Talk:Unio Trium Nationum

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)

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 priמce 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)

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)

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)

14 years later, the question still is essential and needs to be answered. Arminden (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead only deals with 15th century; UTN dominated the law of the land for another 400 years

Codified in 1438, fine, but until the feudal system of the 3 Estates was abolished (when? See paragraph above; the (retracted) Josephine reforms? The 1849 Revolution?), it dominated the law of the land. I guess the Hungarian, Saxon and Szekler Estates did change to some extent in 400 years or more of Reform, Ottoman occupation, Habsburg takeover and so forth. Thinking of the social changes in the towns & cities, if nothing else. New elites probably asked for the right of representation, or was the 1438 social structure so developed for its time, and the early 19th-century one as backward and stagnant, that nothing really needed to change?

"In this typical feudal estate parliament, the peasants (whether Hungarian, Saxon, Székely or Romanian in origin..." Again: probably sufficient for the 15th century, but what about the next 4 centuries? Other groups (Gypsies, Ruthenians & other Slavic groups, Jews, Armenians, Sathmar Swabians) aren't mentioned, but were present in large enough numbers.

"...the commoners were not considered to be members of these feudal "nations"." This was certainly the case with serfs, but what about free rural Saxons, who did have a voice at least within their own "nation"? Maybe a similar distinction has to be made for non-represented free Szekelys too? Arminden (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

These nations were not ethnic nations in modern terms. These were feudal nations of proprietary owner classes, the cenus of participants who can elect the envoys of the parliament based on their wealth / tax education. Nation in its medieval sense was a political category, group pf people/classes who were allowed to politically act in political forums like parliament, it had not direct ethnic sense of modern day nation term until the 18th century. See Natio Hungarica.

• Slavs existed in Transylvania until the high medieval era.

• Jews were not allowed to participate in political life in European countries (and Hungary) until the mid 19th century (1848 revolutions). In Kingdom of Romania and Russia , Jews were not allowed to partticipate in politics and in public administration, and they did not have citizenship in Kingdom of Romania until the interwar period or the Russian revolution in 1917. See in the history of Jews in Romania article.

• The number of Gypsy people were really marginal/small before the appear of state social support systems until the communist era, after that their numbers quickly multiplied / skyrocketed. Gypsies were generally considered as pariahs in all European societies before the post WW2 era. They had mobile/nomadic lifestyle until the late 19th century. The worst situtaion was in Kingdom of Romania, where even Gypsy slavery and Gypsy slave markets existed until 1865 (like blacks before the American civil war).

• With the exception of Austria, Western and Central European countries did not introduce the general suffrage before the end of WW1. So the suffrage rights at the parliamentary elections of European countries were restricted to wealthier social classes. The pre-ww1 era can be called as the "age of gentlemen's democracy"--Szudar (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)