Talk:Rákóczi's War of Independence

Untitled

I didn't want to mess it up, but I have a couple of remarks:

• It was fought by a group of noblemen, wealthy and high-ranking progressives who wanted to put an end to the inequality of power relations, led by Francis II Rákóczi (II. Rákóczi Ferenc in Hungarian).
  • Well, calling them progressives is quite awkward. Technically they were staunch conservatives, who fought for maintaining their traditional rights and privileges. And we shouldn't forget the soldiers, who had enough of high taxes and forced billeting; who lost their positions as végvári vitézs; who felt oppressed by the catholic court.
• social orders, and to ensure the economical and social development of the country.
  • I suggest using "privileges" instead of social orders. On the other hand I bet they didn't care a bit about economic and social development ;) - this war didn't really have such aspects.
• and its constitution was kept, even though it was only a formality.
  • That's a bit rough this way. The so called "constitution" (i.e. compilation of different laws from the middle ages) didn't become more a formality than it had used to be before.

--Mathae 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Any mistakes in the first paragraph are most likely my fault, since I still don't speak Hungarian well at all and translating is a real struggle for me. :( K. Lásztocska 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Any other mistakes are my fault since I'm not really an expert on this time period... always disliked wars and this stuff. an article on culture, literature whatever would have been better for this competition. – Alensha ^talk 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699. The treaty ceded the Kingdom of Hungary to the Habsburg Empire, then ruled by Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor.
  • This is nonsense. The treaty didn't cede anything to the Habsburg Empire, it only meant that the rest of the Kingdom of Hungary was given back to the legitimate kings of Hungary. It's true they were the heads of the Habsburg Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, Austria and Bohemia, but this doesn't have anything to do with the treaty of Karlowitz.
• Hungary lost its suzerainty, was forced to accept the Habsburg emperors as rulers, and has already lost Transylvania in 1690, when the Diploma Leopoldinum made it a Habsburg territory independent from Hungary.
  • Er... false. First of all, Hungary "lost" Transylvania de facto in or around 1526, de iure in 1570, when in the treaty os Speyer the Habsburg kings of Hungary recognized János Zsigmond as a prince. So the Diploma Leopoldinum only preserved this separation. Second, Hungary only lost its suzerainity between 1673-1678 and 1850-1867, but not after the defeat of the Ottomans. --Mathae 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Find citations. Everything I have read so far supports what is already in the article. ONLY change something like that if you have a reliable source to cite (these history articles can be real nightmares sometimes.) K. Lásztocska 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't, because I don't have the necessary books at home, and I don't have time for going to libraries. Furthermore in my opinion these facts are quite evident. Please list those statements which you think must have citations. And I would also like to ask you to provide your reliable, up-to-date sources, please :) --Mathae 12:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Romanians assigned us a history article on purpose! Dammit, Biruitorul, you know us too well! :) Anyway, I'll look into it later today--awfully busy in the real world today, I'm afraid...K. Lásztocska 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Habsburg rule in Hungary

The Habsburg rule in the Kingdom of Hungary started in 1526, not in 1699. The Kingdom of Hungary (short form: Hungary) was never the part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans conquered big territories, but Hungary still existed, and it was part of the Habsburg Empire, so the beginning of the article was bad. Toroko (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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) 01:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Rákóczi's War for Independence → Rákóczi's War of Independence – "Rákóczi's War of Independence" : 165 Google Books hits vs "Rákóczi's War for Independence" 2 Google Books hits

Rákóczi "War of Independence": 3,090 hits vs Rákóczi "War for Independence": 189 hitsMdaaaa (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the google books hits, "Rákóczi's War of Independence" may indeed be a better title for the article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Yep, looks like a clear case of WP:UCN to me. Jenks24 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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.