Medieval Hungary

[aegis03florin]

Hi guys,

Long time since I've just read but not write on the blog.... Sorry!

I have a question related to the Medieval Hungary, especially around the Angevine dynasty.
From what I've read, the King of Hungary had a lot of power, even when they were week/contested, but I don't understand from what his power come from! To be more specific, he had the right to name, revoke, grant and take back very important tiles like Voivode of Transylvania, Bans (of Severin, Croatia, Slavonia, etc.), Hertzog (Duke) and Ispans (Counts) (especially the ones from Transylvania, like ispan of Fehevar/Alba, Hunyadi, Caras, etc. ). Even more, not only the grants were not hereditary, but some time the King revoked them at will even after a couple of years, even if the owner was very rich/powerful.

• What give him this power and why the great magnates complied?
• Any ideas on how can make them hereditary, similar to the German and French ones (starting with King Charles Robert of Anjou)?
• Any ideas on how the situation was in Poland (was ruled by King Louis the great ) ?

Any help/suggestions are more than welcomed.
Thank you!

 

[Tibi088]

Hi guys,

Long time since I've just read but not write on the blog.... Sorry!

I have a question related to the Medieval Hungary, especially around the Angevine dynasty.
From what I've read, the King of Hungary had a lot of power, even when they were week/contested, but I don't understand from what his power come from! To be more specific, he had the right to name, revoke, grant and take back very important tiles like Voivode of Transylvania, Bans (of Severin, Croatia, Slavonia, etc.), Hertzog (Duke) and Ispans (Counts) (especially the ones from Transylvania, like ispan of Fehevar/Alba, Hunyadi, Caras, etc. ). Even more, not only the grants were not hereditary, but some time the King revoked them at will even after a couple of years, even if the owner was very rich/powerful.

• What give him this power and why the great magnates complied?
• Any ideas on how can make them hereditary, similar to the German and French ones (starting with King Charles Robert of Anjou)?
• Any ideas on how the situation was in Poland (was ruled by King Louis the great ) ?

Any help/suggestions are more than welcomed.
Thank you!

Hello, im always happy to find someone interested in Hungary.

The short answer is tradition and law. The magnates and other nobles had their hereditary estates but certain titles were not hereditary. I would also point out that Hungary had no Dukes. Or more precisely there were dukes in the Árpád period, but AFAIK they were always the kings heir and the territory assigned to them did vary.

A more specific answer is that during the Árpád period and before the rule of András II (1205-1235) in Hungary the King held the majority of the estates - about 2/3 of the territory of the Kingdom was held by the King. This ment that the King was way stronger than the rest of the nobility combined. This is important because the legal framework of the Kingdom was mostly worked out in this period - including some of the non hereditary position you specifically asked about.
Later András II decided to change this by giving away huge estates to make the country more similar to the western, feudal monarchies (or he was simply an idiot, I dont know). This leads us nicely to the Angevin period, which you specifically asked for. When the Angevins gained the throne of Hungary the country was torn apart by feudal anarchy, so their first task was to reunite it. This was accomplished after some decades of fighting, which in the end resulted in the King again becoming by far the strongest power in the country (this lasted about the Angevin period).

 

[Mildtryth]

Later András II decided to change this by giving away huge estates to make the country more similar to the western, feudal monarchies (or he was simply an idiot, I dont know). This leads us nicely to the Angevin period, which you specifically asked for. When the Angevins gained the throne of Hungary the country was torn apart by feudal anarchy, so their first task was to reunite it. This was accomplished after some decades of fighting, which in the end resulted in the King again becoming by far the strongest power in the country (this lasted about the Angevin period).

Or, considering that he had been rebelling against his brother for years before he became king, and had to rely on the local nobles' support during his rebellions, he felt he had to reward his supporters once he made it into the throne and was too generous when it was time to do that.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Any ideas on how can make them hereditary, similar to the German and French ones (starting with King Charles Robert of Anjou)?

They already were hereditary, no need to change it. The first truly elective King was Sigismund of Luxembourg after his wife died. In the anyonymous description of eastern Europe dated around 1311 the author outright says that firstborn son of King of Hungary ought to succeed king when he dies.

What give him this power and why the great magnates complied?

During Angevin times? Ownership of rich mines in Upper Hungary (modern-day Slovakia) for example Kremnica/Kormoscbanya which approximately made 1/3 of gold production in Europe (exxagerating, it can be said they used irl counterpart to /infinitegold/ cheat) and destroying magnate opposition in civil war and giving the offices to the new men loyal to Angevins + system of king-owned castles helped to solidify royal power.

ny ideas on how the situation was in Poland (was ruled by King Louis the great ) ?

Well, Angevin position was sort of iffy - on the one side, if there was ever a monarch who was truly respected by Poles (herculean task) it was immediate precedessor of Louis the Great, Casimir the Great, as evident by the fact that nobility made no issue with him issuing whatever law he wanted (for example Bohemian nobility and it's resistance forced Charles IV to rescind book of law he promulgated going by the name of "Maiestas Carolina" while in comparison Casimir's statutes didn't meet with any opposition), he punished opposition against him (he ordered to have Maćko Borkowic, leader of opposition imprisoned and starved to death) and his blood was so respected that his grandson, Casimir (Kaźko) of Słupsk was called heir by chronicler Janko of Czarnków without trying to slip any elective element there (Kraków nobility tried to slip it since Bolesław the Wrymouth's statute was overthrown, and there are theories dating elective principle since the very beginning of statehood, tho I don't find them very believable) and despite official, nominated heir being Louis of Hungary: ": „tanquam haeres et succesor legitimus avi sui, domini Kazimiri olim regis Poloniae…” - except from chronicle of Janko of Czarnków, but that respect didn't necessarily translate to Louis of Hungary, tho he didn't care, he had more money from mines alone that yearly income from Poland, so privilege of Koszyce was no big concession for him, it was bone thrown to secure Polish nobility's backing for his daughters and at that point he wasn't certain that he'll marry his heiress to Luxembourg so he probably didn't want Polish nobles having ideas to invite Luxembourg to the throne (fourth wife of Charles IV was Casimir the Great's granddaughter) because Poland alone wasn't worth much, but Angevins feared Polish-Bohemian union (that's why they decided to support Casimir's father, Vladislaus the Elbow-High) so he decided to throw that bone. Still, he had quite decent level grasp of the country (for example his succesor Jogaila had to endure non-stop humiliation from Poles in the second half of his reign, and that extended to his entire dynasty) and it'd continue to be that way if he had a son, not to mention Poland would be squashed like a bug by Hungary without any outside help, if you want Hungary to maintain it's grasp over Poland the best POD for that would be Mary of Anjou being only of Louis's daughters to survive to adulthood (if Louis had a son Bohemia would probably help Poles to avoid Angevin encroachment of Bohemia and Bohemian help could probably enable Poland to regain independence, but here Luxembourg would be on Hungarian throne) that way Bohemia won't help Poles and any rebellion from Mazovian dukes would be easily crushed and Poland made into the second Croatia (Slavic, Catholic kingdom who was subject to Hungarian crown).

 

[aegis03florin]

They already were hereditary, no need to change it. The first truly elective King was Sigismund of Luxembourg after his wife died. In the anyonymous description of eastern Europe dated around 1311 the author outright says that firstborn son of King of Hungary ought to succeed king when he dies.

Thanks for the answer. Actually, I was referring to make those titles (of Count, Voivode, Ban) hereditary, not referring to the kingship.

During Angevin times? Ownership of rich mines in Upper Hungary (modern-day Slovakia) for example Kremnica/Kormoscbanya which approximately made 1/3 of gold production in Europe (exxagerating, it can be said they used irl counterpart to /infinitegold/ cheat) and destroying magnate opposition in civil war and giving the offices to the new men loyal to Angevins + system of king-owned castles helped to solidify royal power.

Never realized how much important were those mines. I know there were some mines in Transylvania as well (not sure how extensive) and Bosnia (silver), but I think never under Hungarian control. So Hungary was one of the richest kingdoms? How they were not affected by inflation (like later Spain)?

if you want Hungary to maintain it's grasp over Poland the best POD for that would be Mary of Anjou being only of Louis's daughters to survive to adulthood (if Louis had a son Bohemia would probably help Poles to avoid Angevin encroachment of Bohemia and Bohemian help could probably enable Poland to regain independence,

Would it be possible for a son of Louis to bring keep Poland (maybe a settlement with Polish nobles to keep them happy enough.) and bring Bohemian as well under Hungary? Would him (let's call him Charles II ) have any rights to the Bohemian crown? Would this push Hungary even more invested into central Europe politics? Would it make it a much tougher nut to be cracked by the Ottomans? would Hungary be interested to put all its weight into crush the Ottomans in the Balkans? How much it can extend?

Oh boy.... I have so many questions.....

 

[aegis03florin]

Hello, im always happy to find someone interested in Hungary.

Thanks for answering. Well, it's a period I like, but doesn't know very much. I was very puzzled by Hungarian particularity regarding to King's power, which went against the practice in western Europe. While Hungarian magnates were powerful, rich enough and numerous, they could not dream of how a Baron from Germany or France was cvasi "a king in his own domain".

When the Angevins gained the throne of Hungary the country was torn apart by feudal anarchy, so their first task was to reunite it.

Could a POD around ascension of Charles Robert as King and the long decades of fighting against nobles and rivals led to more power on the local nobility that will acquire powers like their western counterparts? (especially hereditary rules). So the King will become more an overlord of many counts and dukes (perhaps bring Bohemia and Poland under the umbrellas). For an Angevin shouldn't be a too strange arangement. Or already it's too late/or anachronistically, as kingship prerogatives have already become entrench in the customs?

 

[UnaiB]

@Fehérvári

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Thanks for the answer. Actually, I was referring to make those titles (of Count, Voivode, Ban) hereditary, not referring to the kingship.

But why do you even want to make them hereditary? It doesn't make much sense.

Never realized how much important were those mines. I know there were some mines in Transylvania as well (not sure how extensive) and Bosnia (silver), but I think never under Hungarian control. So Hungary was one of the richest kingdoms? How they were not affected by inflation (like later Spain)?

Transylvania was already under Hungarian control, Bosnia was a vassal, never fully controlled (though Louis I annexed part of it, but idk if it was that part with mines). The economy wasn't as developed as in XVIth century overall, so inflation even if it existed, was less of a problem.

Would it be possible for a son of Louis to bring keep Poland (maybe a settlement with Polish nobles to keep them happy enough.) and bring Bohemian as well under Hungary? Would him (let's call him Charles II ) have any rights to the Bohemian crown? Would this push Hungary even more invested into central Europe politics? Would it make it a much tougher nut to be cracked by the Ottomans? would Hungary be interested to put all its weight into crush the Ottomans in the Balkans? How much it can extend?

Oh boy.... I have so many questions.....

Yes it would be possible to keep Poland if Louis's son wins a war with Bohemia. Maybe if Bohemian king's position is weak enough - say TTL Wenceslaus IV still loses Roman crown to Ruprert of Wittelsbach, someone like Rupert - elected ruler of weak state with great ambition will declare Bohemia emptied fief and becqueath if to Charles II in hopes to win his support and if Charles II was militarily competent and Bohemians incompetent he could win the war and conquer Bohemia Matthias Corvinus style. Tho that means he'd need to adopt largely defensive approach against Turks, tho lasting conquest of Bosnia and Serbia and it's annexation to "Hungarian Empire" aren't excluded.

 

[Tibi088]

Thanks for answering. Well, it's a period I like, but doesn't know very much. I was very puzzled by Hungarian particularity regarding to King's power, which went against the practice in western Europe. While Hungarian magnates were powerful, rich enough and numerous, they could not dream of how a Baron from Germany or France was cvasi "a king in his own domain".

Could a POD around ascension of Charles Robert as King and the long decades of fighting against nobles and rivals led to more power on the local nobility that will acquire powers like their western counterparts? (especially hereditary rules). So the King will become more an overlord of many counts and dukes (perhaps bring Bohemia and Poland under the umbrellas). For an Angevin shouldn't be a too strange arangement. Or already it's too late/or anachronistically, as kingship prerogatives have already become entrench in the customs?

To help you understand take a look of a topographic map of the Kingdom of Hungary (in 1914). I think it makes it very easy to understand why the northern and eastern borders basically didnt change (with some minor exceptions) for a millennia. You can also see that the basin is most open from the south and somewhat from the west. The King and the Capital was pretty close to the western border so he could respond to any threat there directly. Most of the banats (Só, Macsó etc) were south of the Danube and the Sava rivers - not really an integral part of the country. They were established specifically with a defensive function in mind. The magnates who held these titles had huge estates in other parts of the country where they own seat was. I also enclosed a map of the estates of John Hunyadi in 1456 - the biggests magnate at his time. And he was most famous for figthing the turks in the south while holding some or multiple titles pertaining to that role. As you can see he had no estates next to the southern border at all.

Hungary propoer absolutely lacked the subdivision to dukedomes or the like which existed in France or Germany - with the exceptions of Transyvania (which is separated from the rest of the Carpathian basin by some very big mountains), Slavonia (at this period centered in Zagreb) and Croatia (next to the Adriatic). The rest of the country had no such subdivisions. What existed were the counties (Vármegye) and the leadership of these (Ispán and later Főispán) did indeed become hereditary ower time but these were way too small to become a power on their own. And these were formed originally to govern the kings holdings - remember that most of the country was originally held directly by the king, so they were not hereditary. AFAIK the ispáns for centuries werent even nobility but a class of their own (again that changed with András II).

The various feudal oligarchs that ruled the country before Charles Robert defeated them lacked some things:
1. While they did solidify areas under their control these were very new and had no time to solidify as a territorial unit. There also did not exist titles pertaining to these areas.
2. They absolutely lacked any legitimacy - mostly because of the above.
3. They were defeated pretty swiftly.

Maybe if they lasted for generations titles would have been created that corresponded to the territory they held. But these would be new titles, not the ones you mentioned.

 

[aegis03florin]

Thank you Zygmunt Stary and Tibi088 for your extensive answers. Very interesting! I never thought how much powerful was medieval Hungary.... I've read something that Louis I campaigned in Naples as well (to put his brother on the throne), after beating the Tatars and pushed them out from the Danubian zone. That's really impressive, considering the terrain. And fighting the Ottomans for few centuries, when they were on their prime.

How loyal was Croatia? I didn't found any traces of large scale rebellions. How so? Were the nobles and low-born population so happy with the Kings in Buda (Esztergom, etc.) to never try to break apart?

Did Sigismund of Luxemburg used Hungarian resources (money and troops) on his central European politics (to became Emperor, for ex), or was the vice versa?

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

How loyal was Croatia? I didn't found any traces of large scale rebellions. How so? Were the nobles and low-born population so happy with the Kings in Buda (Esztergom, etc.) to never try to break apart?

During the chaos period after Andrew III's death Pavao Subic and Subic family tried to break off (or there was at least suspicion that they did), but nothing came out of it.

Did Sigismund of Luxemburg used Hungarian resources (money and troops) on his central European politics (to became Emperor, for ex), or was the vice versa?

Kinda mixed bag, on the one hand, Sigismund propagated idea of anti-Turkish crusading in HRE, on the other one, Hungarian magnates after his death complained that he paid too much attention to HRE.

 

[Fehérvári]

If you want to learn more about medieval Hungary in-depth, then I can't recommend enough Schwerpunkt on Youtube! His content is absolutely amazing, it's very thourough!