peacefully maybe, but harmonious - certainly not. croatians absolutely hated hungarian nationalist attempts to impose hungarian language and identity onto the croatian population, and hated the hungarian bans (viceroys of croatia) who imposed hungarian absolutism in croatia. fun fact - croatia was never part of hungary proper, it was n a personal union so was connected only via the king, and had it's own diet. it's safe to say that modern history of croatia was history of resisting attemps of assimilation.

@@bluemoondiadochi you are using harsh wording. There were issues at rare times like those, but not hate. Best to argue against your claims is stuff like this kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ic-cibuiyczKp2g.html our nobles and soldiers of the time dying to the last when they did not need to, defending Hungarians, and the other way around.

@@GameWatcher545 no, i think it's pretty accurate, at least for period in 19th century. what your video is referencing is part of war of christian and muslim world, but this in itself doesnt proof of anything in sense of interpopular harmony in kingdom of hungary (of which kindgom of croatia was a part). nowdays Hungary is a nation-state, but historically it had slovaks, romanians, croatiand etc and there were repeated serious attempts of hungarization. then there was after 1867 being drafted in hungarian home guard, having hungarian anthem imposed, "which noone can understand and which reminds us of debrezen sausages" (M. Krleža, Croatian god Mars), not to mention imposition of absolutisms and dictature by hungarian integrationalists. all this caused resentment among the ordinary serf population of Croatia (which was, to be honest, very primitive, backward and base). 19th century croatian literature across the board is brim full with opposition fo hungarization (and germanization) brought by neoabsolutist conservative bans. No, i fully argue there was, well, if not hate, then widespread resentment in large parts of the population. compared to THAT, relationships with serbs were pure Woodstock.

@@bluemoondiadochi I am pretty sure it was the liberals who wanted Magyarisation and all that while Conservatives, the Kaiser supported it, did the opposite. This is the difference between Hungary and Austria. I know that many in Hungary wanted equal rights but it was on the whole opposed to, by the oligarchs there, might say something about the revolution itself. From what I gather the Kaisers, including Kaiser Karl, wanted a Third Slavic Kingdom including Croatia, Bosnia and the rest. Is this right? Any English language links?

@@johnnotrealname8168 Yes, you should be correct that it was liberals who wanted it. you know, the idealistic 19th century poet types... while the conservatives didnt want it, simply because Habsburgs preferred their nations to stay divided and hating each other - better than to unite against them! Well, as far as Franz Joseph is concerned, i dont know if he wanted a tripartite monarchy (he would have prefered absolutism if anything) but with all the mess he made, he's lucky to have gotten a duel monarchy. as for Franz Ferdinand, yes, HE wanted a re-arrangement of Monarchy by elevating Slavs to equal footing as germans and hungarians. Thing is, Hungarians would have probably resisted in arms to this (because it would have dismembered "their" kingdom), and it would have been necessary to invite Germans to quell the rebellion in Hungarian part of the monarchy. As for Emperor Karl, i think for him this was a matter of survival. But, he was never well prepared for the role. Links on english - no, sorry, i dont have. I doubt there even exist unbiased well informed books on english - anglos are notoriously incapable of understanding eastern europe.

You’re right. Some very intelligent and clear-sighted Hungarian noblemen proposed equality for all minority languages and nationalities in the new Hungarian kingdom. Unfortunately they were overshadowed by others that believed in a political union.

The United States of Greater Austria was proposed by Aurel Popovici and other Romanian intellectuals from Transylvania.

In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in the world. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868). The situation of minorities in Hungary were muchmore better than in contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK. See the multi-national UK: The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. The contemporary IRish question and tensions are well documented. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England. See the multiethnic France: In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools ,minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!! The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories) Just see the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe: Magyarization was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they loudly and proudly covered up their minorities. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.

@@johnhorocker7470 Much interesting point. Though I'm not sure comparing Serbian, Romanian languages to Picard, Lorrain or Normand dialects is the most conclusive way here (Jeanne d'Arc in the 14th century was born and raised in Lorraine). Also in France, most of the so called ''elite'' (eg. entrepreneurs journalists churchmen lawmen...) in the 19th century did spoke French. I'm more with you when you recall the total intolerance (adding "jacobinisme centralisateur" in the case of the french Third Republic) of the men in power in Europe in the 19th century. Am glad to learn that Hungarians leaders were more advanced on that point.

@@johnhorocker7470 Yeah, that is all great, but it was to late. If that Law of Nationality was proclaimed in 1848. Serbs, Croats, Slovaks and Romanians would maybe join revolution on Hungarian side. Still, it is history and we, people of southeast Europe, can learn more from this for better future.

From the times I’ve visited Hungary it didn’t really play a role among the younger generation. You’re absolutely right about not clinking glasses of beer has been an unwritten rule for over a century, and in some circles I have noticed it still is.

We don't know if it was actually true or the people who owned Vineyards spread a rumor to make money.

Miklós Szabó how would that make them money? They aren’t drinking more wine they just aren’t clinking their glasses

@@goldenfiberwheat238 It gives a bad name to the biggest competitor of wine, namely beer.

​@@miklosszabo4551 ...I think you drink too much of at least one. Since every War has a winner and a loser, and a celebration afterwards, certain ethics should be implemented by intelligent people. The Generals who burn towns, rape women, and aquire children, create enemies that his son must Fight. The same thing goes for Celebrating another person's defeat, or Death by your order, in this case. Violence is a tricky solution to people's problems. Being a dick about it afterwards tells a lot about those people in power. Many Traditions are born from the Abuse of Power. Hungarians couldn't report to their people, in writing, that Austrians acted like this. They would be the next ones shot. Do you remember playing team sports as a kid? The two messiest parts were Choosing Teams and the Moment one Team realized they were going to lose. That's why children (pro athletes included) are encouraged to shake hands AFTER the competition is over. Both teach us that hurt feelings invite guns to the party. One leaves a bad taste in our mouths for another group of people, which is akin to pressing repeat on whatever plays your music. War is the same song played over and over and over and over. Dumb, huh?

You're absolutely right. Occasionally I mess up a little as English isn't my native language. It's one of the fun things about this channel: I get to practice English both in speaking and writing. (Probably why my Hungarian pronunciation is decent, I 'speak' (can converse) in several languages). Yeah it's a very fascinating period! I'm going to focus a bit more on Central/Eastern Europe for my next series!

​@HoH You are not a native speaker? Really? Bro, your English is really good, nice job, and video, I really like Hungarian history. This video is a gold mine. Thanks for the video.

One of the reason Russia and Austrian relations suffered was because after Russia helped them with the Hungarians the Austrians didn't help them in the Crimean War. Before this period the Russians and Austrians had good relations as they were allied together against Prussia in the Silesian Wars and France in the Napoleonic Wars.

The Crimean war (only 5-7 years after this) is the reason for that. Russia sent troops to aid Austria in suppressing the Hungarians. As a thanks, Austria abandoned Russia, quite literally betrayed the Czar, by not coming to their aid during the Crimean war. It’s fascinating stuff and there’s a short Audible book (3-4h) on the subject.

Stefan Milo But as you can see, Russian imperialism in East-Central Europe was by no means limited to the post-ww2 Soviet occupation. Russian troops had been involved in campaigns against the French in WESTERN Europe during the Napoleonic era. The Russians had taken a share of Poland in 1795, and continued to hold it forcibly through the revolutions of 1830 and 1863. They had an eye constantly toward Constantinople. I think that it was very much in keeping with their foreign policy then, as in more recent times, to make known their interest in the region. Then there was the conservative ideological bent shared by the emperors of Prussia, Austria, and Russia----------------------a common abhorrence of liberal reform, let alone revolution. But if any of them felt that feudal hierarchy had special Divine approval, they cannot have understood God's role in history from a Biblical perspective-------------for He is the One Who makes anew, Who has power to exalt and to abase, and He is no man's debtor.

@@HoH The tzar needed money , and a large loan was promised and given by the western bankers if the Hungarian revolution was crushed. Just follow the money

Beszélek egy kicsit Magyarul 😉 Not that good though, but I try to get the accent right. I'm glad you liked the video!

But the pronunciation wasn't very good haha.

@@decem_sagittae Dude it was the best pronunciation in the playlist

@@gergoturan4033 yeah bro, it was way better than most KZfaq videos which don't even try 😅

It could be a little more comprehensive.

What an incredibly detailed reply. As I was reading about the Hungarian Revolution I bumped into several paragraphs in different books about the will among Hungarians to grant rights to different nationalities. Unfortunately, it would complicate a video such as this one to a degree that I doubt I would even understand my own script. I think you've given a great description and summary of the situation. You're right about several of the Arad generals being of another nationality as well. Thanks for the time to write this out, it was an incredibly fascinating read.

@@HoH Thank you very much. Hopefully next year I will start, with an English officer, to translate into English Róbert Hermann's great book about the military history of the 1848-1849 Hungarian tevolution. So I studied a little the history of that revolution. I made also some English Wikipedia articles about some battles (the battle of Hatvan, battle of Tápióbicske, battle of Isaszeg, first battle of Vác, battle of Nagysalló, First battle of Komárom, the Siege of Buda, battle of Csorna, Battle of Pered, Battle of Győr, and started the Second battle of Komárom), and the biographies of György Klapka and Artúr Görgei (I am about to finish it). If you are interested, you can read them on Wikipedia.

That's fantastic. So you're using Hungarian books in order to write the English Wikipedia? Great effort, and good job that you're taking the time to write it and share your knowledge with the world. Are you a historian by profession? Or is it your hobby/passion?

@@HoH Thank you very much. My life hobby is history. But I teach Hungarian language, literature and history of culture. But history is my best hobby. Especially the 1848-49 revolution. I am crazy about it. I even started to write a movie plan about the Second Komárom battle.

@@HoH Do you guys plan to make other videos too in Project Pannonia? Or its closed?

Glad you found it interesting! Such a fascinating, yet complex event to research.

@@HoH its really rare that people from outside the ex- hasburg empire know about Jelačić Im impressed

Same here...brought back the memories of high school history classes. I seriously doubt Jelacic would've been able to convince the emperor to give Croatia an equal place at that time, since he wasn't ready to give it to Hungary to begin with and Hungary had a considerably stronger position within the empire, compared to Croatia. Austria was simply playing: divide and conquer. The interesting thing is: both Hungary and Croatia were aware of it, but we were following our own national interests despite that. Pure realpolitik.

Jelačić betrayed Croatia in the long term. He offered Croatia to Austria, which meant the abolish of own Croatian parliament the Sabor and Croatia would be part (tyny fraction) of the Austrian Parliament, so he don't care about the independent Croatian legislature. Don't forget he was half Austrian...

@@csongorcsillogo1440 If the Croats had allied with the Hungarians, do you think they could have beat the Austrians and the Russians?

Don't forget the Hungarian prohibit Croatian language in Croatia, claim right to Adriatic see and deny Croatian autonomy. It was just logical for us to join Austria (not much better either).

@@Hrcak1 There was no such thing to prohibit Croatian. The Batthyány government promised full autonomy to Croatia, and the equality of Hungarian and Croatian languages. He called Jelacic to discuss about this in Vienna. The latter didn't even show up. Hungary indeed wanted the town of Fiume as port to the Adriatic sea. But nothing else. Jelacic did not even want to discuss about anything. Then on 11 september he attacked Hungary. Not Hungary attacked him, he attacked Hungary! And when Batthyány, then archduke Steven wanted to discuss with him, when he was with his troops near the Balaton, he said No, and declared that he will occupy Pest, and install the Austrian rule there. Then, seeing that it is no chance to discuss with him, the Hungarians gathered their army, and defeated him at Pákozd.

This might be something you would be interested in www.fairtube.info

That’s a great initiative! Watching their vid now

And his spouse Queen Elizabeth (Sissi) is still beloved in Hungary as she had a major role in convincing him to reconcile with the Hungarians. She also spent a lot of time there and even learned the language.

@@boomerix yeah she was really kind to us :D

I feel that the Ausgleich will be another great topic for a video, don’t you think? 😉

@@HoH OH YEAH PLS :D

Jó napot!

To be honest, there were far less Hungarians in Moldova, than Romanians in Transylvania. Assimilation can also happen naturally, you know. Also, Hungary's policy on Romanians was quite clearly one of reluctant tolerance. They of course were not happy with this large national minority that was also a majority in Transylvania, but the land came with the people and the people had to be appeased. Plus, it's not like the Hungarians didn't also have to deal with Croats, Serbs and Slovaks inside their empire. The general ignorance of a Medieval man's interests was also helpful, as most peasants cared more about having food in their belly, than learning a new language/protecting their own. Plus, as long as they payed their taxes, what lord (and later governor) was going to give a rat's ass weather they spoke Hungarian or Romanian? All that changed when the people's national consciousness started developing. Compare that with the Hungarians' situation in post 1918 Romania: A minority even in their home province, in an otherwise homogenous nation, smack-bang in the middle of the national-ethnic state's most popular period. It's no wonder they barely got minorities' rights. Don't paint medieval Hungary as some sort of benevolent overlord, when they clearly were not one, then calling Romanians barbaric for protecting their own interests. You're literally comparing apples and oranges, by talking about two nations in different time periods, with different forms of government, different ways of thinking, different backgrounds and different solutions for the problems of minorities. Both Hungary and Romania were responsible for some ugly crap, weather it was under the guise of Feudalism or Communism, so it's best to just leave it at that.

@UCmPjnvfdienYZs42p5gh2_A So what? Procentually speaking there were so many Hungarians in Moldova than the Romanians in all Hungary. and its not about numbers. That means in your opinion that if they would had been fewer, the Romanians would had the right to assimilate them by force? Its no matter how many they are. If we take the population of all Austria-Hungary, the Romanians were fewer than the Hungarians from Moldova. So? But assimilation didn't happened naturally, because the Romanians didn't gave nay schools, didn't let them to found newspapers, cultural organizations, parties, etc. And they forbid them to use the Hungarian language even in their churches. That sounds forced assimilation to me...

@@bp837 In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in the world. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868). The situation of minorities in Hungary were muchmore better than in contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK. See the multi-national UK: The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. The contemporary IRish question and tensions are well documented. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England. See the multiethnic France: In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools ,minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!! The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories) Just see the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe: Magyarization was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they loudly and proudly covered up their minorities. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.

@@bp837 Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory,because it WASN'T based on democratic referendums (general equal&secret ballots). It was not a wonder that Czech, Romanian and Serbian politicians PROTESTED against the very idea of democratic referendums about the borders. Czech politicians didn't trust in Slovaks, because only very few Slovaks joined to the so-called "Czechoslovak"army against the Hungarians in 1919 (and Slovaks represented only 48% ratio in Northen parts of Hungary). Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian Romanians, perhabs they didn't want to join to backward & poor Romania (the ratio of romanians were only 53% in Transylvania). Serbs were small minority (22% !!!) in Voivodine. Similar to Romania, Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country without serious urbanization or industrialization. It was not wonder that the USA and president Wilson did not signed this anti-democratic dictate. There were only one democratic referendum about the borders between Hungary and Austria: The Sopron area referendum in Western Hungary in 1921, where Entente officers were the leaders of the voting districts, there were general equal and secret ballots with electoral registers (or poll books) of the LOCAL residents, and every local citizen could take part in the elections over 18year, regardless the ethnicity, social status or sex) The "national councils" were brutal mockery and caricature of democracy. 1. Only the Romanians/Czechoslovaks/Serbs were allowed to vote, and only men were allowed to vote. Hungarians were not allowed to participate in the elections. 2. The elections of the envoys of "national" councils were not even locally documented, only the decision of the self-appointed and locally established "national" councils. 3.There weren't secret ballot systems in that "elections", the elections were held as public open ballot/voting, with the simple raise of their hands. 4. There were not so-called "minimal voter turnout", it means that even few gathered people of a (single ethnicity "voters") in a very small pub/bar (as it often happened) could decide the future/fate of whole huge cities..... 5. These so-called "elections" didn't use any ELECTORAL REGISTERS (or POLL BOOKS) of the LOCAL RESIDENTS, thus it made the gerrymandering directly possible. Like the participation of foreign voters from other countries and from foreign settlements were common, thus many people take part in the "elections" who had not any relationship with the area of the actual voting districts. So without electoral registers, even foreign stranger "voters" could participate in the elections (An open possibility for brutal gerrymandery) T The participation of foreign Serbian soldiers in the elections was usual in Southern Hungary Voivodine too. Without electoral registers of local residents, a single voter could vote in many many districts, thus a single man could vote in many many times in many places and voting districts without any problems...

@@szalard Except they were assimilated before the age of newspapers and public schools even began. During the Medieval Period, Moldavian Hungarians were even less important of a minority than the Gypsies were and thus were already assimilated in the 18th century. By 1859, when the country could finally manage its own internal affairs, the only significant minorities the Kingdom of Romania had were the Jews and Romani.

The film was made in 53, the revolution was in 56.

@@bluebull852 ow ups then nevermind

Kinda

Yeah, although the Empire became the dual Austro-Hungarian one only in 1867. Precisely to reconcile with Hungarians, therefore strengthen and stabilise the Empire which just severely lost the conflict with Prussia for the hegemony over German lands.

Yes and no ! I suspect that I didn't help you a lot ...

It was a war for independence

@@AB-bg7os It became a war for independence only after the 1 day long revolution calmed down, and the Austrians started to curble the rights of the Hungarian state.

What do you mean? Audio wasn’t in sync? And yes, but unfortunately YT tends to demonetize the majority of my vids until several days after upload.

The video is in eglish so we go by english rules.

@@JohnDoe-be5td Compared to this, we do not change the order of the name in Hungary. De szólj ha tévedek, de nem igen hallottam úgy mondani, hogy Stallone Silvester vagy Pitt Bred. Hivatalos iratban egyébként az angolnál is bizonyos esetekben a családnév van elől.

@@Harckocsi1988newchannel Do you want to rewrite the grammar of all European languges? No, in all IE languages the first is the given name the second is the family name. Are you a troll?

@@georgbrenels2733 As far as I know, in Europe, only in Hungarian is the family name in first place, because the family comes first.

@@Harckocsi1988newchannel It does not matter. The first is always the given name in all English translations. Even in medieval latin text which were written in Hungary. Deal with it.

Hi, My friend. First of all, you have to know, that, as a Hungarian, I have a huge respect for Croatia and Croatians, as a respect of our common history and heroes. But I have to tell you that it is a wide spread misconception about the Hungarian policies towards the Croatians in 1848. The Hungarians were very generous with the Croatians, starting from April 1848, as I will show you down, and looking at that, in the first place not the Hungarians were guilty for the conflict. Yes their could had their faults too, but mostly not they were guilty for the conflict, and they also promised autonomy to the Croatians. The Yugoslav historians starting with 1920, who wanted to unite all the South Slavs in one nation, of course created this narrative about the bad, oppressive foreign Hungarians in 1848, forgetting to ask if Jelacic had or not any fault in the starting of the war? After Croatia became free, the Croatians also continued this narrative, because Jelacic was their hero, who won some battles, and assured to Croatia a development. In the same time the Hungarian historians were non combative in the Communist times, because Hungary being a country which was on the loosing sides of the World Wars, it had to speak about its history in a negative way, or to be quiet when it came to conflictual subjects about its historical relations with the neighboring nations. This is why a very few works had been written in English or other international languages which present the conflictual situations with our neighbors in our history, like 1848-49. This is why this video presents the Yugoslav point of view, but its not the fault of the maker of the video, but of the very few Hungarian sources which present the issue of the nationalities in 1848-49, and the multitude of foreign language sources (written by Serbians, Romanians, Slovakians, Croatians), who present the policies of Hungary in a negative way. But still some had been written. And the truth is, that in 1848, Hungary promised important rights to the Croatians. Total autonomy, almost independence to them. But Jelacic, an imperial officer, so he was loyal to the emperor, and as a result, he wanted to help the empire to crush the Hungarian revolution, and of course, he hoped also to increase his prestige in the empire with this. And maybe he hoped to get also some Hungarian territories after the Hungarians were defeated. Here I quot from an article, which talks about the Hungarian policy towards the nationalities from 1848-49. "In contrast to other national minorities in Hungary, the Hungarians recognised the Croatians as a political nation because they had their own autonomous territory. The first council of ministers of the new Hungarian government decided on April 19 [1848] that “it would do everything required by law, justice and equity in order that the mutual trust between Hungary and Croatia would be reinforced. 'The acts and decrees were published in Croatian as well, resolutions were issued on the appointment of Croatian state secretaries and ministerial officials, and the council approved that the Croatians could use their own language in their communication with the government.' However, the Croatians did not recognise the jurisdiction of the Hungarian cabinet with respect to Croatian matters. The Croatian national program adopted at the national assembly in Zagreb on March 25 demanded that Croatia should be a state completely equal to Hungary and with its own responsible government. According to this, only the person of the sovereign and the common customs area would have connected Croatia to the other countries of the Habsburgs. The new ban, Jellaèiæ, took no notice of the Batthyány cabinet. The Croatian Sabor, convened on June 5, declared every legislative and administrative relationship with Hungary terminated but expressed the wish that they would like to maintain friendly relations with the peoples of Hungary. At the end of August, the Hungarian council of ministers adopted the bill of Ferenc Deák, which wanted to lay the new foundations of the relationship of the two countries. Under this, Croatia would be granted full internal autonomy, with only military, foreign, financial and commercial affairs being in the common jurisdiction of the two countries. Common ministries would administer these, with Croatian state secretaries. A Croatian minister would represent the interest of Croatia in the common council of ministers. The official language of Croatia would be the Croatian and both parties would conduct the correspondence between the two countries in their own language. The council also declared that “should no reconciliation be achieved on this basis, then the country would accept separation and mere allied relationship. However, it would maintain the possession of Fiume (Rijeka) and the Hungarian seacoast and demand the assurance of free travel and the commerce along that path.” However, at the last talks he had with Batthyány, Jellaèiæ declared: 'It is not an issue of particular offences that exists between us that could be reconciliated. You want Hungary to be a free and independent country, while I swore at the political unity of the Austrian Empire. If you do not consent to that, only the sword can decide between us'." (László Katus: Nationality Question and Policy Towards National Minorities in 1848-1849) www.epa.uz.ua/00400/00463/00005/pdf/152_katus.pdf Jelacic declared that he will attack Hungary if Hungary will not renounce completely, in the favor of the empire, to its military and monetary. That means that he wanted that Hungary to disband all its armed units (while Croatia would keep her army), and also to stop printing money, and give up its economy totally to Austria. Here is another example that Hungary was not so hostile towards the nationalities: eremgyujtok.hu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2.41.-10-forint-1848-Kossuth-bank%C3%B3.jpg eremgyujtok.hu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2.41.-rev.jpg See the Croatian inscription (together with the German, Romanian and Slovakian) on the Hungarian money from 1848? So it is very obvious that the one who wanted the conflict, was Jelacic, and he was absolutely not interested about the autonomy promised by Hungary. He behaved loyal to the Austrians, and wanted to help them to crush Hungary. This was his main goal, and not the rights, which he would had received from the Hungarians. When in August Jelacic and Batthyány were called to discussions in Vienna, about the problems between them, Jelacic even didn't bothered to go there... Instead of that he massed his troops on the Drava, and, unprovoked, he attacked Hungary on 11 September 1848. About the Slovakians. Do the Hungarian minority from south Slovakia have a parliament? Do not forget the Benes laws, which today are in power in Slovakia, which name the Hungarians as a guilty nation, stating that the Hungarians have not the same rights as the Slovakians. These laws are in power in Slovakia from 1945 until today. This is exagerated what you are writing about this. Hungary was very far away to make such laws against any of its nationalities.

@@szalard You're right, and we're not under any illusions when it comes to Jelacic, nor is he a black and white figure in our historiography. I don't understand however why do you say that this video has a Yugoslavian point of view, when it basically says the same thing you do. It just couldn't go into so many details due to time constraints of the format. Also for the most part I resent the Hungarian attitude towards the Slovaks, who had been faithful Hungarians (unlike us Croats, lol). Croatia basically already had all of those rights and autonomy you speak of even before 1848. going all the way back to Pacta Conventa. And one slight correction: Croatian parliament had already declared Croatian as the official language in Croatia in 1847, with the campaign for that being waged most intensely in 1843. - 1847. So before the events of 1848. Until 1847. the official language had been Latin. Therefore Hungarian promises about allowing Croatian to become the official language in 1848. were irrelevant at that point. It is also true that Croatia probably had the best position within the Hungarian realm in terms of the constitutional law. However this was a new age of civic nationalism and the genesis of modern European nation states so Croatia wanted the exact same thing from Hungary that Hungary demanded from Vienna. Hungary also had many rights within the Habsburg Monarchy, yet it wanted more...with part of the political elite having wanted this within the Habsburg Empire and some wanted full independence. We had the exact same situation in Croatia, except we had to balance this between Vienna and Budapest, so it was twice as hard. This is why Jelacic insisted on the agreement before the revolution and the Hungarians wanted those issues settled afterwards. Both parties' positions were understandable from the realpolitik point of view. In that sense, yes you are correct...Jelacic did want the most he could get out of the situation. All I'm saying is, who knows what would've happened if the two parties had agreed beforehand. It is possible, or at least it was plausible that Jelacic would've committed his forces to the Hungarian cause; firstly because he had gotten a mandate from the Croatian parliament to make such a deal and secondly, because early on Austrians weren't that strong. Had we acted in unison and decisively...who knows how things would've turned out. Perhaps the independent Hungarian-Croatian kingdom would've made its comeback to the European political landscape. Or perhaps we would've been just allies. You need to understand that neither of these two options had a clear majority in terms of the support in Croatia. The country was divided on this issue. Realistically speaking however, most likely neither of these two options would have come true either way and the Hungarian revolution may have been somewhat prolonged at best. At any rate the real results were felt some 20 years later with Ausgleich in 1867. and then the Croatian-Hungarian settlement a year later. That's all I wanted to say. I'm well aware that the Hungarian revolutionaries were basically the avant-garde at the European level in terms of the liberal democracy and the respect for the citizen and minority rights. The Croatian contemporary attitude towards those events, believe it or not, is actually one of deep regret mixed in with celebrating Jelacic. In fact, the main thing he's celebrated for is the abolition of serfdom by his government.

@@robertmance1744 You are mostly right and for this chauvinistic attitude we paid the price dearly after WW1 in the Trianon palace. Should we grant more rights to our nationalities and making stronger ties to them, the country would not fall apart most probably and even if it was, much larger chunks of wealth, people and land could be kept. Sadly pride is always a bad councelor.

@@zsebora You are echoing the Rákosi era liar interpretation of history. In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in the world. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868). The situation of minorities in Hungary were muchmore better than in contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK. See the multi-national UK: The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. The contemporary IRish question and tensions are well documented. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England. See the multiethnic France: In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools ,minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!! The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories) Just see the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe: Magyarization was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they loudly and proudly covered up their minorities. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.

And I think the worst part of this is that Austria did not recognised the Croats after the revolution, basically they gave them almost the same treatment they did with Hungary.

Haven't heard "divide and conquer" for the Habsburgs before. The thing i heard was "Bélla geránt aliī, tu félix Áustria nūbe." Which was translated with "others may wage wars, you lucky austria marry" For centuries they mostly gained their influence and territory by marriage more than wars. (Some say they chose this motto because they were better at it than on the battlefield... On the other hand, it was cheaper and the territories gained were mostly intact.)

That Skeleton had two X chromosomes, so the skeleton belongs to a woman.

Yea, we like Croats and doesnt understand why Croatia betrayed us after being allies for so long. As a Hungarian from Serbia i always liked Croats, like natural allies, you are Catholics like we are and in culture very much like we Southern Hungarians.

Sudungarn because hungarian politicians betrayed us, they wanted Croatia to be just one of Hungarian provinces, despite that Croatia was the only slavic state in monarchy that was almost equal to Austria and Hungary.

I don't think so. Croatia was a province, ruled by Hungary. It was never real Hungarian land. Croatia should have never been part of Hungary, and we didn't mind they separated after 1920. We don't know much about Croatia. There were surley some battles and some great historical figures with Croatian origin like Zrínyi who was a great Hungarian/Croatian hero in the battle of Szigervár or another Zrínyi who was one of the greatest Hunharian poet. Hungary was a country of mainly Hungarians (and loyal minorities), like it's in every other countries. We care mainly of the good of Hungary, Hungarians are the most important, the Hungarian language, culture, etc. Look what happens when minorities are against the country... It was very evil to attack Hungarians by some minorities while they fought for their independence. Especially by Croatians, cause we had always not a bad relationship. We still consider Croatians as our friends (together with Polish, Finns, Germans). But many minorities were loyal, one of our best general was Serbian...

Btw sorry for thet 800 years of oppression by us. I hope it wasn't so bad, and we didn't commit much crimes against Croatians. It wasn' good to occupy Croatia by us.

@@martindzaja7800 Croatia was always a province of Hungary, so now you suddenly wanted completely independence and turned on us. Austrians promised full independence, so you supported them, but which they haven't kept

As a Hungarian I know it was a war of independence, by Hungary, against the Habsburgs or Austria. But since Hungary had many people of minorities (40-50%), and these minorities had their national goals (later in 1918 some countries annexed 70% of Hungarian lands), some of them attacked Hungary too. Austria promised them some rights, and I can't think about other things, they hated Hungarians (who let them settle down in Hungary), Romanians killed 8-10k Hungarian unarmed civilians too, whole villages during th revolution, Serbians killed brutally many Hungarians too, beheading them. But they weren't strong. The only surprising thing for us was that Croatians attacked Hungary too. The two nations are friends, Croatia had an own parlaiment too. Without the Russian help Hungary would have defeated the whole empire, all of the minorities after they occupied 70% of Hungary... It was a miracle.

@@Hunfootball "who let them settle down in Hungary" As I said before: this idiotic view of history is your (collective, not individual) problem; so, you LET THEM settle down, despite they were settled here before you arrived? éljen a honfoglalás, isn´t it?

The short version is; at the time when the hungarian army officially capitulated at Világos in 1849, Klapka was in charge of a really well defended area of Komárom. So much so he was able to negotiate immunity for himself and all of his 20 000 men, as a term of surrender. Despite that he knew Hungary wasn't the safest place for him anymore, so he migrated west, where he was an active politician and military man in several conflicts. After Austria and Hungary officially settled their differences in 1867, with the Austro-Hungarian Compromise (referred to as "Kiegyezés" in hungarian, "Ausgleich" in german), Klapka returned to Hungary, and became a politician in the Deák Party. Hope it was helpful. Cheers from Hungary.

@@DCSimon-ni4bo Thank you

No

@@user-uq6bt8wc6j um, yes. If you look their names, there are significant number of Slavic people in there

@@daca8395 that proves nothing sherlock my last name German and im born and raised American

@@user-uq6bt8wc6j that's not how ethnicity works. There are many famous Hungarians that live outsode Hungary. They won't be too happy if you called them Romanians or Slovaks etc.

@@daca8395 you just proved my point sherlock

History prooves that Széchenyi was right. Kossuth was very power hungry, and he often had bad decisions like appointing dembinsky

You make a fair point. I tried to write this script from the Hungarian perspective. Hence the emphasis on Józef Bem when it comes to Transylvania for example.

@@HoH Yes, I figured. Maybe you can do a video on Avram Iancu "the Prince of the Mountains" one day. He had quite an interesting and tragic life. In the end, he became a half-mad wandering drunkard, and died in chronic misery in the Apuseni Mountains.

That’s a very good idea! I’ve been meaning to focus more on the area

@@decem_sagittae You are wrong, Avram Iancu did not helped to crush the Hungarian revolution. Massacring 10 000 innocent Hungarian women and children at Nagyenyed, Abrudbanya, Zalatna, Marosujvar, Gyulafehervar, etc., means not crushing the revolution, but making a genocide. Avram Iancu as military leader defeated a few ill armed Hungarian guerillas, after he run and hide in the mountains, but he never defeated the Hungarian army in the open field nor in the mountains. Every time when he faced well armed regular Hungarian troops, he and his commanders were crushingly defeated. This is why he retreated to the mountains, where from behind the mountains cliffs threw some rocks on guerilla leaders like Hatvani and Vasvary. He never met in battle neither Bem, Görgei or Damjanich. So forget about Avram Iancu, who hid himself in the mountains... This is not how a great military leader behaves. And a great military leader do not massacre civilian people, burning down towns and villages. This is what Avram Iancu did, hiding behind the Austrian troops, before Bem came, and defeated them. Seing this, the "great leader" Avram Iancu run in the mountains...

@@szalard OK. This is blatant Hungarian propaganda. I didn't want to bother replying because I know it's of no use, but others who aren't familiar with thess events might actually believe you. Atrocities did happen, but both sides committed them (as is always the case). Avram Iancu led the Auraria Gemina Legion which had at most 4,000 troops which were generally under-equipped and not very well trained (at one point having less than a thousand rifles for 4,000 men). They faced an army of 10,000 Hungarian troops under Imre Hatvany and the Polish general Jozef Bem. This was a third of the Hungarian army. Avram Iancu was outnumbered, outclassed and outgunned, but managed to completely destroy half the Hungarian army in Transylvania (5,000 of Hatvany's troops) and capture their cannons in a major battle, after weeks of skirmishes which kept the Honved busy and pinned down in Transylvania. This was in May. A month later in June, the remaining Hungarian army laid siege to Avram Iancu's main stronghold in the mountains, and were again crushed after a week of sieging the center. The Russians arrived shortly afterwards and crushed the Hungarian rebellion. Avram Iancu and his Legion not only inflicted heavy casualties on the Hungarian insurgents, but also kept a third of their forces busy in Transylvania, buying valuable time for the Austrians until the Russians arrived.

Let us hope it will survive after all.

@@Artur_M. I hope so

I would not worry about the parliamentary democracy's survival. It is not Orban's fault that his opposition is composed of idiots who are not popular with most Hungarians. In truth, the process of nationalisation of all countries of the EU into an european superstate, ruled by unelected, controlled by Berlin and Paris, comisars, is much more of a threath to the liberty and freedom of Hungarian people than a popular politician.

Another disconnected leftist... If "democracy" survived the years of post-communist leftist rule, under what, Hungary was privatized, ruined and leftist corruption thrived, almost creating a second Greece, then you can relax.

Do not read the far leftist-liberal lies in the media, and you know that the parliamentary democracy will exist in Hungary with Orbán. Because Orbán is not anti democratical. Those are antidemocratical who accuse him of being so.

The thing about that is a bit complicated. First of all because politicians tend to twist significant historical events to be columns of their own political agendas. Second, the 1848 revolution was this strange thing, when being a liberal and being a nationalist meant the same exact thing. This thought is almost unimaginably absurd in today's political climate. But it also means that both sides can find something they can like about the revolution, so overall everyone in Hungary today respects the spirit of 1848. Fighting for freedom is always a worthy cause, and being part of a community is also a nice thing. I wouldn't degrade that as simple "tribalism," when it doesn't act against other groups. In the war several ethnicites fought alongside Hungary, hell, 8 from the 13 Martyrs of Arad were not even hungarians. Primitive tribalism is bad, but the 1848 revolution wasn't about that at all. Cheers from Hungary.

@@DCSimon-ni4bo Thank you, now I have at least a rough idea.

I am Hungarian from what is now Serbia and in every city here we celebrate the Hungarian revolution of 1848. It is one of the most important national days for Hungarians everywhere, one of the last big show of might of the Hungarian nation.

The goal was independence, uniting with Transylvania and some other democtaric things. What is your problem? The only problem was in Hungary that we had a lot of minorities, ca. 50% of the population, and in Transylvania or present Slovakia and Serbian Délvidék Hungarians were minority. But I think if an 1000 year old country invite minorities, they don't have right to steal lands and annex it to their country. (Slovakia was annexed to another country, Czechia...)

@Hungary #1 hahahah is that what they teach you in your schools? What about all the murders of croat and slovak nobles in the 18th and first half of the 19th century. What about the forcing of the hungarian language in everything including church service in...guess what...the 18th, and 19th century...cmon mate

@@Ectheli0n Hungarians have a problem till today, selective memory, they remeber just thing they like. Hungarian revolution finished in 1867 when they part the empire with austrians for a complete revolution of 360 degree, ofcourse they forget to give other natonalities what they preach for.

​@@raulepure9840 as a Romanian, I'm not surprised at all. Hungarians never learn anything from their history.

Not so great friend especially since well Austria is cursed by Hungary by the dual monarchy. The Hungarian won't accept any reform to civilian, agriculture ,military or taxes for the Empire. So much so the Austrian was thinking it better to a triple monarch with Croatian to broke the deadlock. And of course one again Hungary also rejected the ideal.