Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
While my point was about events in the 1680s, I feel I must add a few words about what happened later.

I said the ratio of Hungarian-speakers fell to around 40% by the end of the 18th century. Even until after WWI, when Austria-Hungary was cut up, assimilation (including of several ancestors of yours truly) only increased this to IIRC 54%. So you can guess the unfolding tragic of nationalism: the not-even-absolute majority (or first the feudal class in their name) sought to exert control and suppress other nationalisms, while those other nationalisms formed and strenghtened in response.

The history of the second rise of Hungarian nationalism (from the early 19th century 'Reform Age' to the time of the dual Empire in which Hungary had relative autonomy) is also the history of assimilation and brutal suppression of Slovaks, Romanians, Serbians, Croats (and less supression than assimilation of Germans, Jews).

One interesting thing to note is the nationalisms not rooting in a feudal class - most notably the Slovakian -: in their case, the peasant-landlord conflict and the ethnic conflict was one and the same. So in Slovakia, Hungarian nobility is the true bad guys of history. (Not without justification.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 01:45:13 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series