Talk:Unio Trium Nationum

message: This article largely reflects Romanian historiography, with the theme of suppression of the Romanians by the Hungarians. 
: Are you arguing that the Romanians were not suppressed ? There's a reason why it was called the Union of the Three Nations. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm objecting to a biased article written only from the Romanian point of view. The article as you wrote it, portrays the Union as purely ethnically-based - it wasn't. Not only the Romanians who were surpressed - the Hungarians were too (most Hungarians were serfs). At a simplistic level, it was the Transylvanian Estates who supressed the serfs (all of them, Romanian, Hungarian and Slav). Clearly the Romanian serfs suffered more than Hungarians Scott Moore 09:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The difference between the Hungarians and the Romanians was that there was no Romanian nobility. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'm well aware of this fact. But, I repeat, most of the Hungarians were serfs and not nobility. Scott Moore 09:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanian historiography

message: Many of them lost their Romanian identity through inter-marriages; however at the end at the 19th Century there were about eight thousand noble families in Transylvania who considered themselves Romanian. A three volume book was published in 1890s in Sibiu with details about these noble Romanian families; many of them could track their noble origins back to the XIII and XIV Centuries. At about the same time the brother of the catholic archbishop of Blaj, Ioan Mihaly of Apsa (a Romanian nobleman by birth himself) published a well known book about the Romanian nobility from Maramures (sure Maramures is not part of Transylvania proper). What is interesting about the Romaniam nobles of Maramures that many of them lost their wealth and became (free) peasants; despite this even today they are still aware of their noble origins and have their nobility papers, many of then 400-500 years old; they are extremely proud of their nobility. They live in a few 'noble' villages and tend not to mix or marry with the rest of the population.
The traces of the Romanian nobility are everywhere in Transylvania. You can check the genealogy of every Hungarian Transylvanian family and you will find at least one or two Romanian noble ancestors (proof that inter-marriages among nobles of different ethnic backgrouds were quite often). After the union with the catholic church in 1700, many members of the upper greek-catholic clergy were Romanian noblemen; true, some of them became nobles because of their position in the church (like Inocentiu Klein) but many of them were noble by birth (Patachi, Ioan Bobb)
Romanian communist historiography tried to oversimplify things for obvious reasons and came up with the absurd idea that there were no Romanian noblemen. Not only they existed but some of them prospered and managed to reach positions of power. The story of John Hunyadi, a modest Romenian nobleman who became a priמce and Regent of Hungary is known by everybody and proves that back in the XV Century being a Romanian nobleman in Transylvania or Hungary was not that bad. What sucked was being a serf (Romanian, Hungarian or Slav)
so it is simplistic to suggest that it was only the Unio Trium Natiorum that enforced the inferior position of the peasantry in Transylvania. Scott Moore 14:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was a Romanian Nobility in Transylvania 

message: : You deleted factual information without any reason. Please motivate each change. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: Codified in 1438, fine, but until the feudal system of the 3 Estates was abolished (when? See paragraph above; the (retracted) Josephine reforms? The 1849 Revolution?), it dominated the law of the land. I guess the Hungarian, Saxon and Szekler Estates did change to some extent in 400 years or more of Reform, Ottoman occupation, Habsburg takeover and so forth. Thinking of the social changes in the towns & cities, if nothing else. New elites probably asked for the right of representation, or was the 1438 social structure so developed for its time, and the early 19th-century one as backward and stagnant, that nothing really needed to change?
"In this typical feudal estate parliament, the peasants (whether Hungarian, Saxon, Székely or Romanian in origin..." Again: probably sufficient for the 15th century, but what about the next 4 centuries? Other groups (Gypsies, Ruthenians & other Slavic groups, Jews, Armenians, Sathmar Swabians) aren't mentioned, but were present in large enough numbers.
"...the commoners were not considered to be members of these feudal "nations"." This was certainly the case with serfs, but what about free rural Saxons, who did have a voice at least within their own "nation"? Maybe a similar distinction has to be made for non-represented free Szekelys too? Arminden (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead only deals with 15th century; UTN dominated the law of the land for another 400 years