I'd like to know more about Poland and Hungary. These are two western countries no one really talk about.
I know Hungary was pretty strong under a capetian king they ruled over a huge part of Europe. I know they managed to win impressive victories about the Turks then got invaded.
As for Poland, I know almost nothing. The Jagiellonian dynasty did seem to have a lot of prestige and they fought againt the Teutonic order...other than that, I don't know what happened.
So I'd like to know more about what these two countries were doing in the middle ages, when they seemed pretty powerful.
Hungarian is the most unique language in the world. It's not similar to languages around it at all. I think it had something to do with the Mongols scattering their peoples or something. Also same with Finnish
Poland and Hungary were bros among nations. Their monarchs intermarried constantly, used to have personal union twice, only one territorial conflict throughout 600 years of sharing a border. Poles and Hungarians also helped eachother during their uprisings when their countries ceased to exist.
All of Europe is "Western", with China, Japan and such being "Eastern".
Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present
it covers the histories of poland, hungary and czechia in 210 pages. Its a good primer.
Alright, I've been researching into Hungary (+ their relations with the Hapsburg's and Bohemia) so I can fill you in on some of it's history.
Hungary has it's origins in the Magyar invasion in 900, which destroyed the Greater Moravian hegemony over the area composed of what is now Hungary,Austria, Croatia, Czech republic, Slovakia. The Magyars would subjugate the Slavic people in the region and raid the richer lands west of the Carpathian basin.
After Otto The Great crushed them in 955, they turned to farming and settled down permanently in the Carpathian basin (now also including Romania and Serbia). At this point Christianity begun to spread in the area, and by 1000 one Magyar chieftain married a Bavarian princess and was baptized as Stephen, and went about creating the Hungarian Kingdom.
He was Canonized in 1033 for his work endowing churchmen and forming a royal council as well as expanding into Croatia and Transylvania basically filling out the natural borders of the region.
The Tartar (mongol) invasion depopulated the region and it was then open to immigration (more like colonization) from Germans mostly whom worked to cut down Forrest and work the mines setting up market towns.
in 1222, the "Golden Bull" was signed thus confirming the feudal privileges of the Hungarian nobility.
In 1301 the Arpad Dynasty became extinct throwing Hungary into chaos, after 7 years of instability King Charles Robert of the Italian branch of the Anjou's (Angevin )was elected to the throne, restoring order to the anarchy.
His son Louis the Great, saw a large increase in Hungary's prestige and saw the creation of the banner men style army.
The reigns of both kings saw the economy bolstered, with large towns designed for trading and mining becoming common and prosperous.
Louis was the one who established Buda as the capitol of Hungary, as well as defeating Dalmatia, Serbia, Wallachia, and Moldavia.
In 1370 he was elected King of Poland, he passed away without an heir unfortunately .
Sigismund of the Luxembrug dynasty was elected king in 1387 but due to his other posessions (namely Bohemia in the middle of the Hussite Rebellion) took his attentions elsewhere.
During this period Hungary declined, and the OTtomans destroyed Serbia and Bulgaria in 1396, a crusade was called but it was crushed at Nicopolis.
Sigismund hoped to link Bohemia and Hungary in a personal union but his death left them particularly weak as the Ottomans approached.
They thus turned to the Polish king Vladislav for protection who after triumphing through a civil war in 1442, was then killed in the infamous battle of Varna in 1444 leaving Hungary leaderless yet again.
The Hungarians turned to the last powerful noble in the region Hunyadi, he acted as regent within Hungary and continued the war to some success, defeating Mehmet the Conqueror outside of Belgrade in 1456 to such a degree that Ottoman expansion was stemmed for 65 years whilst Mehmet and his successors had to consolidate their territory.
Hunyadi passed 2 years later, and Hungary got to elect its own ruler for the last time in 400 years. They elected Matthias, whom introduced the printing press as well as the infamous Black Army, he was successful in war against both Austria and Bohemia during his reign. On his death Vladyslav Jagiellon was elected King of both Hungary and Bohemia alongside his already united realm of Poland-Lithuania in 1491.
They failed to co-ordinate the policies of the different regions, and they signed a pact of friendship with the Hapsburg family, returning all the gains Bohemia and Hungary had made against Austria.
The Dozsa Rebellion erupted due to harsh conditions for the peasants which is still commemorated by Hungarians to this day.
in 1515 the Jagiellon signed a compact with the Hapsburg family just as the Ottomans resumed expansion in Europe under Suleiman.
Louis II Jagiellon led some 25,000 against the Ottomans without waiting for reinforcements at the battle of Mohacs in 1526 in what is commonly known as the Graveyard of the Hungarian Nation state.
>In 1370 he was elected King of Poland, he passed away without an heir unfortunately .
Male heir, that is. Both Hungarian and Polish nobles agreed to put his daughters (I only remember Jadwiga, which reigned in Poland, by name) on the thrones as Kings, for a number of benefits.
With no king to protect them and the Family Compact in place, Ferdinand I pressed his claim on Hungary and Bohemia. The Hungarians resisted this by electing another noble and hastily crowning him, leading to a three way conflict between the Turks, Austrians and Hungarians leading to the partition of the region into Transylvania (whom played both sides in order to survive), Royal Hungary (Austrian owned lands) and the Turkish Hungary which consisted of the richest parts of Hungary.
From this point onwards, Hungary became a hotbed for warfare, uneasy stalemates and constant raiding. In order to pay for the defense of Hungary, it was alleged that 95% of Bohemia (a rather rich state at the time)'s income was funnelled into Hungary by the Hapsburg family for 100 years.
Hungary was struck by the Protestant reformation just the same as Central Europe was, becoming a mixing pot of Lutherans, Calvinists, Orthodoxy, Catholics and Muslims.
Interestingly enough on a side note, Transylvania was the first European country to adopt religious freedom due to these tensions.
For the most part of Hungary's history after this point is completely bound to the Hapsburgs and Ottomans (with minor Transylvania meddling).
It's an extremely interesting place, though my knowledge about it is almost entirely as a context to the Hapsburg's history.
There were Slavic tribes around Vistula region and the most notable was Polabian tribe which would conquer most of rivals. (unfortunately the slavs near modern Berlin got assimilated into HRE), then accept Christianity in 966 thus creating Piast dynasty which would last until 1370.
The polish nation would rarely be kingdom before 1370. In fact, there were very few kings. It would often wage wars with neighbors, repelling the Germans or invading its eastern Kievian rus..
One king that spent a lot of his life fighting his brother for crown decided that he doesn't want to see his kids do the same and decided to shatter the realm into small duchies after his death in 1187. The true unification took a lot of time and effort but because of that we lost Silesia and Pomerania, also during that time the dukes used everything they could to find some advantage, one of them called Konrad ruled Mazovia which bordered realm of Prussians pagan who would harass his realm. He decided that it would be clever idea to invite teutonic knights that were recently expelled from Hungary to fight Prussians and back seeing as they were noble knights he thought it would be easy to use them to carve additional land (but that turned out to be a disastrous decision) .
Teutons defeated Prussians but were pretty quick to ignore the agreement they had and decided to create independent realm, they took over some polish cities (most notably Gdańsk, which was massacred).
Casimir the great was last Piast and he was pretty based, he saved Poland from black death, he invited Jews and gave them rights, he strengthened polish position around region by marrying pagan Lithuanian princess and avoided conflicts with Teutonic order seeing as Poland is not ready to engage them yet.
After Casimir death, the Hungarian king took over Poland and asked poles to make his daughter a queen (technically she was a king... ) His daughter would marry pagan king of Lithuania in order to have chance against Teutons.
>There were Slavic tribes around Vistula region and the most notable was Polabian tribe which would conquer most of rivals.
Polabians were the ones who were located in modern day Germany, including Rugia.
Poland would break the union anyway. There was growing discontent with Louis in Poland with the feeling that the king was selling Polish interests for the interest of his own family and Hungary.
In 1370 Poland was getting ready for a war to regain Silesia from Bohemia. Louis made rapprochement with Bohemia.
Teutons were Poland's deadly enemy and took Poland's access to the sea. Louis completely ignored them.
Brandenburg restarted their undeclared war of seizing border towns and castles. Louis didn't give a flying fuck.
Oh, he also detached Red Ruthenia from Poland and gave it to Hungary.
It was his luck that he died, otherwise he would see himself losing the Polish throne.
The Polish-Lithuanian alliance annihilated teutonic knights in 1410 along with its grand master and they would never recover after that. Some decades later a lot of their land got annexed and the rest of it would be known as duchy of prussia which would be Polish vassal.
The Jagiellon dynasty would rule Poland-lithuania until 1572.
After 1572 the situation drastically changed, the nobles decided to create elective monarchy where any noble across europe would become king of Poland-lithuania but to ensure that they would never elect tyrant they created special laws that king had to abide, limiting his power to the point where he would do nothing without support of sejm (gathering of nobles, basically a parliament). The polish nobles had so many privilages that they could make a legal rebellion against the elected king, again, to ensure that no tyrant would rule over them.
The first elected king was french Henri of Valois, by coincidence the poles were terrified by religious intolerance (saint bartholomew massacre). So they also created a law called golden liberty where every noble would never be persecuted no matter what his religion is.
Henri hated ruling in Poland, he escape from it during the night after spending a lot of money for feasts and parties so they had to choose a new king. This time they chosen well.
Stephan Bathory of Transylvania (basically a Hungarian duchy) would modernize polish army, wage successful wars against Muscovy which would humiliate the first Tsar Ivan the terrible.
The next king came, Zygmunt Vasa from Swedish dynasty, but his mother was Polish so it was a big surprise to poles when he spoke to them in their own language.
During his reign some random polish nobles took interest in Russia which had was plagued by chaos, famines and anarchy. Some great generals and nobles managed to capture Moscow and wanted to put Zygmunt son into Russian throne under promise that he would convert to Orthodoxy.
Jadwiga married to Lithunian duke Jagiełło who became Polish king and started both the Jagiellonian dynasty and Polish-Lithunian union.
Her sister Mary married Sigismund and inherited Hungary.
But the Zygmunt fucked up royally and halfway to Moscow he decided to break the deal as he wanted to rule over Russia himself, it angered the russians who would kick the poles out of moscow. This destroyed any possibility of peace between two nations. He also approved of Prussia being ruled by dynasty from Brandenburg which was another terrible mistake that would be reminded during deluge that happened 50 years later. It was complete disaster, where most of land would be occupied by either swedes, russians or cossacks. Poland miraculously endured and destroyed Swedish army but not without losses. It was completely pillaged. Those loses were comparable to what we had to endure during world war 2. The Prussia also regained its independence, PLC would never recover after that.
The rest of pre partition poland is basically long 120 years of stagnation, being paralyzed by liberum veto (any noble could veto any reform) the nobles would be bribed by three rising empires that were ruled by absolute kings and it was partitioned out of its land twice, first by Prussia, Austria and Russia, then only by Prussia/Russia because Austria was busy with war with France. Before third partition, we made a major uprising with some American revolution veterans that came back to Poland, along with reformed system and first European constitution but that wasn't enough to compete with three powers that seen it as danger, no one wanted their population to by inspired by liberal ideas (like with France). I would write more about Napoleonic wars and regained independence but im too tired. Hopefully it wasn't too boring.
>Grand Moravia is a made up thing.
nope, Moravia existed, there are archeological evidence of cities and wealthy elites. It wasn't stable state by modern definition, but few early medieval realms were.
if you're really interested i recommend gods playground, it should be easily accessible book for foreigners about Poland.
Too bad it was far longer in Polish hands. It's easy t count.
995-1308 - Poland
1308-1454 - Teutons
1454-1793 - Poland, later Poland-Lithuania
1793 - 1806 - Prussia
1806-1813 - Free city
1813-1920 - Prussia, later Germany.
1920-1939 - Free city
1939-1945 - Germany
1945-today - Poland
Even counting Teutons and two spells of Free city as "German" time (gross oversimplification), that's less than 300 years vs. well over 700 years of "Polish" time.
Ergo, it's Gdansk.
>Can you really call the Pomeranian's under Polish control.
The so called West Pomerania usually had self rule, as it was a vassal state, often under different sovereigns. Gdańsk wasn't a part of it though.
Fair point Anon. But those 300 years of "German time" you talk about was predominantly in modern history as opposed to Poland's more middle age ownership. The only reason it was ceded to Poland was to curb German power.
>no one really talks about
>I don't know what happened
Idk man, Poland pre-assfucking seemed pretty based to me.
Basically it was like this.
~966-1138 - Normal things, Christianity, wars, conquest, pagan rebellion and concluded with partitions
1138-1320 - Partitions. But not like those from the 18th century. Basically 4 branches of the ruling dynasty fighting for crown and unification. More or less.
1320-1569 - Poland becomes relevant, fights with Teutonic Order, allies themselves with Hungary then Lithuania. Casimir the Great and later Jagiellonian dynasty. 16th century is the golden age.
17th century - The Silver age. Most impressive battles and military leaders so it was really glorious but the Commonwealth was pretty much done for by the end of it.
18th century - The stinking age. Everything sucked. War of the Polish succession, Russian control etc. Finally partitions.
19th century - Glorious Napoleonic Wars, uprisings, the great emigration etc.
20th century - For the only time Poles show some political genius and become independent. Later kick some commie ass, become retarded, are abandoned by allies and the rest is history. But Poland during WWII is an interesting story in itself. Including the campaign in 1939. Lots of cool stories.
It was the USA before the USA. That's why revolutionaries like Kościuszko and Pułaski were so eager to help. Teddy Roosevelt loved the Trilogy by Henryk Sienkiewicz about the Polish 17th century. Later Wilson who was adored by Poles (meh) like a political rock star and the first official mourning day was announced after his death.
Thanks, this is an interesting thread.
So it seems both Poland had an elective monarchy and Hungarian nobles voted for many of their kings.
It's usually a sign of a weak central government, did Poland and Hungary both failed to centralize ?
Well personal unions are not unusual. But during the time of elective monarchy (starting with 1573) it started a pretty ugly practice of foreign powers fighting for influence in Poland. Except for the last one, elective monarch were not puppets but in some cases they would've been far more successful if they had more power. English kings were also limited but it's easier when you're an island.
they are, we share some words and pronounciation
finnish sounds like us a bit, its easy to read
the invasion began far earlier, we successfully marketinged it as an invasion but we were actually escaping from another tribe on the steppes
ravaged europe for a few hundred years then indeed after a few defeats we settled
the first king was Géza, who took up christianity
after his death a short civil war erupted between stephen(son of Géza) and his relative who wished to turn back to our steppe ways
the mongol invasion stopped at the Danube, depopulation was caused by turks
Hunyadi's are sort of a hero family, with John being the white knight and famous turk beater and his son Matthias who is probably the most popular king, had ambitions for becoming emperor of the HRE but his early (still unexplained) death stopped it
inheritence became a problem right after stephen's death, his only son died in a hunting accident (somehow our ppl do that when in line of power)
kings had difficulties reigning the nobility in
option 1 was giving them more privileges, essentially sinking the kingdom into oligarchy
option 2 was full scale war against them as charles robert did
both are costy and hinders the ability to achieve goals or progress
> It was the USA before the USA.
Indeed, it’s rarely mentioned that the Founding Fathers were greatly influenced by the “democracy of nobles” that was Poland and adopted and transplanted that philosophy into what would become the U.S.A.
The fundamental difference being that in Poland power was derived from noble status while in the U.S., wealth became the defining metric.
> Poland and Hungary both failed to centralize ?
I’m not sufficiently hip to Hungarian history but Poland’s failure in to adapt to the changing international scene and create a strong central government (as her neighbors were all doing) was the central reason for Poland’s eventual fall.
The Polish nobility essentially cut their own throats (and that of the nation’s) by demanding ever greater and broader powers and rights at the expense of the nation as a whole and in the end, this “Golden Liberty” the nobility were so hung up on, would be brutally stripped away by Germans, Russians and Austrians who partitioned the country out from under their feet…
The one big difference, and perhaps the conceit that will ruin this country, is that the US is not surrounded by predatory state. Poland's republic paid the price for the utter shit show it became. But as it stands in America now, our political system is facing gridlock which, in my opinion, are getting to the proportions of the Polish system but there is no reforming impetus in the name of national security. While /pol/ may disagree with me, the bane of Poland was the inability of the central government to impose its will on the magnates so as to raise taxes, maintain a standing army and ensure the rule of law. The right wing in our country mirrors the Polish "golden liberty" in this regard, except our magnates are the corporations and wallstreet bankers and the szlachta/gentry that they coopted are equivalent to the tea party and low information voters
The American nobility that form the corporate-government elite are behaving in the same way as the Polish nobility; “looking out for #1” at the expense of the nation and damn the consequences.
exactly. the polish experience is a spooky cautionary tale.
Coming to think of it though, Trump's emphasis on national security and economic nationalism may be just what the doctor prescribes. However, I am skeptical of him because he may well kowtow to special interests himself, considering that his tax plan outlines very low taxes for our rich.
well thats the thing. is he doing it for the prestige of it? to impress other elites or just to be known in the history books? what are his ideas for governing? if he's so egocentric he may well have his own ideas for governing that don't take other rich people into account. you're probably right though
> Hungarian and Finnish are related
This is still highly disputed. Only the grammar is tangibly related, there are very very few words that are vaguely similar. They're only lumped together because they're both Asian languages that somehow ended up in Europe.
Hungarian has more loanwords from Turkic languages than is has words similar to Finnish. Its grammar is so far removed from European languages that it has even been suggested as a relative of Japanese at points in time.
Just as linguists on the 19th and 20th centuries incorrectly filed it under a "Turanic" language group you'll find that the Finno-ugric language group will become just as archaic.
who will claim ownership of the white house and march into the US?
the pacific ocean? canada?
you can argue its more sophisticated nowadays but globalisation is the child if the USA, eat what you cooked
Moreover, here's the flag/crest of Pulaski's homeland. Coincidence? I think not.
I only learned about the whole Capet-Anjou thing a week ago, and that both had a queen around the 1340s when Capetian France said that women couldn't inherit the French throne.
I also never knew how the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth came into existence but then I learned one of those Queens married a pagan duke.
Pronounciation is very similar, grammar being similar while nothing else is similar to the two languages is a pretty big thing. Our most ancient words, plants, animals, family relations etc. , the stuff that was important in hunter-gatherer societies are quite similar, too. And the Finno-ugric theory pretty much fits the reality of the Turkish linguistic and cultural influence, too. After descending from the Ural and separating from Finnic peoples, Magyars spent centuries, if not millenia on the steppes with Turkic tribes, hence the loanwords etc. However, no other plausible theory explains the similarities between Finnish and Hungarian that I know of. The Turanic theory surely doesn't, and the similarities of Finnish/Estonian and Hungarian, despite being on the 2 opposite ends of the continent with nothing like themselves in between, are completely undeniable.
Paraguay is western. Philipines are not.
The difference between occidentals and orientals is difficult to describe using reason, but everyone can naturally just feel it. Even butthurt slavs who desperately want to be western.
they are not 'western european' but they are 'western' by virtually any reasonable metric you could come up with today - whether it is christian tradition, liberal democratic free market societies, high degree of development etc.
Western = naturally developed economy
Eastern = natural development broken by political or colonial force
If you look under the thin veil of their looks and religion, the way Czechs, Poles and the like are think is completely alien to westerners.
so germany is not western?
>the way Czechs, Poles and the like are think is completely alien to westerners.
lel mate have you even been to europe? austria/hungary/czechems/southern germany is so alike in culture it's not even pretty, sure two of them are cheaper and shittier but that's forty years of uncle joe and his buddies to you
Czechs maybe, to some degree.
Poles have nothing to do with Germans, totally different people.
Don't even try to claim otherwise, because it's retarded.
It has nothing to do with communism, communism only maintained the divide.
Poles and Germans were never alike.
Guys! i am hungarian, and as for the language issue. Hungarian does belong to finno-ugric languages, because few thousand years ago we lived with finno-ugric groups, but that doesnt mean we are finno-ugric, and our language is not similar to estonian or finnish,neither any other languages. and i have to suggest that no one should tell a hungarian that our language is like finnish, because thats one of the things which makes a hungarian angry. im happy about this question, that someoe is interested in our history.
Love you Poland, we are brothers!
>Stephan Bathory of Transylvania (basically a Hungarian duchy) would modernize polish army, wage successful wars against Muscovy which would humiliate the first Tsar Ivan the terrible.
Whom Poles used to call Ivan the Coward and laugh at him because even chicken better defends its hencoop when falcon attacks.
Poland is fake nation created by west to steal lands from Austrian,German and Russian empires. It would continue to wage wars against other nations and genocide germans on lands they stole from germany until nazis liberated them
When king Matyas centralised Hungary, it became one of the most powerful kingdoms in Europe in the 15th century.
So yes, you are right, both before and after his rule decentralation was a big problem, and it lead to the fall of the kingdom in 1526.