Talk:John Sigismund Zápolya

message: I have conflicting sources here - Roland Bainton, Women of the Reformation from Spain to Scandinavia (Mineapolic, Minnesota, 1977) p226, describes his mother as being "the first ruler to issue an edict of universal toleration" in 1558 - yet here it says 1568 - I'm presuming Bainton was refering to the Edict of Turda - was the edict in form, but unpublished as statute law before this date?
Dragonfang88 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There were three edicts of Turda, in 1558, 1563, and 1568, each one including and expanding the liberties stated in the previous ones. The last is the one that is mentioned here and that is most widely known. --jofframes (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: No, what it makes clear is that John was a weak ruler.  In the power vacuum, the powerful local religious groups scrambled piecemeal to wring royal legal protection for themselves.  One should not read into the series of edicts a well-considered Royal Program toward tolerance.  Isabella was indeed ahead of her time, but she was not really in the driver's seat.  And similar pockets of enlightenment existed in the West as well, not just in Transylvania. Elphion (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who were "scrambling" for power were not religious groups as much as the nobles and the ethnic social groups that were behind them. The Edict(s) of Torda were the results of pacts between the nobility to preserve the balance of power and not fall in a mutually destructive civil war. Let us remind that the Principality of Transylvania barely survived thanks to the protection of the Turkish Empire and with the ever-present threat of the Austrian emperor who claimed the crown for himself. Apart from John Sigismund's weakness (including his bad health), anyone may have seemed weak in comparison with the rising Austria and the Sultanate at the very height of its power and expansion. --jofframes (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "nobles and the ethnic social groups that were behind them" is exactly what "powerful religious groups" are -- at least at this stage of history.  Religious politics usually follows the politics of the powerful, which is why the Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims did not get any guarantees under any of the edicts.  As for the relative weakness of John Sigismund:  yes he ruled in a milieu that included powerful players like Maximilian and Suleiman, but his father operated in a similar environment far more effectively.  John Sigismund's youth and ill health were undoubtedly factors, but he was still a weak ruler, whatever the cause. Elphion (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: first edict of toleration

message: I reverted the addition of "vassal of the ottoman Empire" to "King of Hungary", because it's not clear whether John was an Ottoman vassal for that entire period (1540 to 1570).  Clarification and/or some refs would help. -- Elphion (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vassal of the Ottoman Empire 

message: I think "John Sigismund Zápolya" would be better name of this page than the current one. He was a king as John II. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have renamed it.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename 

message: (Reference from edit summary: Talk:Voivode of Transylvania.)
I'm reverting these  edits not because I disagree with the content, but because they leave the article in a confusing state and delete some references without replacements.  The meaning of "1540/59" is completely unclear.  An expanded description of what was actually going on is needed. -- Elphion (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He resigned in 1551, but he was re-elected later. My only concern is that, I have two different dates 1556/1559 about the starting date of his second reign. What is sure the Diet of Szászsebes elected him for king in 1556 , however according to this source  1559 is the proper starting date of his second reign because he ascended the throne from his mother Izabella (the regent) just in 1559. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, we should probably provide both dates with the explanation you have just given. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince / Voivode / dates 

message: Nagyon jó cikk lett, gratulálok. :) However, I think the last section about his rule as Prince of Transylvania is too short. John Sigismund died childess and his family became extinct after that (it should be also emphasized, I guess). In accordance with John's will, Gáspár Bekes should have succeed him as Voivode under the suzerainty of Emperor-King Maximilian. However the estates elected Báthory instead. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I have not found reliable sources to verify these pieces of information (I mean that he was the last member of his family and he nominated Bekes his heir). Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Bekes was not an official "heir", according to this 2005 publication. "Biztosította országának a szabad fejedelemválasztás jogát, és nem jelölt utódot." [p. 330]. "Utolsó Szapolyai" [p. 317 and 330] --Norden1990 (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Why is it necessary to repeat "John Sigismund" everywhere, particularly in places where it is perfectly clear who is meant from "John" alone? -- Elphion (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think because it was his name. For instance, Francis Joseph is never mentioned as Francis. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The double-barreled name