Something I just noticed...
Mentions Vajk on the page as the first Christian king. I can't recall the details offhand, but I do recall one way back as having said Koppany won the civil war, with the long-term result being the survival (to a degree) of Hungarian Paganism, and an orientation towards the Byzantine/Greek Catholic, as opposed to Roman... Dalmatinac
- on conculture, i cannot find anything regarding Gyula or Koppány. but it is intriguing idea and definitely it is very IB-ish. Jan II. 07:24, 20 August 2007 (PDT)
Regarding the suggestion on the page for the currency... it doesn't make sense. It would be like suggesting the pound as a subdivision of the shilling. I would suggest that we go 1 korona = 50 krajcza'r, 1 forint = 25 krajcza'r, 1 krajcza'r = 2 fille'r. They really did have an insane system like this *here*, but the numbers were different; I don't know the details, except I think it was 100-based. Dalmatinac
- as you may read in the currency box, it was pure, and i even know that wrong, suggestion. i am quite happy with what you propose, so lets go 1 korona = 2 forint = 50 krajczár = 100 fillér. aren't the numbers too "decimal"? what about 1 korona = 2 forint = 60 krajczár = 120 fillér? ;) Jan II. 06:47, 20 August 2007 (PDT)
- I could go with either. Was kinda thinking, with my suggestion, it'd be 'odd' for foreigners, which is what I was shooting for... ;) Dalmatinac
Sum of previous discussion
And then there's the Kingdom of Hungary. After the Great War, Austria and Hungary were separated and supposedly both to be kingdoms, but no germanophone was acceptable to the Hungarian nationalists, and an authentically Hunnish royalty did not exist even as a historical memory, never mind being able to find actual representatives of it. So Hungary became, and remains, a kingdom without a king.
In the 1930s an Admiral assumed dictatorial powers. I don't know what the story is now.
Jan van Steenbergen compiled the following on Hungary. He also compiled a similar article on Slevania and Ruthenia, which follows: This is my compilation of all I could find about Hungary in IB (except for Ferko's last message). The number after the name of the person who wrote something refers to the message on Conculture. Perhaps it could be useful for Padraic's Reference page.
I have added a few comments and questions between [square brackets].
BEFORE THE FIRST GREAT WAR
Pavel Adamek, 5720:
>the peace treaty of Versailles ended the war with the conclusion that the >pre-war situation was restored
This means that the Czech lands were not united with Austria even before the war. I think that one of the most important differences from OTL was that Rudolf II did not catch syphilis and so he did not suffer periods of dementia and so he was not forced by his family to resign in 1611. His descendants were ruling Czech lands, while the descendants of his brother Matthias were ruling only Austria and Hungary.
Jan van Steenbergen, 7153:
> 1) How could be RTC divided as in *here* to Austro-Dalmatian Empire during > three division, once ADE, because having no connection to Hungary, had no > borders common with RTC... Even we assume, that BK would be part of ADE > (what it looks woukd be not), Hungary will never allow this, since it would > encircle it with territory of ADE, which became also very vulnerable > through this...
Good point. I had been under the assumption that Bohemia was a part of Austria then. Perhaps it was Hungary that took part in the partitions and took Galicia and Transkarpatia? On the other hand, regions being part of a country without being connected to it were nothing exceptional in those days. Belgium was a part of Austria, too!
Jan van Steenbergen, 7298:
Okay. It's not *that* important, since the R.T.C. has been partitioned only for two decades or so.
[note: As I can see now, Hungary is not an option neither, because it liberated itself from the Turks only in 1869. I will have to rework the partitionings idea]
The Hungarians, who had been under Turkish rule since the mid 17th century, successfully threw off the Turkish yoke in the latter half of 1869.
Jan Havlis' website of Bohemian Kingdom:
November 3rd 1527, János I. Szapolyai was approved by Hungarian High-Estates as a king of Hungary against Ferdinand I. of Habsburg with support of sultane Süleyman II. In the peace treaty of Varadin (February 24th 1538) between RTC, Hungary and Turkey it was stated again, later on also in 1547. János died 1548 and Hungary became Turkish banate till its liberation in 1869.
At the end of the first Balkan War the map of the region changed considerably. The Ottoman Empire was almost completely expelled from Europe, having held on only to Greece. The newly independent states of Hungary, Muntenia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Dalmatian Hercegovina emerged, and the Italian involvement in the war resulted in Albania becoming an Italian colony.
GREAT WAR I
Subsequently, in April 1914, Hungary, who were the first to throw the Turk off in 1869 declared war on Muntenia and by proxy Dalmatian Hercegovina and TAOA. Hungary and Austria were on fairly good terms before the war broke out and the Hungarians always had designs on Muntenian territory, so this general war provided an excellent excuse for the Hungarians to make a move.
So at the end of February 1914, Austria is at war with Dalmatian Hercegovina, Muntenia and TAOA. Subsequently, in April 1914, Hungary, who were the first to throw the Turk off in 1869 declared war on Muntenia and by Proxy Dalmatian Hercegovina and TAOA.
> This means that Hungary was not a part of Austria-Dalmatia, but was > its close ally, right?
As far as I can gather, Hungary was on reasonably good terms with Austria (note by the time GW1 came around, Austria dropped any and all pretences about a sual monarchy and was known simply as the Austrian Empire). Did they have a military treaty? Possibly. Though it was perhaps only because they wanted Muntenia that they joined with Austria in the fight.
Russia does not stay uninvolved. Seeing an opportunity, the Russians invade Hungary, to draw Hungarian attention away from Dalmatia, and open a second front for the Hungarians, who are forced to concentrate on the greater Russian threat, leaving them less able to deal with the Muntenians. This enables the Oltenians, at this point under Hungarian rule, to open an internal front and openly revolt against the Hungarian crown late 1915.
Moldova at this point is part of either Hungary or Ukraine. It the former, they probably revolt openly against the Hungarians around the same time as the Oltenians.
> Exactly. [...] I need a peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk to make all this > possible, even if the conditions are somewhat different than *here*.
Okay, so then definitely Oltenia rebelles against Hungary in late 1915 or early 1916.
> Do I understand correctly that Oltenia was part of Hungary? > It could be that Bessarabia/Moldova was given to Hungary in the Peace > of Brest-Litovsk, but then lost again after the war in the West had > been concluded.
Yes, Oltenia was part of Hungary, and I can also see Basarabia being given to the Hungarians at Brest. This would probably lead to the Moldovans rebelling against what they (probably correctly) see to be a weaker oppressor and win indepence.
[note: I think this is the best solution. Bessarabia/Moldova was part of czarist Russia before it was given to Hungary in Brest Litovsk. After that, they revolted against their new oppressor and gained independence when the peace treaty was undone]
TAOA, together with Dalmatia, quickly crush the Montenegrin after the Hungarians are forced to more or less withdraw from the southern front after the Oltenians rebel and the Russian invasion of Hungary, allowing the Dalmatians to send some units south (Muntenians cover for them against Austria. [...] Austria sues for peace in November 1917, reducing it to its present borders, at least in the south.
[note: have you figured out already which part of Italy played the role of TAOA?]
Dan Jones, 5578:
As Padraic said, the Great War ended in a stalemate. When both sides got tired of slaughtering their soldiers for very little gain, they met at Versailles to hammer out a peace-treaty, as the Allies (principally the FK, the SLC, France and the Two Italies) and the Germans and Austrians [Ferko- what side were Dalmatia and the Balkans on?] were facing political unrest at home. The Germans went back to their pre-war borders, so Alsace-Lorraine is still German. Also, the Allies didn't force Germany to pay reparations and *both* sides greed to limit the size of their forces.
Jan van Steenbergen, 5636:
This is where it starts to be interesting. *Here* the conditions of the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk were at least partly undone after Germany and Austro-Hungary lost the war after all. But in Ill Bethisad the War ended in a stale-mate, as a result of which the pre-war borders were restored. Now, we could assume that this were the case only in the west.
[note: replace "Austro-Hungary" with "Austria and Hungary" and everything should work out fine]
Jan van Steenbergen, 6130:
First of all, we all know that after the Great War the borders were restored along pre-war lines. After a few years, however, Austro-Hungary fell apart anyway. This is common knowledge. What we do not know, however, is into which countries it fell apart. My impression is that Austro-Hungary was not much more than Austria and Hungary (and perhaps Croatia), which would mean that for example the Czech lands were already independent before the war.
[note: forget it. Austro-Dalmatia fell apart, and Hungary lost the Romanian lands, Ruthenia, and Slevania]
I take great exception to this. [...] Here is the Dalmatian site where history can be found as I posted it way back when: www.geocities.com/dalmatesku/history.html
I don't want to rewrite everything thats on the site, but in short, there was no Austria-Hungary, it was Austria-Dalmatia.
Jan van Steenbergen, 6137:
The solution is quite simple, I believe: just replace "Austro-Hungary" by "Austria-Dalmatia" and most of the problems are solved.
Yes, I think that will do the trick. Let me study it and the old docs a bit and tell you what I find.
GREAT WAR II
Dan Jones, 5578:
[...] The Austro-Hungarian empire, due to internal problems, basically imploded and seizing on this weakness the rather belligerent Helvetia instigated a series of border conflicts. The collapse of Austro-Hungary instigated a period of minority unrest in Eastern Europe and separatist movements spread, which eventually precipitated the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.
[...] Due to the constant border conflicts with Helvetia, Austria allied herself with Germany again, and this soon became an Anschluss (the Third German Empire- the Kaiser had not been deposed). Both countries had still remained fairly strong after the Great War and together they were even stronger. The Anschluss thus neatly avoided the armament strictures of the Treaty of Versailles, which rather worried the rest of Europe. In 1935 the Anschluss declared war on Helvetia and had conquered it by early 1939.
[...] At this time the Baltic League was teetering on the brink of war with the Mahayanic Republic of Russia. Seeing this as an oppurtunity to regain territory in the east, after the conquest of Helvetia the Anschluss allied itself with Russia in 1939 and invaded Republic of the Two Crowns on the 1st of September 1939. The Republic's allies (the FK, France, Italy, Spain and the SLC [and Dalmatia?]) declared war on the "Grossartige Allianz" (Germany, Austria, Russia and Greece). The Second Great War began. By 1940 the Allianz had conquered the Baltic League and most of northern France. Dirigible bombers laid seige to the FK and most major cities suffered heavily in the Blitzkrieg aatacks. Attempts to cross the British Sea and invade the FK were thwarted by the efforts of the Arvorec navy.
[...] Due to only a token Allianz presence in the Baltic, the Baltic Resistance fought back against the Allianz and with Scandinavian aid, expelled them. This effectively cut Allianz forces in half, and so weakened, the Allies hit back. The FK and the SLC landed in Normandy with the Arvorec marines and the Breotu freedom fighters to the south of them. The Italians, with the aid of the Helvetian resistance, attacked Austria and the Dalmatians attacked Greece. In February 1945 the Allianz dropped an atom bomb on Lodz. However, Berlin was still taken in April by Allied troops from the Republic of the Two Crowns and the FK. The other Allianz surrendered.
I'm reading the Great Wars page. The first great war in the Balkans (according to the old history) had, basically, Austria (which included much of Dalmatia) against Dalmatian Hercegovina, Muntenia and Italy. At the time Serbia, Croatia and Hungary all belonged to Austria too. It was during this time too that Greece gained independence from Turkey. But by the time of GW2 we cannot speak of Dalmatia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Sanjak because they were formed into the Danubian Confederation at the end of GW1. At the end of GW1 the Balkan countries were the DC, Muntenia, Oltenia, Moldova, Greece, Hungary and Austria. Hungary may have remained part of Austria, but I don't really see how; during the 1st war Dalmatian Hercegovina, Italy and Muntenia would certainly have helped the Hungarians to gain independence from their common Austrian enemy.
[note: Hungary belonged to Austria too? That is not what you wrote in other messages]
Jan Havlis, msg. 9111:
Well, what I suggested, that Germany and Russia signed non-aggression pact, what let them freely start wars of their own. They committed them-selves to divide the Europe into Russian and German parts. I suggest these countries: Drank nach Reichtum: RTC, BK, Slevania, Danzig, Holstein-Pommern, Bat. Kingdom, Letzemberg, Jervaine, France, Scandinavian Realm... Allies: Hungary ?, Austria ?, Rumania ?
Romania did not exist at this time as one country, rather three separate ones. Oltenia at this point was basically a satellite of Hungary so they'd do whatever the Hungarians did. Muntenia was Allied, because Dalmatia was (though as part of the Danubian Confederation). Moldova probably tried to remain neutral, though they likely succumbed to Oltenian and Hungarian pressure to join with them.
Jan van Steenbergen, 8273:
One of the things that had been written about Russia before I took it up was that after its victory in the Second Great War (1949 or 1950) it ruled most of its East-European neighbours for fourty years. As I entered IB, I started to wonder which countries could be meant specifically. My conclusion: Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, the Crimea, Romania, Slevania, the RTC, and maybe Hungary. I haven't figured out yet what this Russian rule exactly looked like, but what is for certain is that these countries became de facto colonies for the next fourty years.
John Cowan, 8283:
Not the RTC: that was neutral during the (equivalent of) the Cold War.
The DC was strong both before and after the revolution, so I can't really see it having been occupied by Russia. Hungary possibly, and also quite possible that Muntenia, Oltenia and Moldova were too (perhaps the Russians merged the three into the Romanian Federation?)
Under SNOR rule:
I can understand this, though I'm certain there were more radical Hungarians who called for the retaking of Pecs.
> Maybe Broz foresaw the impending invasion and had Directorate 1 agents in > place in Hungary instigate the revolution? This would be an interesting > thing to examine in detail too, since *there* there was no Polish > disobediance in support of which Hungarian students and workers would > demonstrate in support of; perhaps it was an Estonian disobediance, and the > Hungarians demonstrated in support of their Uralic brothers, AVH (or > disguised Dir.1 agents) opened fire on them, then the police and most of > the army present joined the demonstrators in kicking off the revolution?
The non-Slavic countries received a more junta-like regime à la Pinochet without any clear ideology, but completely obedient to Russia. The SNOR must have tried this in the RTC too, but failed.
> I would think that after this any such plans would be discarded, as SNOR > would view the Hungarians and probably the other satellites too as > unreliable to engage in a military operation against the CSDS - even if > only Russian troops were used, they'd have to get through Hungary or the > Romanias first...
Okay, it makes sense. I wonder what this party running Hungary would have been called? I think there may have been some sort of slight ideological change in 1975 in Hungary, or perhaps just the old ruler died and was replaced by the new one, and he didn't like the roundel in use by the air force at the time, and that's why it was changed from the roundel to the chevron in 1975...
> > I think your radical Hungarians weren't any exception. > > Quite. I wonder if *there* anything came of it?
Tension, a lot of tension. But let them Hungarians better be careful, because the international community hasn't forgotten GW2 yet.
Hungary could have emerged into the most liberal of the countries under Russian domination (a bit like *here*). I wonder who became the new regent...
In most cases these are generally military dictatorships with a nice name. the only ones which you could really call a Republic are Hungary, Dalmatia and Bulgaria.
Padraic's Reference Page; John Cowan, 5815:
And then there's the Kingdom of Hungary. After the Great War, Austria and Hungary were separated and supposedly both to be kingdoms, but no germanophone was acceptable to the Hungarian nationalists, and an authentically Hunnish royalty did not exist even as a historical memory, never mind being able to find actual representatives of it. So Hungary became, and remains, a kingdom without a king. In the 1930s an Admiral assumed dictatorial powers. I don't know what the story is now.
I know that in the region, the Dalmatians get on well with the Romanians, Hungarians and Bulgarians, relations with Serbia, Greece and Slovakia are normal, cordial but cool with the Albanians, and the relations with Sanjak and Croatia are hostile.
[note: For "Slovakia" read "Slevania"]
Dalmatia has good relations with Hungary so securing Tokaji is not a problem.
BUDAPEST, Hungary (APD) Prime Minister Aurial Ybl, along with Hungarian President Istvan Eszterhazy and Muntenian Chancellor Gheorghe Raducioiu have ratified a framework for the establishment of a mutual defence treaty between the three countries. No specifics have been released yet, but Prime Minister Ybl said that this is an important step in bringing stability to the Balkans. The three leaders have jointly sent invitations to Bulgarian President Yordan Hristov, Croatian Premier Tomislav Stanicic and Slovak Prime Minister Lubomir Repa to attend the second round of talks.
[note: again, Slovakia = Slevania]
1. Magyar Királyság (Kingdom of Hungary) // Magyarország (Hungary) 2. 17.5 million 3. Budapest 4. Kolozsvár (Cluj), Pozsony (Bratislava), Miskolc, Szeged 5. Hungarian 6. Romanian, Slevanian, Serbian, Croatian, Austrian
So the countries are, in 2001, with capitals (name in brackets is name *here*, if different). After the capitals is a rough description of the borders. Names are those of *there*, followed in brackets by the name *here* if different.
Republic of Hungary: Budapest start at Sopron, N to Pozsony (Bratislava), E to Galanta, Lo"cse (Levice), Nagykertesz (Vel'ky Krtis), Ozd, Bodvamoldva (Moldava nad Bodvou), Satoraljaujhely, Zahony, SE to Szatmar (Satu Mare), Beszterce (Bistrita, RO), Csikszereda (Miercurea Ciuc), W to Szegesvar (Sighisoara), Gyulafehervar (Alba Iulia), Temesvar (Timisoara), Szeged, Baja, Szekszard, Nagykanizsa, Zalaegerszeg, back to Sopron.
If we're speaking of money. [...] Hungary 1 forint = 100 fillers
[NB: This is contrary to Ill Bethisad's nonmetric nature. The traditional system was:
2 poltura = 3 krajczar 60 krajczar (Austrian kreuzer) = 1 forint (gulden) (Austrian florin) 2 gulden = 1 convention (or species) thaler
The thaler was 28.06 g oz of .833 silver (.7514 troy oz fine silver).]
In the Balkans, Hungary, Romania (specifically Muntenia and Oltenia), Albania and Dalmatia have useful oil deposits, enough to meet regional demand.
I would add my vote the the proposal tag be removed, as this is largely internal to Hungary, and doesn't affect to much outside...thus, I think the tag can and should be removed. BoArthur 03:39, 23 Jun 2005 (PDT)
- Fine with me. It would of course be best if Jan II and Ferko went over this, too, but Ferko seems to be on hiatus. --IJzeren Jan 05:07, 23 Jun 2005 (PDT)
- I would prefere to let this be read by Ferko before proposal removement, since Ferko was in charge of Hungary and I took over only because its connection to BK history and Ferko's problems with net. Well, I put this history together mostly by my own, but Ferko still could have its own imaginations not similar to those of mine. Jan II. 15:12, 23 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- Of course, I agree. The thing is only: Ferko hás been here from time to time. Sporadically, but still. So the question is: if he hasn't spoken up, is it because he agrees, because he doesn't mind, or because he hasn't read it?
- And the next question: how long can we expect a proposal to remain a proposal? This article about Hungary has been taken straight from the old wiki, so it has been around pretty long. We have always made sure that everything in it is in accordance with the contents of Ferko's pages. That's about all that could be asked from us. For the rest: even if we remove the proposal status, that does not mean that everything in the article is engraved in stone, and that nothing can be changed anymore. Hungary is not really someone's exclusive property, and therefore should IMO be treated as a QAA thing rather than QSS.
- In general, I think stuff like the Proposal tag should be treated as handy tools, not as law-enforcing instruments. If there are too many proposals waiting to be reviewed, nobody will care to read them anymore, and the whole principle is gone. Perhaps in this case we can use the Conditional proposal tag, and add this page to Ferko's to-do-list. If he hasn't spoken up after, say, a month, then let's remove the tag altogether.
- Just my 2 dzienarzy. --IJzeren Jan 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (PDT)
- OK, let Ferko have a month to say his cons and then give Hungary status of QAA or QSS. Jan II. 15:12, 23 Jun 2005 (CEST)
Hungarian king or Palatine after 1815?
Does Napoleon introduced new king or did he let Palatine and Estates to administrate the land as it is today? May be, Miklós Horthy Nagybányai (*1868 - +1957) was the Palatine of Hungary during GW1 and GW2. Hungary looks like Gondor, but no Aragorn is on horizon ;) -- Jan II.
- Could be, indeed. Frankly, I haven't really thought of how much time Napoleon really spent on the Venedic throne either. Probably not too much. --IJzeren Jan 11:18, 21 November 2005 (PST)
- We must add this information to Napoleon's article, then. BoArthur
I like this quite well.
The SNORist party in Hungary: Magyar Népjóléti Párt (MNP; Hungarian Peoples' Welfare Party). I adapted this from a right-wing nationalistic party in Hungary *here*, Magyar Népjóléti Szövetség (a skinhead group, really). After the fall of SNOR, the MNP was reformed into the Magyar Igazság Pártja (MIP; Party of Hungarian Justice) [adapted from *here's* Magyar Igazság és Élet Pártja (P of H J and Life). Presently, their platform demands the immediate return of the Felvidék and the Hungarian-speaking parts of Croatia (including Eszék/Osijek!!) by any means necessary.
The other major parties in Hungary are the Demokratikus Ifjúsàg Pártja (DIP; Party of Democratic Youth), the Magyar Kisgazdák Pártja (MKP; Hungarian Smallholders' Party) and the Sörivók Pártja (SP; Beer-drinkers' Party).
The DIP was the first party formed after the fall of the MNP, initially comprised mainly of university students. In the post-fall elections, DIP became the official opposition party. Their platform is one of economic conservatism and social liberalism.
The MKP is the party which won the post-fall elections; socially and economically conservative.
The SP is where the Dalmatian Beer Drinkers' Party got its name. This was created mostly as a joke, and ran in the first elections after the fall of the MNP on a platform containing all manner of bizarre points, including the requirement that all factories provide free beer to their workers during working hours, and an immediate declaration of war Russia for 40 years of illegal occupation. Needless to say, they have not met with any success in election, apart from a few handfuls of protest votes.
King of Hungary
I'd just like to point out that Hungary was an elective monarchy (which is how the Habsburgs got it in the first place). It wasn't made hereditory until later. --Sikulu 5 Jan 2006, 13:58 (GMT)
- Are we somewhere in contradiction to this fact? Hungary is elective monarchy till today although with vacant throne... Jan II. 07:58, 5 January 2006 (PST)
- I was talking about Hungary over *here*. (It was made hereditory due to the pragmatic sanction, I think. I've definitely read that it becomes hereditory *here* somewhere.) Over *there*, I assume that it stays elective, therefore there's less of a problem (i.e., pick a Magyar noble as the king of Hungary the next time one dies). --Sikulu 5 Jan 2006, 13:59 (GMT)
What would folks' response be to a Movement demanding Transylvanian independence/union with Romania? Zahir 12:20, 21 April 2006 (PDT)
- Probably there would be some, but, however, the ammount of Romanians in Transylvania would be smaller than in the real world, as in the real world it increased greatly sinc ethe are became the part of Romania (also the deportations of Saxons happened after World War 2, the share of Hungarians was constantly decreasing and new Romanians moved into the territory). Even this given, some areas still retains a clear Hungarian majority, some others used to have Hungarian majority in the past. Transylvania would probably be quite an interetnic place, with still many Saxons, also Romas, and, of course, Hungarians and Romanians. Abdul-aziz 12:26, 21 April 2006 (PDT)
- The small numbers of Romanians there might try something like that, but they'd see about as much success as the Hungarians in Transylvania would *here*. Basically, Romanians in Transylvania are content with their lot, since they *are* doing pretty well. They are guaranteed personal autonomy by the constitution (i.e., they can be as Romanian as they want, excluding treason, of course), they have the same opportunities as any Hungarian. Social conditions in Hungary *there* are pretty similar to *here*, as far as (non-Roma) minorities are concerned. Transylvania is a clear majority Hungarian, though there are small pockets where there is a local Romanian majority. Dalmatinac
- They would probably just ask for a semi-autonomous region. However, given their small minority, they would probably just be told to calm down. Seth 2:27, 17 July 2006
- Well, *here*, the non-Roma minorities are pretty happy in Hungary with the personal autonomy guaranteed by law. Basically what that means, is that everyone has the right to be whatever nationality they want, whatever religion, etc. Territorial autonomy is too unworkable, given the dispersal of the minorities - there aren't many places that have a real majority of a minority, so what are you gonna do, have a semi-autonomous village? Dalmatinac
Some sugestions for hungarian flags
Below a small collection of sugestions for war flags and naval ensigns for *There's* Hungary. I based them in *Here's* designs. For SNORist period I used the turul COA as I sugested some time ago as hungarian national symbol between 1948-89 (see discussion on Snorist flags page.
--Pedromoderno 12:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think the turul is a perfect idea. Could it be put onto the tricolor, to match the existing flag? Benkarnell 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. In fact on Snorist flags' page I already made it.--Pedromoderno 13:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Could we distinguish the riverine and war ensigns a little more? From any distance, they're basically identical, especially fluttering in a not-very-stiff breeze. Maybe reverse the red and green on the war ensign? Or perhaps reverse the red and the white, so that you have the war ensign being a red flag with a green and white zigzag border (like the riverine ensign but in different colours). You'd probably then need to fimbriate the turul in white, but it could be done. - Geoff 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Sorry for the bad quality images.
--Pedromoderno 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like it! Now you can tell you're looking at the war flag rather than the riverine ensign. Of course, there might be reasons for having them practically identical (though aside from the rather non-explanatory "tradition"
I can't think what they might be). For myself, I like the red war flag. - Geoff 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just based these flags on *Here's* ones. Honestly I didn't care or thought for any explaination for being quite similar to each one. Even *Here's" flags of Hungary are quite identical during both Communist and nowadays' eras.--Pedromoderno 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having kind of fun inquiring about the religious demographics of Eastern Europe. Does anyone know anything about the state of religions in Hungary? If I recall correctly, Hungary was Ottoman a lot longer than in our world, and even in our world, the Ottomans made quite a headway into proselytizing to the Hungarians. I imagine that with the differences in this world, an indigenous Muslim populace might have been able to survive Hungarian independence. It's certainly something to think about. Misterxeight 17:18, 18 July 2016 (PDT)
- Jan II seems to be the one to ask. BoArthur 12:39, 19 July 2016 (PDT)
- From what I can remember, not so much Islam, but actually Protestantism. The Hungarian Reformed Churches *here* were no fans of the (Catholic) Hapsburgs, something which the Ottomans used very much to their advantage, and indeed Protestantism spread surprisingly far under the Ottomans. I think it got to the point where Ottoman Hungary was something like 90% Reformed even while Hapsburg Hungary remained solidly Catholic. So *there*, most of Hungary except for the northern little bit and probably the German/Roumanian populations would be Protestants. Due to the obvious links with the Orthodox Church in former Ottoman countries, you may want to look into Uniate Catholicism as well. There would probably be a few Muslims as well, but you'd probably have to ask either of the two Jans for that. (That would make dealing with refugees interesting...) Juan Martin Velez Linares 13:51, 22/4/2016 (EDT)
- Jan II seems to be the one to ask. BoArthur 12:39, 19 July 2016 (PDT)
I made a proposal for Hungary's demographics here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/conculture/conversations/messages/40601 Misterxeight 21:43, 26 July 2016 (PDT)