WI: Hungary was a great power?

Alex Zetsu

We often consider Austria one of the great powers, but the Hapsburgs would have been a shadow of themselves by the 1700s if they didn't have Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia. Arguably Austria wasn't a great power outright. But then neither was Hungary. But the Hapsburgs (Habsburgs? The British spell it with a B?) were certainly very influential and it's hard to say it wasn't a great power like France of Russia, even if it did suffer some losses. So if Hungary and Croatia, and Bohemia are traditionall not considered great powers, but then arguably Austria isn't by itself, maybe we should say the 4 of them made a great power together?

But if we go by that standard, OTL Hungary met the condition already, even though it had its fall from grace.

Also Hungary doesn't strictly need to assimilate Croats or Poles. Medieval and early mdoern Bohemia was a mix of Mostly Czech speaking people but there were people who had German, Croatian, or Hungarian as their first language. As long the idea of the nation-state doesn't become popular among the peasant masses, whoever is on top doesn't need to waste resources trying to force assimilation. Rebellions in the Middle Ages and the early modern era were religious issues, some noble who claimed a throne, or the nobles and the crown together squeezing too much out of the peasants (like trying to raise taxes in the middle of a famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants'_War), not some notion that the locals are a different people who need their own state. So if nationalism is a yawn in TTL or even if it is a yawn in Hungary, there is no need for them to view minorities as a successionist time bomb because they're all people who are just trying their best to make a living. Everyone just wants prosperity and to live the good life. the mercantile class wants to continue the ques to make more money and the farmers just want full bellies
 

Zygmunt Stary

Alex Zetsu said:
But if we go by that standard, OTL Hungary met the condition already, even though it had its fall from grace.

Also Hungary doesn't strictly need to assimilate Croats or Poles. Medieval and early mdoern Bohemia was a mix of Mostly Czech speaking people but there were people who had German, Croatian, or Hungarian as their first language. As long the idea of the nation-state doesn't become popular among the peasant masses, whoever is on top doesn't need to waste resources trying to force assimilation. Rebellions in the Middle Ages and the early modern era were religious issues, some noble who claimed a throne, or the nobles and the crown together squeezing too much out of the peasants (like trying to raise taxes in the middle of a famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants'_War), not some notion that the locals are a different people who need their own state
Click to expand...

Well, the OP (at least I understood him that way), clearly wants Hungary to remain Great Power since modern times and issue of nationalism would be absolutely relevant in that. And it's not exactly true that Medieval/Early Modern people didn't notice differences between various ethnicities and languages - sure, it didn't play as significant role as in XIXth century and later, but there already was distinction "foreign vs our" and being perceived as "foreign" made king's rule harder in any given land.
And Polish nobility would be an obstacle to Hungary being Great Power even without taking language as issue, Louis I had shitton of problems thanks to them and had to waste a lot of resources on maintaining his presence on Polish throne and was hated by most of Polish elite anyways (Janko of Czarnków, prominent chronicler of that time explicitly calls him a tyrant and was complicit in the plot to steal crown from Casimir III's grave and give it to maternal grandson of Casimir III, Casimir, duke of Słupsk/Stolp). And I don't think you can write realistic TL in which nationalism is a yawn after St. Thomas and scholasticism, the elements which led to Enlightment (which in turn, led to nationalism) were already there.
 

Tibi088

Zygmunt Stary said:
Well, the OP (at least I understood him that way), clearly wants Hungary to remain Great Power since modern times and issue of nationalism would be absolutely relevant in that. And it's not exactly true that Medieval/Early Modern people didn't notice differences between various ethnicities and languages - sure, it didn't play as significant role as in XIXth century and later, but there already was distinction "foreign vs our" and being perceived as "foreign" made king's rule harder in any given land.
And Polish nobility would be an obstacle to Hungary being Great Power even without taking language as issue, Louis I had shitton of problems thanks to them and had to waste a lot of resources on maintaining his presence on Polish throne and was hated by most of Polish elite anyways (Janko of Czarnków, prominent chronicler of that time explicitly calls him a tyrant and was complicit in the plot to steal crown from Casimir III's grave and give it to maternal grandson of Casimir III, Casimir, duke of Słupsk/Stolp). And I don't think you can write realistic TL in which nationalism is a yawn after St. Thomas and scholasticism, the elements which led to Enlightment (which in turn, led to nationalism) were already there.
Click to expand...
The problem with a polish-hungarian union would be that I think both side would be way too closely matched - meaning that whenever either side decides that they had enough of the union it would be disbanded. Further they have no natural joint enemy. Hungaries main concern / rival would be the Balkans or the Habsburgs (Austria), and if it decides to concentrate on the north than Poland itself which is the worst for this scenario, while for Poland this would be Russia, Prussia / Teutons and maybe Sweden. Hungary and Poland had a very clear natural border in the Carpathian mountains that made conquering and holding each others territory very difficult which was a very good setting for long term good, friendly and neighbourly relation. But thats the most and best you can expect from them.

If you want to gain a much stronger Hungary than as I stated earlier butterfly most importantly the Ottomans and best case also the mongol invasion of Hungary. That gives a lot of extra people to the country, solves a lot of - though far from all - problems when / if nationalism comes knocking, and maybe if the hungarian settlement of Moldavia continues thats even beyond the Carpathians.

If you want to set up a GP Empire of Hungary the base of it has to be that. Add in some economic growth besides the extra populace, avoid the polish path of the power of the king becoming non existent, and I think Hungary would be able to conquer and hold for a long time the northern Balkans (meaning Bosnia, Serbia and the romanian pricipalities) and maybe parts of Austria (see the territorial conquests of Matthias: he held Lower Austria, Moravia, Silesia and 1 or 2 other austrian provinces when he died). But in this case you would have an OTL Habsburg Empire like state that would be much harder to maintain in the long run (because if the Empire is not based on the german parts than Germany will want them).
 

Zygmunt Stary

Tibi088 said:
I think both side would be way too closely matched
Click to expand...
Actually, no. If that was the case (if Elbow-High's Poland was anything even close in power to Angevin Hungary) Polish-Hungarian union would never happen as that was a result of Casimir III needing Louis's help to conquer Red Ruthenia and later on to maintain it.
If Poland and Hungary were evenly matched he won't need it and would most likely nominate his grandson, Casimir of Słupsk/Stolp as heir since that was his preference which wasn't realized only because Casimir feared Louis and died unexpectedly.
 

Fehérvári

The problem with a continued Hungarian-Polish union is not exactly about size difference (although it plays a role). The main issue is the Carpathians, since they make travel between the two countries more problematic and allow each side to be more autonomous from each other. This not only discourages mingling between the Polish and Hungarian nobilities (and thus prevents assimilation), but it also means that a monarch based in Buda could react to any Polish separatism only in a delayed manner, which would make it difficult to enforce a continued personal union. Despite this, a common enemy could be able to hold these countries together. An Austrian-Bohemian union could do the trick.

Still, Hungary would be better off without a Polish union. From a Hungarian perspective, an independent, friendly/neutral Poland would be the best, since it would leave the Northern frontier secure and save the country from needless entanglements.
 

Zygmunt Stary

Fehérvári said:
The problem with a continued Hungarian-Polish union is not exactly about size difference (although it plays a role). The main issue is the Carpathians, since they make travel between the two countries more problematic and allow each side to be more autonomous from each other. This not only discourages mingling between the Polish and Hungarian nobilities (and thus prevents assimilation), but it also means that a monarch based in Buda could react to any Polish separatism only in a delayed manner, which would make it difficult to enforce a continued personal union. Despite this, a common enemy could be able to hold these countries together. An Austrian-Bohemian union could do the trick.

Still, Hungary would be better off without a Polish union. From a Hungarian perspective, an independent, friendly/neutral Poland would be the best, since it would leave the Northern frontier secure and save the country from needless entanglements.
Click to expand...

I don't really know about Carpathians bit, Polish-Hungarian noble marriages were at one point common and nobles freely travelled between these two countries - Stibor of Stiboricz, a Pole was for example on of biggest Hungarian magnates during Sigismund of Luxembourg's rule owing to Sig's favor. And that's was when Poland was not even in PU with Hungary.
 

Fehérvári

Zygmunt Stary said:
I don't really know about Carpathians bit, Polish-Hungarian noble marriages were at one point common and nobles freely travelled between these two countries - Stibor of Stiboricz, a Pole was for example on of biggest Hungarian magnates during Sigismund of Luxembourg's rule owing to Sig's favor. And that's was when Poland was not even in PU with Hungary.
Click to expand...
Aristocrats are gonna aristocrat. I was talking about the common and lesser nobility (ofwhich Poland and Hungary both had lots). I could still be wrong, but the survival of a distinct Croatian noble class IOTL could be seen as proof of this.
 

Zygmunt Stary

Fehérvári said:
Aristocrats are gonna aristocrat. I was talking about the common and lesser nobility (ofwhich Poland and Hungary both had lots). I could still be wrong, but the survival of a distinct Croatian noble class IOTL could be seen as proof of this.
Click to expand...

Well, surely it (survival of Croatian noble class) couldn't be because of Carpathians, because there was none between Hungary and Croatia. And I wouldn't say that Poland proper (without Mazovia) had lots of it, most of lesser nobility in Poland lived in Mazovia (which in XIVth century was only the vassal).
 

Fehérvári

Zygmunt Stary said:
Well, surely it (survival of Croatian noble class) couldn't be because of Carpathians, because there was none between Hungary and Croatia. And I wouldn't say that Poland proper (without Mazovia) had lots of it, most of lesser nobility in Poland lived in Mazovia (which in XIVth century was only the vassal).
Click to expand...
Between Croats and Hungarians were the Dinaric Alps. Historical Slavonia didn't have such barriers, so the nobility there became more mixed.
 

Marko

Indeed. People often forget that majority of medieval Croatia was a highland fastness. Hungarian kings had difficulties projecting power in that direction which is why a layered system of autonomy and influence developed in OTL. Poland has no such features.
 

Marko

Croatia in and around the year 1500 was in a really bad spot to provide comparable population numbers.

What are you trying to compare? Then I can provide you with more appropriate estimates.
 

Zygmunt Stary

Jan Olbracht said:
16th
Click to expand...

Ah Ok, but anyways at the beginning of Sigismund of Luxembourg's reign, Hungary brough 300k florins to it's monarch, Poland brough 90k florins, how could Poland survive if not for strategic depth given by Lithuania which allowed Poland to make tight grip on Ruthenia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top