Talk:Peace of Zsitvatorok

message: This relates to the headings in the 'List of Treaties':
-  1526-1848  (Royal Hungary to Independence)
-  Austria-Hungary  to the end of World War I (1848–1922)
The first heading would suggest that Hungary became independent in 1848 and the second would indicate that Austria - Hungary, or to be precise the Austrian Empire of Austria-Hungary, began in 1848.
However:
a) The Kingdom of Hungary did not gain independent from Austria until the end of WWI; if one defines independence as being the attribute of a sovereign state in the 19th century, shaping its own domestic policy and foreign affairs.
b) The 'Ausgleich' happened in 1867 which gave Hungary a certain degree of autonomy in the domestic affairs in the territories of the Kingdom of Hungary only.
I wish you got your facts right. But then again this is Wikipedia.
Also, in the ‘List of Treaties’ section on the miniature map, you opt for rendering all cartographic detail in Polish. – Fine; though somewhat anachronistic (looks like Hungary had been part of the Polish Commonwealth in those years). What is even more surprising is the fact that you write 'Preszburg' rather than 'Pożoń'; both do exist in Polish I hasten to add. 
The choice of names could be interpreted as some kind of deep seated, visceral hatred against all things Hungarian, which would explain your choice of the German name over the Hungarian with a Polish spelling. How interesting. Things just never seem to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.170 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Bocskai sentence - the Hungarian uprising was finished with the Treaty of Vienna in the same year but not part of the Treaty of Zsitvatorok
This wasn't the first peace treaty with the Turks, see the Treaty of Edirne in 1568. Zello 12:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. I look after this tax paying case, something is not OK yet. Zello 21:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Ha a hódoltsági falukban nemesek laknak, vagy azokban házuk van, ezek a töröknek se adót, se dézsmát ne fizessenek. És a törökök a falukra ki ne szálljanak, hanem jövedelmeiket a falusi bírák utján szedjék..." Zello 21:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 17th paragraph

message: I came across this as I was reading an Ottoman History section out of this book.  
Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650:  The Structure of Power (Palgrave Macmillan 2002).
On page 71, there is a paragraph on this treaty, although it isn't named.  Here is the paragraph.
In 1606, peace negotiations began at Zsitvatorok in the no-man's-land between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, focusing on the territorial arrangements, the tribute due to the Sultan and the settlement of cross-border disputes.  Some issues the negotiators could not settle, with the curious result that both sides signed slightly different versions of the treaty.  When Habsburg negotiators travelled to Istanbul in 1608 to ratify the text, they rejected it since they found that parts of it had been changed and that the clause on the equality of the Emperors had been dropped.  It was not until 1612 that they ratified the final version (54)  The treaty nonetheless worked.  There were no hostilities between the two sides until the 1660s, while the clause forbidding raids across the border and introducing a procedure for the settlement of cross-border disputes gave a formal expression to the concept of a fixed and peaceful frontier.  The kleinkrieg of former centuries had finally come to an end.  
I was trying to find more information about this treaty because of the mention of the "fixed and peaceful frontier" procedure that seemed to work.  Furthermore, kleinkrieg is a Clausewitz reference, and it seems to be what is going on in Iraq now, so I thought this might be a good historical reference point.  Since this article doesn't mention the trouble with ratification, I thought I would point out this source as it seems quite interesting.  No time now to do anything about it myself, and am hoping someone with language abilities can provide some excerpts of the treaty in English.  Would so much be grateful if this treaty could be elaborated upon, and it seems like an important treaty if it is the first to define "fixed and peaceful" frontiers, so the law people might want to take notice as well.
--Hhoblit 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Implications of Treaty - Fixed and Peaceful Frontiers 

message: Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
==== Survey - Support votes ====
*Support - as per above.  I would also add that I too have nothing against frustrated medieval scholars who may try in vain finding "Peace of Žitava" among the contemporary sources in their dusty libraries. WP is a wonderful tool to start serious research, so long as we can get the names right. István 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: *Support - as per above.  I would also add that I too have nothing against frustrated medieval scholars who may try in vain finding "Peace of Žitava" among the contemporary sources in their dusty libraries. WP is a wonderful tool to start serious research, so long as we can get the names right. István 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey - Support votes