyartörtenet (Magyar History), Szekffi blamed "the Turks" for the général dislocation ofthe country's historical évolution, her economic and social decay, as well as for hersemi-arid "puszta-climate", and the Great Hungarian Plain's deforestation and pusztavegetation. Moreover, Szekfü saw the "Turkish era", with its decreasing Hungarian population, as primarily responsible for the tragic Trianon Peace Treaty (June 4,1920), which deprived Hungary of more than two thirds of its territory and one third of its Hungarian-speaking population (Höman-Szekfü 1935-1936, and see Vardy1976, pp. 62-71; 82-89; 1985b)." Additionally you cannot use the term "nonsense" according to WP:CIV. But if needed the term "carve up" can be changed as its neutrality can be debatable.
(PDF) The image of the Ottomans in Hungarian historiography
. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250979924_The_image_of_the_Ottomans_in_Hungarian_historiography
[accessed Jul 17 2022].
HungarianRoyalist (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HungarianRoyalist: thank you for your response. Using the same numbering, here's my further comments:
  1. Just so you understand Wikipedia process in general, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, the existing text should remain in place until there is consensus to change it. In other words, a consensus to revert your change is not needed - it's the other way round. There needs to be consensus here to keep your change.
  2. Thanks for your acknowledgement.
  3. Thanks for providing a copy of the source. Just to be clear I did not object to the source because it was behind a paywall. I was just explaining why I haven't read it. I objected to the addition for other reasons - principally because it was an oversimplification and because it didn't comply with WP:DUE. But now that I've read your source, it actually supports my objection! As you say, the point comes from Szekfü, whose contribution to Ottoman Hungary historiography is discussed on page 18 of your source. What it actually says is that Szekfü's position is an outdated concept by a nationalist historian. The point of the reference to Szekfü is that his traditionalist view was challenged and is now discredited. The author even calls him "biased" and says an ardent Catholic and pro-Habsburg historian, the father of the Hungarian Geistes geschichte school, Szekfü "made his readers believe that wherever the Turkish horsemen appeared, not even the grass would ever grow again". The author then goes on to explain that modern historiography provides a much more nuanced and complex explanation of the Ottoman period eg subsequent Habsburg policy had more of an impact on ethnic make up.
So, I don't think that your change should be added. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

Hello, I cannot understand why on earth you would revert this change and request that it be discussed on the talk page of the article. The change was in no way controvercial and was just correcting a cite date error that exists in the page and need to be addressed. It is only for major or controvercial changes that a talk page discussion is needed. Keith D (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith D: apologies, I thought the edit summaries on my subsequent edits clarified - but obviously not. Your edit corrected a cite error on the previous edit by another editor (which is now the subject of the thread above). It was that other edit I was intending to revert and request discussion on the talk page. I just inadvertently didn't go far enough back on Twinkle and got only your intermediate edit by mistake. Hope that explains. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it crystal clear, it was this edit that your edit corrected the cite error on and that I thought i was reverting. Apologies again. DeCausa (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, as you had not made further edits to the article at that point I was not getting the connection. Keith D (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Hungary, date[edit]

Hi @Szirtyu! I see you engaged in edit war in more articles regarding the date of the Ottoman Hungary: [18] [19]

Are you able to read Hungarian sources?

@Borsoka, @Norden1990 what do you think about the date?

Why would be the beginning of 1521 for Ottoman Hungary? Belgrade was just a border stronghold, it does not mean "Ottoman Hungary", morover after 1521 Hungary was still independent and Ottoman Hungary did not exist. During history Belgrade changed owner hundred of times. Even just in the 1700s it occupied 3 times by the Habsburg.

After 1526, some days plundering, but the Ottomans went home, they did not occupied anything in Hungary. https://budavar.abtk.hu/hu/helytortenet/a-torok-kori-buda-1541-1686.html Or do you other sources? When the Hungarian king died at Mohacs battle, then Hungary elected 2 kings (Habsburg and Zapolya), Hungary had no Ottoman Hungary at that time. But when Ottomans occupied Buda in 1541 then Hungary was split in three and the central occupied part became Ottoman Hungary.

I checked the situation.

Hungarian national curriculum by the Hungarian education ministry: page 40: it started in 1541, page 59: Ottoman Hungary lost and Hungary was liberated in 1699 outside the Banat: https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR10TA__teljes.pdf

Lexicon say the beginning is 1541: https://lexikon.katolikus.hu/T/török%20hódoltság%20Magyarországon.html The first Ottoman vilayet was founded at that time in Hungary and not before. It consider 1718 at the end because Banat was liberated then. However 1699 is important because most of Hungary was liberated already.

This is also say: beginning 1541: https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Hodoltsag-a-hodoltsag-kora-magyarorszag-torokkori-tortenete-1/igy-kezdodott-a-torok-hodoltsag-1B71/

Hungarian wiki: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Török_hódoltság

Another lexicon: It say beginning 1541, and between 1526-41 Ottoman did not occupy anything wanted just a vassal Hungary: https://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/lexikon/hodoltsag.html

Beginning from 1541: https://www.sulinet.hu/oroksegtar/data/telepulesek_ertekei/hodmezovasarhely/hodmezovasarhely_tortenete_I/pages/010_a_torok_hodoltsag.htm

Baranya was already liberated in 1699 and not in 1718 as you claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Passarowitz&diff=prev&oldid=1190902914 https://elismondom.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/harcok-1708-11.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rákóczi_szabadságharc.jpg https://taneszkoz.cdn.shoprenter.hu/custom/taneszkoz/image/cache/w1069h560/product/cr_cr0613160x120.jpg?lastmod=1686856152.1679909091 http://virtualis.sk-szeged.hu/kiallitas/rakoczi/1708.html

Do you think, are you know better than the Hungarian historians? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, Ottoman Hungary is defined as the parts of the Kingdom of Hungary that were under Ottoman rule. By this definition, the parts of the Kingdom of Hungary ruled before 1541 and after 1699 would still fall within the definition of ‘Ottoman Hungary’. If you want to exclude the parts of the Kingdom of Hungary ruled by the Ottoman Empire after 1699 the definition at the beginning of the lead should be changed to accommodate for that.
It wasn’t until the Treaty of Passarowitz that all remaining parts of the Kingdom of Hungary were ceded to Habsburg Enpire. Up until 1718, parts of the kingdom were still under Ottoman rule. By the definition given in this article, these parts would still be considered Ottoman Hungary. Furthermore, as ‘Ottoman Hungary’ is simply defined as the parts of the Kingdom of Hungary under Ottoman rule, this would include Belgrade, as it was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary under Ottoman rule.

Szirtyu (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The definiton is Ottoman Hungary is determined by historians, started when Ottoman elayet founded in 1541. We need to follow academic historian sources not about our imagination.
Baranya was already part of Hungary before 1718, did you check the maps, provided sources? Are you able to read Hungarian sources?
Please provide academic sources for your statements, as I provided many. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t really consider the lexicons, the page from sulinet.hu, or the link to Hungarian wiki as adequate sources for this.
The Seige of Buda was a significant event because it marked the the formal division of the kingdom and the formation of eyalets. I’ll update the article to reflect this

Szirtyu (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern school books from the Hungarian national curriculum
All emphaize that Ottoman Hungary formed in 1541 when Hungary was split in three (morover the first Ottoman elayet established at that time in Hungary) and Hungarian sources emphasize the Ottomans recognized the loss of Ottoman Hungary in 1699.
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR06TB__teljes.pdf
page 59
"The fall of Buda and the splitting of the country into three parts"
"After the death of János Szapolyai, Ferdinand wanted to put an end to the division of the country. He tried to occupy all of Hungary with an army. The Turks did not remain idle either. Sultan Suleiman's army soon he reached Buda. In 1541, the Turks took Buda Castle by trick. However, it was not enough to occupy the entire country their strength. Thus, only the central area was annexed to the Ottoman Empire. Hungary was divided into three parts: 1. The western and northern parts were the Kingdom of Hungary (royal Hungary). Its rulers came from the Habsburg family, its center It was Bratislava. 2. The sultan donated the eastern part to the son of János Szapolyai, the infant János Zsigmond. Later, this area was called the Principality of Transylvania. 3. In the area between the two, the Turks were the master: this part was called subjugation."
Ottoman occupation chapter:
page 88: "Turkish rule: In 1541, Buda was taken by the Turks."
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR06TA__teljes.pdf
page 67:
"After the capture of Buda, the country was divided into three parts. The central areas of the country came under the authority of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, where the so-called subjugation (Ottoman Hungary) developed. The western and northern half of the country was connected to the countries of the Habsburgs, the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary remained under the rule of Ferdinand Habsburg and his successors they ruled. The sultan donated the eastern half of the country to his son Szapolyai, and the Principality of Transylvania was created from this."
"After the loss of Buda in 1541, the borders of the individual parts of the country were formed along a new castle line."
page 80:
"The liberation of Hungary and the recapture of Buda took place at the end of the 17th century after nearly 150 years of Turkish subjugation."
page 81:
"The war did not end with the recapture of Buda. The imperial armies pushed the Turks out of Hungary relatively quickly and occupied Transylvania as well. Later, however, in the west, the French again started a war against the Habsburgs, so significant forces had to be withdrawn from the Turkish battlefield. The advance was stalled for a few years, and the Turks were even able to regain smaller areas. Finally, the decade and a half war was concluded by the Peace of Karlóc in 1699, as a result of which even the Turks now recognized: Hungary was liberated. The Ottoman Empire was the only one able to keep Temesköz in the south-eastern part of the country, but nearly twenty years later the Turks were pushed out from there as well"
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/FI-504010601_1__teljes.pdf
page 104:
"The Peace of Karlóc, signed in 1699, made the dream of generations come true: a large part of Hungary was freed from the Turkish rule that had lasted for more than one hundred and fifty years. The Ottoman Empire was the only one able to keep Temesköz in the southern part of the country."
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR10TA__teljes.pdf
page 40:
"In 1541, Ferdinand sent a strong army to capture Buda. Fráter György, who was in a difficult situation, turned to the Turks for help, although it is true that Sülejmán also decided on the new campaign. The siege failed and the arriving Ottoman force encamped below Buda. After a few days, the sultan invited the Szapolyai followers to visit, and during the hospitality, his troops captured the capital of the country by trickery in 1541. August 29. The Sultan spared the lives of Zsigmond János and Izabella Jagielló, who were captured. He handed over the administration of the part of the country east of the Tisza to them, and recognized the infant king as his vassal. uda, however, remained in the hands of the Turks. Thus, with the formation of the occupied territory along the Danube (Hódoltság (Ottoman Hungary)), the country was divided into three parts."
page 59:
"The decisive defeat of the Ottomans occurred in the Battle of Zenta (1697), where the Sultan's army crossing the Tisza was defeated by the Emperor Jenő of Savoy. was destroyed by After a long negotiation, the two parties concluded a peace in 1699 (Peace of Karlóca), the Turks recognized the loss of the Hódoltság (Ottoman Hungary), the territory of the country - with the exception of Temesköz - was finally liberated."
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR10TB__teljes.pdf
page 46:
"Sülejmán, however, saw that the time had come to occupy Buda, and his soldiers occupied the castle on August 29, 1541. He dragged Bálint Török with him and gave Isabella and the infant king the part of the country east of the Tisza. Hungary was divided into three parts."
"In 1526, the Sultan occupied Buda, but withdrew from the city. Between 1528 and 1540, the Sultan supported János Szapolyai because it was cheaper for him to maintain a fiefdom than to invade. Between 1529 and 1540, the sultan launched campaigns against the Habsburgs alongside Szapolyai. They intervene in the internal strife of the defeated country. After the death of Szapolyai, the sultan occupies Buda, because he is not sure that the guardians of the infant king are able to keep the fiefdom. 1541: Capture of Buda and the central area of the country."
page 67:
"However, the Habsburg Empire was able to withstand the two-front war. The talented general, Jenő of Savoy, again won a decisive victory over the main Turkish forces at Zenta (1697). The Ottoman Empire, due to the heavy defeat and exhaustion of its resources, asked for peace. The Danube monarchy also replenished its resources, thus the peace of Karlóc was born in 1699. Hungary was liberated with the exception of Temesköz, and Transylvania also came under Habsburg rule."
OrionNimrod (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Szirtyu, could you tell me exactly what is your problem? Which extensions do you want to make in the lead? You can see all importants events is there, 1521 Belgrade, 1526 Mohacs, 1541 Buda, 1699, 1718... OrionNimrod (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a good source https://efolyoirat.oszk.hu/00000/00010/00035/pdf/HSR_2001_1-2_109-132.pdf Géza Pálffy - The Impact of the Ottoman Rule on Hungary OrionNimrod (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why do you want to include sentences in the lead that are already in the article? the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article. why do you want statistics with no references to be included in the lead? There was no source to support the statement that arohnd 90% of Hungarians were protestant at end of the 16th century. There also wasnt a source to support the statement that 20% of the territory was retained by the Ottoman state while the rest was distributed to Ottoman soldiers and officials. so, instead of 20%, i wrote the remainder and instead of 90% i wrote the vast majority Szirtyu (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Szirtyu, you arbitrary removed a lot of important historical data, why? Not the sentences about the religion. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DeCausa,
It was recently a lot of talk about this.
You wrote:
"encompassed those parts of the Kingdom of Hungary that the Ottoman Empire conquered between 1521 and 1541 and which it continued to rule until the end of the 17th century"
But this is not exactly correct, the Ottomans occupied more Hungarian lands after 1541 and Ottoman Hungary was not only which was occupied between 1521 and 1541. After 1521, they occupied just some southern area around Belgrade, the Ottoman occupation started since 1541 as the Ottomans established the first vilayet, Hungarian historiography hold the view that 1541 is the start of Ottoman Hungary and not 1521, (Ottomans occupied Hungary in 1541 to secure their power against the Habsburgs, they did not want anymore a vassal Hungary as they wanted after 1526) https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Török_hódoltság
That is my suggestion, could you tell me what is wrong with that? Btw I agree with you, missing dates was an omission.
"encompassed parts of the Kingdom of Hungary which were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire from the occupation of Buda in 1541 for more than 150 years, until the liberation of the area under Habsburg leadership (1686–1699)."
That is in the Hungarian wiki also, and in the Hungarian history books and schoolbooks as I cited many above. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this thread and I think you are confusing the issues. Nothing I wrote contradicts Ottoman Hungary being a concept that is in place after 1541. I've made it clear that 1541 is the start of Ottoman Hungary - see the second sentence. But my text corrects a few problems with your preferred version. Firstly, it's not the case that the siege of Buda happens "out of the blue". For reader comprehension, there should be reference to the lead up to it. Your text assumes readers know the background - but this is a global medium and needs to fill in the gaps. That means referencing what happened between 1521 and 1541. It's not material that there was further conquest after 1541. Getting bogged down on peripheral issues in such a very high level survey ends up making it unclear for the general reader. You need to think in terms of what the broad brush general concepts are to people who only have the slightest understanding of the topic - and don't actually intend to learn much more. Secondly, we shouldn't use the phrase "until the liberation of the area under Habsburg leadership". It doesn't matter that that is how Hungarian historians describe. "Liberation" is a highly charged word in English and to use it is, by definition, promoting an Hungarian perspective. Wikipedia needs to follow WP:NPOV and maintain a neutral tone. That isn't neutral. There are a few other problems with the way you have used language, in English, but they are the major points. I think where we have got to now is actually a reasonable compromise between your and my versions. It's the Wikipedia way that no one is totally happy. :) DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DeCausa,
1
An independent country with long history with same land, Kingdom of Hungary (Hungarian capital, Hungarian founded, populated cities, areas) was invaded and occupied by a foreign far country, Ottoman Empire (and making many bloodshed, crimes, enslaving Hungarians, robbing Hungarian children to became Ottoman soldiers, etc). Do you think it is not proper to call "liberation" if Hungary and Hungarian lands and Hungarian population became again part of the Kingdom Hungary pushing out the invader foreign Ottoman army? That is correct, this is the Hungarian view, and official historiography that Hungary was liberated from the Ottomans. How else we should call this, that Hungarians just occupied Hungarian populated lands from the Ottoman Empire?
Just a few examples in Wiki, even article and topic titles have "liberation":
Liberation of France in France was liberated, and even Paris was liberated on 25 August 1944. As the liberation progressed,
Ottoman Serbia "with the Serbs under Karageorge defeating the Turks in several battles, liberating most of Central Serbia."
Greek War of Independence "to achieve liberation from Turkish rule" "first Greek Constitution and appointed the members of an executive and a legislative body that were to govern the liberated territories"
Liberation of Bulgaria "the liberation of Bulgaria refers to those events of the Tenth Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)" "he 1878 declaration, which signified Bulgaria's break with the Ottoman rule, was actually the second liberation of Bulgaria."
Liberation of Serbia, Albania and Montenegro (1918) "Allied Army of the Orient liberated these three countries from occupation by the Central Powers."
Warsaw Uprising "Polish underground resistance to liberate Warsaw from German occupation" "the invading forces of the Western Allies as they liberated Europe from the Nazis"
Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945)#Liberation of Czechoslovakia
Axis occupation of Greece#Liberation and aftermath
Liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp
Do you think every occupied countries deserve the "liberation" word if they expell their foreign invaders, but Hungary does not deserve the same? That would be a big double standard. Can I rewrite the Paris article that "Paris was occupied from Nazi Germany" and remove the liberation word?
2
"Firstly, it's not the case that the siege of Buda happens "out of the blue".
But the topic is about Ottoman Hungary and not about the full Hungarian history. For example battle of Mohacs 1526 is much more important than the loss the border fortress Belgrade in 1521, the consequence of the Ottoman occupation in 1541 was Mohacs in 1526. Also we would mention that Hungary was fought against Ottomans since 1360 as pre event, but this is not important in the lead. The Ottoman occupation between 1521-41 was just a smaller southern regions and not the so-called Ottoman Ungary itself.
You can see, just some sentences below the lead mention 1521 siege and Ottoman occupation, why it needs duplication? Because Ottoman Hungary itself is 1541-1699 I think it is misleading to put more dates in the first sentence. Also many southern area which was occupied by Ottomans in 1521 (Belgrade) was not reconquested in 1699 but just in 1718 or after, so it is incorrect to use 1699 or end of 17th century date for occupied areas in 1521-41. But the remaining Hungarian land, Banate of Temesvar do not consider as Ottoman Hungary, because most of Hungary, its capital was reunited and liberated and Ottomans signed the treaty in 1699 to acknowledge this (but basically most of Hungary was liberated already in 1687). OrionNimrod (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your responses briefer - see WP:WALLOFTEXT. On the first point, what you describe is a breach of WP:NPOV. We must not write the article from a Hungarian point of view or perspective. As far as other articles are concerned - see WP:OTHERCONTENTEXISTS. It's not relevant. (Btw, "Can I rewrite the Paris article that "Paris was occupied from Nazi Germany" and remove the liberation word?" That's not for me to say but if you think that's the case please go over to that article and raise it there.) On the second point, Ottoman Hungary was the result of the campaigns from 1521-1541. That's not saying that Ottoman Hungary existed before 1541. Do you see the difference? DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you every article can use the "liberation" word but expelling the invader Ottomans in Hungary is not allowed to use the same as other articles do? Why do you repeat 1521? Do you see the below sentence still in the lead is exactly the same info? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mislinked to what you should read - the link is WP:OTHERCONTENT. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious of the opinion of other users, @Borsoka @Norden1990 @Super Dromaeosaurus @Gyalu22 What do you think?
I listed little above several articles which title and text always say "liberation", But DeCausa claimed the existence of those articles does not matter (=massive double standard), and if from Hungary the foreign invader bloodshed made Ottomans was pushed out that is not allowed to call as "liberation" however that is the official term in Hungary and by Hungarian academic historiography. Do the modern reliable academic sources does not matter in Wiki? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CANVASS. Why did you ping those particular editors? If you want to attract other editors to the discussion it should be done with an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged just some editors as opinion as many other users do the same all the time in Wiki, those editors are editing many Hungarian related contents. I see that chapter in the WP Canvass: Appropriate notification OrionNimrod (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like WP:CANVASSING to me and it's not done "all the time" because of the impression of calling like minded editors to support you in a discussion. The proper way of attracting others to a discussion is to post neutral messages at relevant WikiProjects and noticeboards or have an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way why is it so important to you to use a word such as "liberation" which is value-laden in english when there are so many other neutral English words available? DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is official term in Hungary as the "liberation of Paris" "Liberation of France" from Nazis is the official term. As the "Liberation of Bulgaria" from Ottomans is the official as article titles show us. [20] [21] [22] (hundred of examples)
[23] After more than one hundred and fifty years almost the entire territory of Hungary was liberated from Ottoman rule and united under one sceptre.
[24][25][26][27][28][29] [30] [31](and many other Hungarians books quoted above)
I thought Wiki is based by reliable academic sources and we should follow them, but my biggest issue that I do not understand the double standard. Or do I have right to remove the liberation word in the other articles based on the rule what you mentioned? You said other articles are not relevant, I would be curious what other user would say in those articles if I would do that as you did in this case. What do you think? I bet it would be a big resistance. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it relevant what the "official term" (whatever that is) is in Hungary? We use scholarship from across the world and, in the case of specific words, English-language scholarship. Do you not see that using a articular country's perspective doesn't meet our WP:NPOV standards. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I linked English sources for the "liberation of Hungary from the Turkish rule" term. I quoted from the first one: [32] After more than one hundred and fifty years almost the entire territory of Hungary was liberated from Ottoman rule and united under one sceptre. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USA government website: [33] The medieval Kingdom of Hungary was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1526 and was liberated by the Austrian Empire in 1699. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in detail how what you propose meets our WP:NPOV requirement, particularly the section on Impartial tone. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see many academic sources use that term. I do not understand why liberation word would be not neutral in this case, the land is not debated between 2 parties (like many other lands where we should use neutral term). For example Paris belongs to France clearly, that is not a German land, if Germany occupied and if the Germans expelled then it means liberation, that is fact, not a POV, perhaps Germany was occupied if Paris was reconquested? No, the original French land was reconquested = liberated from the enemy occupation. As we can see many Wiki articles use that term as standard, and nobody think that usage violate that NPOV in those case. What is your opinion, do you think is proper to use "liberation of Paris" or not? 3 different countries were under Ottoman occupation: Liberation of Bulgaria, Ottoman Serbia, Greek War of Independence, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece was occupied by Ottomans as Hungary, and all articles use "they were liberated from the Ottomans" it is exactly same as in the case with Ottoman Hungary. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

After reading the previous discussion I can see there was a request by a user for citations in an unrelated discussion, so I am creating a separate topic for that.

The following claims are missing citations (to the raw data or data as percentages):

  • 20% of the territory being retained by the Ottoman state
  • 90% of the population being Protestant, mainly Calvinist at the end of the 16th century

77.76.87.224 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 January 2024[edit]

"Reconquested", last sentence 2nd paragraph of lead - not a word in English. Should be "reconquered". DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeCausa, I see thanks! OrionNimrod (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_Hungary&oldid=1209209392"