Talk:Unio Trium Nationum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Romanian historiography

This article largely reflects Romanian historiography, with the theme of suppression of the Romanians by the Hungarians.

Are you arguing that the Romanians were not suppressed ? There's a reason why it was called the Union of the Three Nations. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm objecting to a biased article written only from the Romanian point of view. The article as you wrote it, portrays the Union as purely ethnically-based - it wasn't. Not only the Romanians who were surpressed - the Hungarians were too (most Hungarians were serfs). At a simplistic level, it was the Transylvanian Estates who supressed the serfs (all of them, Romanian, Hungarian and Slav). Clearly the Romanian serfs suffered more than Hungarians Scott Moore 09:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Scott Moore, your explanations are from the Romanian Communist history books for school childrens. The communists insisted that the revolt was a JOINT revolt of the Romanian and Hungarian serfs, a prelude of the communist class internationalism. Stop this kind of propaganda ! It's obsolete and indecent. The revolt was in fact a Romanian serf's revolt agains the Apartheid style government of Transylvania. Unio Trium Nationum reinforced the Apartheid style regime, directed against the large Romanian population of Transylvania. In fact this style of government was indispensable for the domination of the small groups of Hungarians, Szeklers and Saxons over the Romanian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.154.130 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Serfs were excluded from politics throughout the Kingdom of Hungary, both before and after the peasants revolt of 1437,

The difference between the Hungarians and the Romanians was that there was no Romanian nobility. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware of this fact. But, I repeat, most of the Hungarians were serfs and not nobility. Scott Moore 09:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There was a Romanian Nobility in Transylvania

Many of them lost their Romanian identity through inter-marriages; however at the end at the 19th Century there were about eight thousand noble families in Transylvania who considered themselves Romanian. A three volume book was published in 1890s in Sibiu with details about these noble Romanian families; many of them could track their noble origins back to the XIII and XIV Centuries. At about the same time the brother of the catholic archbishop of Blaj, Ioan Mihaly of Apsa (a Romanian nobleman by birth himself) published a well known book about the Romanian nobility from Maramures (sure Maramures is not part of Transylvania proper). What is interesting about the Romaniam nobles of Maramures that many of them lost their wealth and became (free) peasants; despite this even today they are still aware of their noble origins and have their nobility papers, many of then 400-500 years old; they are extremely proud of their nobility. They live in a few 'noble' villages and tend not to mix or marry with the rest of the population. The traces of the Romanian nobility are everywhere in Transylvania. You can check the genealogy of every Hungarian Transylvanian family and you will find at least one or two Romanian noble ancestors (proof that inter-marriages among nobles of different ethnic backgrouds were quite often). After the union with the catholic church in 1700, many members of the upper greek-catholic clergy were Romanian noblemen; true, some of them became nobles because of their position in the church (like Inocentiu Klein) but many of them were noble by birth (Patachi, Ioan Bobb) Romanian communist historiography tried to oversimplify things for obvious reasons and came up with the absurd idea that there were no Romanian noblemen. Not only they existed but some of them prospered and managed to reach positions of power. The story of John Hunyadi, a modest Romenian nobleman who became a price and Regent of Hungary is known by everybody and proves that back in the XV Century being a Romanian nobleman in Transylvania or Hungary was not that bad. What sucked was being a serf (Romanian, Hungarian or Slav)

so it is simplistic to suggest that it was only the Unio Trium Natiorum that enforced the inferior position of the peasantry in Transylvania. Scott Moore 14:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

You deleted factual information without any reason. Please motivate each change. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more specific. "formed in 1438 by the Transylvanian Hungarian, the Saxon and Szekler nobility in order to keep the social status quo." This is incorrect (certainly how you have written it in English is incorrect). The pact was not formed only by the nobility as you have written. It was formed (as I wrote) by the three Transylvanian Estates: the nobility (largely but not entirely Hungarian), the burghers (largely but not entirely Saxons) and the Szeklers (who were not nobles, but had a special status within the Kingdom of Hungary). Also the pact was not formed only to keep the social status quo (although this was one of the reasons).

"It was formed after the Bobâlna revolt of 1437, during which peasants and serfs (mostly of Romanian ethnicity) revolted against the (largely Hungarian) nobility." Actually the revolt was led by a Hungarian (Anthony Budai Nagy) and five others (3 Hungarian peasants, 1 Romanian peasant, and a burgher from Timisoara).

This coalition specifically excluded Romanians from the polical and social life of Transylvania and although they made up the majority of the population, they were only considered a "tolerated" nation, this status being kept until after WWI.

"This coalition specifically excluded Romanians from the polical and social life of Transylvania" No, it specifically excluded the serfs. You seem to forget that most Hungarians were serfs. Scott Moore 09:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When did the "Unio Trium Nationum" end?

I added a line into this article, which has now been removed, saying that the Unio Trium Nationum statute was maintained up until the end of World War I. I took this from an (admittedly, unreferenced) comment in the corresponding Romanian Wikipedia article: "Ei erau consideraţi doar o naţiune "tolerată", acest statut fiind menţinut până după primul război mondial". I am not Romanian or Hungarian, I am from Britain, and I would be happy to know more about this situation and, specifically, when the Unio Trium Nationum ceased to be in operation. Can anybody provide a reference? Frankieparley 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you how long the union existed in legal terms. One year? 10 years? 100 years? I don't know. During the following centuries the three nations were often fighting against each other, too.
The term "three nations", however, survived for many centuries, basically meaning the privileged feudal estates invited by the actual King, Emperor, or the Prince of Transylvania, to participate in the Transylvanian Diet. After 1848, the abolishment of feudalism in Hungary and Transylvania, the term itself lost its meaning too. --KIDB 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)