Talk:Upper Hungary

I have some questions about the new section:

1, It seems unprobable that Felvidék ever meant "all territories to the north of the settlement of the speaker". For example a man in Szeged never called Kecskemét "Felvidék" only because it is north from his town.

By coincidence, I came across a new big book specially dedicated to Magyars in Slovakia. The felvidék etc. topic is extensively treated there. And according to that book, this is what Hungarian professional texts were saying about felvidék in the 19th century. Actually, the term had no special meaning at that time.

2, Today nobody calls Carpathian Ruthenia Felvidék, the term was only used before the second world war when the territory was part of Czechoslovakia.

Today not, but between the world wars. It is explained in the text.

3, I have never heard that Felvidék means only the Hungarian speaking fringe of Slovakia. This territory hasn't got any name until now. Zello 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, this is a bit confusing. For example, there are web pages called felvidék where the term is used that way. Also, if you ask some Slovak Magyars they will confirm this (actually wrong) usage. And, the territories annexed under the Vienna Award were called Felvidék (although this could be interpreted as part of Felvidék - I do not know)...Juro 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think we should agree in the second and third question. Hungarians in Slovakia call themselves sometimes "felvidéki magyarok" but this means only that they live in the former Felvidék ie. Slovakia as a whole. In 1938 the term was used in this meaning too - the returned southern part of Felvidék. There isn't any separate name and identity for the Hungarian fringe, only microregions exist as Zitny ostrov, Hont etc.

I'm sure there is some mistake in the first question. I'm inclined to believe that villagers in the zone between the mountains and the lowlands used the term in the meaning you wrote but this should be some local speciality. It would be great if you'd check the source about the exact situation. Zello 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the book is quite expensive, so I will have to try to remember as much as I can when reading it in the store :) (which I will do in the course of the next few hours, if you insist, but I remember this information just because it is so surprising).Juro 16:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it seems a very interesting fact but I'm sure we need a more exact definition. Zello 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been there, I tried to remember whole sentence, but now that I am writing this I see that I failed to do so. Anyway, there were two quotes of Hungarian geographers, one says that both Fels... and Felvidék are "literary" terms and have no particular meaning and that the latter refers "from place to place" (what ever that means) to any region with respect to that place that is placed at a higher altitude than the given settlement. So, theoretically it could be used for any territory where there are mountains in Hungary or say to the territory to the north of Banská Bystrica. Of course there are also other quotes there saying that the meaning is something like "mountains in the north". Juro 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• This seems reasonable enough. Probably it was sometimes used as a general synonim for "felföld".

• The Middle Ages section is absolutely OK for me although I think this retrospective usage is not really wrong or inprecise. It's a convention among Hungarian historians as a generally accepted, "timeless" geographical term, similarly that we speak about Transdanubia in the Roman times.

Well, this is a general problem about language: it is historically inprecise, because it was not used at that time - that's the information the sentence is supposed to convey, butin terms of language, you can always say that any error is correct just because people make it frequently (this is by the way what I do not like about the English language - they just declare errors correct after some time, how ever big the errors might be and this is how the language evolves and this is why it is so chaotic compared to other languages; other languages have this too, but to a far lesser extent)

Slovak historians use the term for the middle ages too, and I am quite sure 90% of them do not even know that the term as such did not exist at that time (because they just do not car and no usual history book treats this name issue in such details).

• I only deleted Felső-Magyarország from the 17-20th centuries section because I think the first paragraph should concentrante on this term and the second only for Felvidék. I imagined an Englishman who never heard about this problems and reading our article goes crazy :) Zello 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But I think that since you changed "Upper Hungary" to the corresponding Magyar equivalents, there should be no confusion. Why should it be unclear know. I know it is hard for many people from the present-day USA and UK, but they have to concentrate a bit :))) Juro 05:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the current notion of the word "Felvidék", although it is true that it may raise nationalist sentiments in some Slovak politicians, it is widely used especially in Hungary as a historical and cultural term (just as Erdély or Délvidék, or Kárpátalja), without any nationalist undertone (see for example guidebooks, cultural associations, tour operators,etc.)81.182.209.183 17:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is question at Zello. From my experience, it is certainly not "widely" used today. Juro 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not widely used although it is true that not only extremists call Slovakia Felvidék (of course they call) but many people with a certain nostalgia about the Kingdom of Hungary. After all it is the name of a historical region so in a Hungarian point-of-view not a "taboo". I don't think that is always used in a derogatory way against Slovaks. Zello 23:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also incorrect that Slovaks were living in the region between the Tisza and the current Hungarian-Slovak border. In fact, the Hungarian population formed a compact majority along the Pozsony-Nyitra-Érsekújvár-Léva-Losonc-Kassa-Királyhelmec line, the borderline of which was correctly reflected in the Bartha-Hodza demarcation line which was nevertheless disregarded in the Trianon peace treaty.

No, as always, you are just lying. There were Slovak islands with up to 100% Slovak population there according to HUNGARIAN sources (not to mention Czechoslovak ones). But that is completely irrelevant for this article, but it only describes what they thought and what was or was not there. Juro 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

At that point I should second Juro. Language islands really existed and the article doesn't suggest that Czechoslovakian claims were rightfull. Zello 23:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to rephrase your version to a more NPOV variant because it is certainly unacceptable for non-Hungarians. Zello 17:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Language islands (or pockets) did exist but not between the Tisza and the current Hungarian-Slovak border. There were sparsely populated Slovak settlements in Békés county (mostly peasants). You would be well advised to study the ethnographic map of Kogutovicz Károly or the "carte rouge" of Pál Teleki (if you are familiar with them at all) before making such rush statements. 81.183.183.1 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear fascist vandal, what I said above holds. You would be well advised to look at simple census results, nothing more is necessary. Also you would be well advised to at least stick to one cover name. Juro 22:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling somebody fascist vandal only makes your argument weaker in this case. I thought that the anonym user's contributions were nationalistic and factually incorrect but this is not fascism. The question of Slovak minority in Northern Hungary is only a matter of facts. I accepted your version because I know some villages with Slovak population in Nógrád county. But why do you think that everybody knows such facts? Zello 18:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I call him fascist vandal not because of this page, but because he of his edits and vandalism in all other articles in this wikipedia. He is permanently changing his name, even within one discussion, but he can be clearly recognized by his highly primitive style. The "assume good faith" times of wikipedia are definitely over, it has become a place for all sorts of extremists and is so big now, that they can continue without being noticed by anybody (except by me and some others in this and some other cases). And I do not think that everybody knows such facts, I am just pointing out that he is deliberatly lying as he does in all his edits and comments in the wikipedia. Juro 20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't follow the events on other pages only this topic. Zello 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oberland

Is Oberland the same as Upper Hungary / Felvidék? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.58.165 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

no Oberland means upper land like the 2nd definition. Oberungarn means upper Hungary althought the two terms may have been used interchangeably, I dont know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.168.106 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Samofi's "reliable" sources

its writen by scholars. its reliable sources i) Your first source is a homemade webpage: "About The Author, Bill Tarkulich....Bill started his research...He is a 26-year veteran of the computer industry, with a present focus on Business Planning and Program Management. He hold an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering and a graduate degree in Business Administration." So you think that the original research made by the Slovak-American "Bill", worker of a computer industry, is a reliable scientific source? ii)Your second source, "The Federation of East European Family History Societies" is also not a scientific work written by experts (i.e The author of that work is a Genealogist). iii) Your third source is a blog my friend :)!--B@xter⁹ 10:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I will delete all article, coz there is not english neutral source from scholars. OK? He is genealogist, so he had university study - historical knowledge and he has PhD degree. In Wikipedia rules you can use it. So I can citate it. Its not worse as other sources used here (Samofi (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)) I found book, where its written: [1] So now I have relevant source as Wikipedia rules wish. ;) I hope you are satisfied now. (Samofi (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Slovakia, Slovensko and Upper Hungary

Territory of Upper Hungary was called Slovensko (Slovakia) by Slovaks. This name was used for a first time in the written form in 1405 (by the czech bookprinter (i have forgotten name) for description of the political situation in upper hungary - slovakia) - in 15th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=jrC1HFgjJxsC&pg=PA3&dq=%22Slovaks+called+their+country%22&hl=sk&ei=qB53TtjGFIbCswbzssi4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Slovaks%20called%20their%20country%22&f=false --Samofi (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It was Slovensko, NOT Slovakia.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Slovensko is Slovak name for Slovakia. So, what exactly is a problem? PANONIAN 08:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cassovia

Latin version was the "real" name of the town in 1617. For example: Bratislava in Civitates orbis terrarum. Kassa was used in 19. century officially. --Omen1229 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is quite nonsense. Latin was the administrative language, but it does not indicate that "Cassovia" was the real name of the town. Latin was used all over Europe, since it was the language of the church, the universities used it, etc. There were rules how to get Latinized versions of names, but only to be consistent with the language of the text. If you think that "Cassovia" was the real name of the city, then, please, edit articles talking about Paris, London or Milan when they also used Latin for administration and change their name to "Lutetia Parisiorum", "Londinium" and "Mediolanum". Koertefa (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So use name Košice and others Slovak names in English articles about Slovak medieval cities. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In that time Kassa / Košice was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (Royal Hungary) and Slovaks were minority in the population of the town. So why should we fake the history and pretend that the town had nothing to do with Hungarians? Koertefa (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Only in period of Magyarization (the era of manipulated census1 2) were Magyars majority. Before and after Magyarization were Slovaks majority. --Omen1229 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not talk about the 20th century, but the 17th! Please, provide your sources according to which the majority population of Kassa / Košice was Slovak in the 17th century. I am quite skeptical about that. And even it would have been the case (which was not), the town was still part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Koertefa (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We should cite demographics about Kassa, Kosice etc. from the 17th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Latin language was official in 17th century in the Kingdom of Hungary. Name Kassa was used only in 19. century, in period of Magyarization. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We have already discussed the usage of Latin names above, it is not appropriate. Koertefa (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The town has German majority in the mid 16th century, however in the 17th century, according to the Turkish traveler Evlia Cselebi, Kassa was inhabited by 'Hungarians, Germans, Upper Hungarians'. Moreover Kassa consisted of 72,5% Hungarians, 13,2% Germans, 14,3% Slovaks or of uncertain origin in 1650.[2]Fakirbakir (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User Omen1229 suggested (Talk:Ján_Kollár) that we should use the (experimental) naming convention proposed by user Elonka. I can agree with its spirit: a naming consensus should be reached, in order to avoid edit wars. Given the information provided by Fakirbakir and the guidelines proposed by user Elonka, we should use the name "Kassa (Košice)". Koertefa (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia vs Upper Hungary

• "For almost 1,000 years present-day territory of Slovakia was part of the multi-ethnic Hungarian Kingdom, known as Upper Hungary"

This statement is false or at least obscure because Upper Hungary is not synonym with Slovakia or territory of Slovakia. Upper Hungary meant the "Highlands" in present-day Ukraine and Slovakia without the lowland parts. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right, this should be made more precise. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The current version is dubious without neutral reliable source. Anyway, the Hungarian authors (which you cited by the way) Károly Kocsis and Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi claim: Upper Hungary included the counties of Pozsony, Nitra, Bars, Hont, Trencin, Turiec, Arva, Liptov, Zvolen, Gemer, Spsis, Abov, Turna, Saris and Zemplin.[3][4]>below Remarks: Upper Hungary = Territory of...--Omen1229 (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Governor of Upper Hungary"

I think we should create a new article for these royal officials. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think about "Felső-magyarországi főkapitányság"? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do, It would be more precisely "Military Governor of Upper Hungary" or "captain of Upper Hungary" however the simple "Governor of Upper Hungary" has more Google books hits. Anyway they were royal officials and they would deserve an article.[5].

I see, but "governor" was an informal name for this title, the official is főkapitány (maybe captain-general?). I think I think it would be simple create articles on the governorate (főkapitányság) itself, as military administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary. If I well remember, there were six főkapitányság and also four "noble governorates" for the noble insurrection. But Géza Pálffy knows it better. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I see you already have listed those. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course If we want to be more accurate we will have to create 6 articles simultaneously.

• Alsó-magyarországi
• Balaton-drávaközi
• Duna-balatonközi
• Felső-magyarországi
• Horvát
• Vend

Fakirbakir (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Géza Pálffy (Magyarország története ed. Ignác Romsics, p. 332.), the six divisions are the following: Horvát-Tengermellék, Szlavóniai or Vend, Kanizsai, Győri, Bányavidéki and Felső-magyarországi. The four "noble divisions": Horvát-szlavón, Dunántúli, Dunáninnei (Pozsonyból nézve), Felső-magyarországi. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

One of them has 2 names? "Also-magyarorszagi"[6] and "Banyavarosi" covers the same territory?! I am not sure... Fakirbakir (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This text can be useful, I have found it recently on the internet: "POZSONYI ORSZÁGGYŰLÉS: az országot hat kapitányságra osztotta (korábban négy volt). A Moson, Sopron, Veszprém, Vas, Zala és Somogy megyékből kialakított dunántúli kapitányság élére Nádasdy Tamás nádort állították, kinek egyúttal az országban tevékenykedő valamennyi bel- és külföldi fegyveres erőt is alárendelték. Még egy központi sereg felállítását is elhatározták. Csak éppen – mint már olyan sokszor – ezzel is elkéstek, és az odaadás, elszántság is hiányzott sokak szívéből. A hat főkapitányság a következő volt: Horvát, Szlavón, Kanizsai, Győri, Bányavidéki, Felső-Magyarországi. (A két új főkapitányság a Horvát és a Szlavón volt)A Történelmi Világatlasz 116. o. IV. térképe szerint, mely azonban az 1568-as állapotokat rögzíti a főkapitányságok nevei a következők. Horvát, Vend, Balaton-Drávaközi, Duna-Balaton közi, Bányavárosi és Felső-Magyarországi főkapitányság[9]. A Szlavónnak a Vend, a Kanizsainak a Balaton-Drávaközi, a Győrinek a Duna-Balaton közi, a Bányavidékinek a Bányavárosi feleltethető meg.A Horvát főkapitányság székhelye Károlyváros[10], a Vend főkapitányságé Varasd, a Balaton-Dráva közié Kanizsa, a Duna-Balaton közié Győr, a Bányavárosié (vagy Bányavidékié) Érsekújvár, és végül a Felső Magyarországié Kassa lett. A XVI-XVII. századi törökellenes küzdelmekben kétségtelenül hatalmas feladat hárult a főkapitányokra, akik a rájuk bízott területeken nemcsak a határvédelem irányítását látták el, de szükség esetén a rend biztosítása érdekében a karhatalmi erők felett is rendelkeztek." Fakirbakir (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a good source for this confusion. But what would be the title of the article? "Governorate of Upper Hungary" or "Captaincy of Bányavidék"? --Norden1990 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Governor of Upper Hungary" has 53 Google books hits and "Captain of Upper Hungary" has 31 hits, BUT "Governorate of Upper Hungary" has no hits as opposed to "Captaincy of Upper Hungary" ( only 2 hits). So, I can not choose. :) The odd-one-out is the "Also-magyarorszagi" captaincy. I have that MEK source about it. It is possible before 1606 ( the MEK source mentions the status quo of 1606) it was called Banyavidek, however later they changed the name. So, I think captaincy of Banyavidek is more precise. However "Also-magyarorszagi" may mean another territory....Fakirbakir (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[7] Another source. Don't forget, the capital was Pozsony during that time, so thus the territorial division arises from that point of view. Maybe Lower Hungary means the western part of today's Slovakia (Upper Hungary has different meaning during the Ottoman period). The Governorate of Upper Hungary's capital was Kassa, so it included the eastern part of today's Slovakia and Kárpátalja (?). I'm not sure. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quite good map.[8] "Governorate of Upper Hungary" meant the territories of north east Hungary (northeastern part of the Great Hungarian plain + present-day Carpathian Ruthenia) and only the eastern part of present-day Slovakia. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Anway this article also said (I have checked recently): That territory formed a separate military district (the "Captaincy of Upper Hungary" (1564–1686) headquartered in Kaschau/Kassa/Košice) within Royal Hungary. At that time, present-day western Slovakia, and sometimes also the remaining territories of Royal Hungary to the south of it, were called Lower Hungary (Hungarian: Alsó-Magyarország; German: Niederungarn; Slovak: Dolné Uhorsko). A few years ago I had to write a review about this work: PÁLFFY GÉZA: A CSÁSZÁRVÁROS VÉDELMÉBEN - A GYőRI FőKAPITÁNYSÁG TÖRTÉNETE 1526–1598. I think it is a quite good work, and also contain information about the other five "captaincies". --Norden1990 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So, If I am right we will have to create a "summary" page as "Captaincies of Kingdom of Hungary" moreover separate articles about the captaincies as Captaincy of Upper Hungary etc.., and perhaps a page about the title (Royal Governor of the Captaincy (title)). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Captaincies with German names

My proposal: Captaincy of Upper Hungary, Captaincy of Lower Hungary, Captaincy of Győr, Captaincy of Kanizsa, Captaincy of Slavonia and Captaincy of Croatia. I think a separate article for the title is unnecessary, unless we have a complete list of the office-holders. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have already started the summary page. I correct it in accordance with your proposal. Royal Captain-general of the captaincy would be better instead of "Royal governor of the Captaincy" in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will try to collect the office-holders. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

However I think the correct form is "Captaincies of the Kingdom of Hungary". --Norden1990 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Lower Hungary vs. Upper Hungary

Historically, in the 16th and 17th centuries, Lower Hungary meant the territory of northwest Hungary (present-day western Slovakia). The Mining towns also belonged to this region. From Lexicon of Pallas:

• "A török hódoltság korában «Felső-Magyarország» alatt a magyar király uralma alatt álló országrésznek a Tisza mellékén fekvő részét értették. Innen van, hogy a szintén felföldön fekvő Selmec, Beszterce stb. bányavárosokat «alsó-magyarországi»-aknak, a Szepes, Abauj, Borsod vmegyékben fekvőket «felső-magyarországiak»-nak nevezték. "

Upper Hungary only meant territories of present-day eastern Slovakia, Carpathian Ruthenia and the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I think that we should mention this in the "Historical usage" section. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)