Anything else just isn't Enterprise enough.

Hungary

Orban to Juncker:

"In contrast to some major member states of the EU, Hungary has no colonial past. These major member states have become immigrant countries, due to the obligations stemming from their colonial legacy. Hungary, on the other hamd, is not an immigrant country, does not want to become an immigrant country, and cannot accept being forced to change this. The interpretation of solidarity described in your letter is in essence the transformation of Hungary into an immigrant country, against the will of the Hungarian citizens. In my view, this is not solidarity, this is violence."

http://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-says-ecj-ruling-on-refugee-quotas-has-raped-eu-law-asylum-seekers-italy-greece-relocation-scheme/
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 6:56am
He has a point.
Permalink Shylock 
September 8th, 2017 8:21am
Austro-Hungary map at 1910: https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4620799/austria_hungary.png

11 current nations inside: Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Romanians, Italians.

Sort of an European Union only everybody wanted out instead of in.
Permalink Io 
September 8th, 2017 9:30am
Why did Hungary get appended?
Permalink Shylock 
September 8th, 2017 10:33am
> Why did Hungary get appended?

I don't understand that question.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 10:35am
Why did the Austrian Empire decide to make Hungary seemingly equal? AFAIK it was strictly an Austrian government.
Permalink Shylock 
September 8th, 2017 10:37am
Marriage.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 10:39am
> Why did the Austrian Empire decide to make Hungary seemingly equal? AFAIK it was strictly an Austrian government.

(marriage is correct)

The Austria-Hungary Empire was a personal union, like England and Scotland, but with many more constituting parts.

Many parts were never part of the Austrian house, but of the Hungarian house, and transferring them to Austria would have all kinds of local problems, for instance with religion.

The Austrians have always been aggressively Catholic, while the Hungarians have tolerated the Orthodox Church. So those orthodox people could live with being 'Hungarian', but wouldn't like to be 'Austrian'.

At least that is my picture of the situation.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 11:10am
They act independently within the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 11:34am
The Habsburg monarchy was very powerful via many marriages.


However they started here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_Castle


The best way to obtain properties/land is via marriage!
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 11:37am
Hungary has no colonial past? Lol.
Permalink Yoda 
September 8th, 2017 11:43am
I agree that it's a compelling argument to say that if one was never an empire that expanded by colonizing others, perhaps they have no obligation to take in refugees or other displaced persons or even just job seekers from their former colonialist holdings.

However, Yoda correctly points out that it wasn't called the Austro-Hungarian EMPIRE for nothing, and the argument that they've never engaged in colonialism is laugh out loud hilarious. But also pathetic that such a prominent Hungarian LITERALLY DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about his own country's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
Permalink Reality Check 
September 8th, 2017 12:11pm
Hungary was not a colonial power.

They added other countries to their realm, but those were no colonies, but full parts of their state.

Like Lorraine, that was conquered by France from the German Empire cannot be called a colony, but it is a province of France.

And Groningen was conquered by the Republic in 1594, but it was not a colony, but a full province with a place in the Parliament.

Similarly the parts of the Hungarian Empire had their own respected place in the Empire, had their own councils of nobles (I don't know about the other estates over there).

A colony has a completely different status. It is fully ruled by members of the owner state, and the inhabitants of the colony have no status as full citizens.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 12:20pm
And I guess "colony" refers to "overseas", not the neighbor territory you incorporate by war or diplomacy.
Permalink Io 
September 8th, 2017 12:24pm
Of course there are other meanings of 'colony', and the original meaning is a planting of people from the mother state who acquire a piece of land far away and start their own state there.

But 'colony' in the 19th century meaning of Colonialism was a completely different thing: that included a large native population that was ruled by people who were sent from the homeland for the purpose of administering the colony.

It is from such colonies that all the immigrants come to Europe.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 12:24pm
The parts of the Hungarian Empire were not such colonies.

The ethnic Hungarians may have been overrepresented in the administration, and Hungarian nobility may have acquired various domains in the other parts, but these were more the result of nepotism and historical domination than of the legal structure of that administration.

And there were members from the other parts of the Empire involved in administration from the lowest to the highest level. In theory they all contributed to the sovereignty of the Empire.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 12:31pm
Yes, but it wasn't the Austro-Silesian Empire, or the Austro-Slovak Empire. Unless I missed something, I didn't see why Hungary was privileged over other provinces.

I'm curious because my father's father was Hungarian.
Permalink Shylock 
September 8th, 2017 1:05pm
Did you look at the size, Shylock? Hungary is as big as Austria. Austrians aren't going to be able to oppress Hungarians.

A Hungarian king married an Austrian princess. When he died he passed the Hungarian throne to his son. When his son died, he had no heir. Hungary is passed to the next Austrian king. In that sense, Hungary is equal and co-rules the Austria-Hungary empire.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 1:14pm
Other provinces were just taken over by forces long ago.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 1:15pm
> Unless I missed something, I didn't see why Hungary was privileged over other provinces.

Because before the big marriage, in which the dynasties of Austria and Hungary were merged, the East was the Kingdom of Hungary, which was itself kind of an Empire.

Like the Austrian Habsburgs used to rule over the Southern Netherlands, who had strong local government of its own, the Hungarian King ruled over many Slavic and Romanian countries that had their own local administrations.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 1:15pm
But the sovereign was Hungarian, so Hungarian elite had a historical position of power, like European Americans have a historical position of power over other ethnicities.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 1:18pm
I find that Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania are fascinating. No one knows their ethnicity/origin. It is all mixed up if you go back to 5th century or pre-Roman time.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 1:29pm
Hungarians were a powerful and feared kingdom. Romanians lost Transylvania to them and Moldovan and Wallachian kings were vassals, until another powerful protector arised: the Ottomans.

But they were always a menace.
Permalink Send private email Io 
September 8th, 2017 1:32pm
Hungary has never won a war.
Permalink Shylock 
September 8th, 2017 1:53pm
> Hungary has never won a war.

Bullshit.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 2:05pm
Hungarians conquered Hungary in the second half of the first millennium.

They were a menace to the Frankish Empire, and it took a lot of fighting for the Franks to stabilize the border between the German Empire and the Hungarian Kingdom.

The German Emperor ended up in Austria, and they were tense neighbours and rivals of the Hungarian King until they allied against the Ottoman Empire.

The Hungarians have stood their place over the centuries, with many wars with victories and defeats, but never decisive enough to remove them from the map.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 2:12pm
When the Frisians were conquered by the Franks, they revolted together with the Saxons in the 780's.

When they were defeated for the second time, in the 790's, they were punished by Charlemagne.

They lost the right of their inheritance, so property of dying people would fall to the Kingdom.

And they had to fight in the war against the Hungarians. Frisians were enlisted as the crews of riverboats on the Danube during Charlemagne's campaign.

When Charlemagne's son and grand-sons started feuding over the inheritance, in the 820's, the Frisians were pardoned, and they only had to contribute to the security in their homelands, which meant defence against the Normans. They organized in 'koggen' (cogs), units of men manning a ship.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 2:21pm
Amazing isn't it? The Frisians, the Franks, the Saxons, and the Normans are same kind of people!!! It is like civil war if you think about it. Sure they live in different areas but that is the same like the Yankees and Southerners in the US.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 2:25pm
You are going to say that they speak different languages. They all came out of that southern part of Denmark!
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 2:26pm
Norway and Denmark can claim them as their people.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 2:26pm
You forget the English.

The English were identical to the Frisians and they came together as Anglians from Southern Denmark.

These Danes had warring for Kingship their national hobby.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 2:30pm
But the Franks came from the Netherlands and the Rhineland, and the Saxons came from Northern Germany, not from Denmark, at least not since the start of the current era.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 2:33pm
Yes. if you go far back they all came from Denmark. So we can sue Denmark now for starting all wars? ;-)
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 2:34pm
The Celts are very different then. I say the Celts seem to be non-aggressor group!
Permalink WorldRoverski 
September 8th, 2017 2:39pm
Romans didn't come from Denmark, Celts didn't come from Denmark.

And they have their own heritage of war and conquest as part of Europe, even though their elites have been temporarily dominated by invaders.

And the old Middle Eastern states have created the ideal of Empire, starting with the Assyrians, whose model of Empire through a large state funded, well equipped professional army lives on today.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 2:40pm
Celts had their own waves of aggression.

They plundered Rome, later Greece, founded a mercenary state in Turkey.

They formed the mercenary army of Hannibal who razed Italy for a decade.

But many of their deeds are out of reach of written history.

But the classical literate world collided with them in Spain, France, Italy, and the Balkans.
Permalink Lotti Fuehscheim 
September 8th, 2017 2:45pm
Normans ran Sicily for quite a wee while. And <cough> England.

Uncouth froggified Vikings with bloody big cutlery.
Permalink trollop 
September 9th, 2017 5:40am
Aren't Normans still running England?
Permalink Yoda 
September 9th, 2017 7:50am
Normans, I don't know but Normals definitely are not :P
Permalink Send private email Io 
September 9th, 2017 9:12am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: September, 2017 Other topics: September, 2017 Recent topics Recent topics