Talk:Transdanubia

[Untitled]

I just noted that the text somehow does not mention that Transdanubia is basically Pannonia and it directly "jumps" to metioning Pannonia. Could you change it? And secondly, I always wanted to know how old the term "Transdanubia" actually is (the term Burgenland, for example, looks like a very old name, but it was invented only in 1921).Juro 02:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the expression "Pannonia" two times, in the Roman Era and in the Age of Migrations. In Hungarian historical litterature Transdanubia is called "Pannonia" until 900 ie. the arriving of the Magyars. One (little) problem: the Roman province was a bit larger than Transdanubia.

As for the origin of the name Dunántúl: it's older than Burgenland, because it was used oficially in the 18th century too. Then Hungary was divided into four judicial "kerület" (district): Dunántúl, Dunáninnen, Tiszáninnen, Tiszántúl. Today only the Dunántúl and Tiszántúl names are used as geographical regions. The expression probably originates from the 16th century, when Pozsony/Bratislava was the capital of the KoH. If you look around from the Castle of Pozsony, the souther shore of the Danube is across (trans) the river, as you know :))) Zello 20:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All that are saying is basic knowledge to me, but:

you should add at least one sentence about the relation to Pannonia because normal readers do not know this
I do not understand your last point - I see no logic in it : Transdanubia was divided in two parts at that time - so, that really is not the time one should expect such name to arise and the borders were not exactly at the Danube. Or, do you have a source claiming this?

Juro 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make clearer the relation to Pannonia.
Yes, I have a source, R.Várkonyi Ágnes's book about Royal Hungary. She is a highly recognised expert of the period in Hungary. But after the 1 September I can look up in the Big Etimological Dictionary for you (the National Library is closed in August). Until then the quote: "The new names of the regions of the Kingdom were formed from a Pozsonian point of view. If they look to the East, they see Lower-Hungary and Upper-Hungary, if they look to the South, they see Transdanubia." (35 p.) At the university she taught the same when I was a student.

I think first (ie. 16-17th centuries) there weren't any clear borders, only they speak about everything across the Danube from Pozsony as Trans-Danubia and the counties along the northern shores as Cis-Danubia (Dunáninnen) or Lower-Hungary. It's fairly logical from a Pozsonian point of view, and later the deliberated southern and eastern parts (Fejér, Somogy, Tolna etc.) became naturally included into the concept. Zello 21:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, indeed. thanx. I always thought the names are somehow formed as viewed from Vienna...Talking about that book - Does the book say the exact year (if any) when the term Royal Hungary stopped to be used? (because that is an information I have been looking for for months). Juro 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, she speaks about as a longer process, somewhere between 1686 and 1699, not as an exact date. But the last diet of the Royal Hungary was held in 1687-1688. Zello 22:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transdanubia, from where ?

So, "trans<place>" normally means, the far side of something, from some central viewpoint.

So, you have transalpine gau and cisalpine gaul, from the point of view of rome. You have transvaal. You have transcarpathia. You have transleithania and cisleithania, which were the parts of Habsburg empire on the far and near sides of the Leitha River, from the point of view of Vienna. And Transylvania, whatever that means.

Isn't the western half of Hungary on the same side of the Danube, as Vienna is ? Or Rome, the intellectual centre of the world ? It seems to me, it only makes sense to call this Transdanubia, if you were in Poland.Lathamibird (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]