File talk:Central europe 1683.png
跳转到导航
跳转到搜索
Revert : my contribution don't "shows vassal principalities as separate states" but only darks a little the grey of their borders; they are neither separated nor included, and they fight in several times against the Ottoman empire. But some cartographers (mostly from Central & Eastern Europe) consider their works as perfect for ever and refuses all modifications, even little ones. I'm a scholar from France, and I agree all modifications of my works when they are scholarly supported. --Mélomène (留言) 11:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- All right, I see now that color of borders of principalities is different from color of state borders (I have some issues with light on my home computer), but border between Transylvania and Upper Hungary in your map version is still problematic. On which source exactly you based that? PANONIAN (留言) 13:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi ! The Történelmi atlasz, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 1991, ISBN 963-351-422-3 CM, p. 23-26 and Westermann Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Braunschweig 1985, ISBN 3-14-100919-8, p. 102, 103, 112 & 113 and all classic others (Historic atlases Cornelsen, Meyers, Hachette...) shows the upper Hungarian kingdom as a territory disputed between the Habsburgs (Royal Hungary) and the Transylvanian (magyar) Princes (ruling Principality of Transylvania, a hungarian state, and the Partium). Most recently appears the denominations of "Upper Hungarian kingdom" (or "principality") for the disputed territory, based on the Imre Thököly's title accorded by the Sultan (even if a title is not a state) and of "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" for the Principality of Transylvania and the Partium, as a nationalist magyar "counter-attack" against the nationalist romanian "attack" (started in Ceausescu's years) who shows Transylvania as a romanian principality. Scholarly (= according with the sources of the time concerned, as the treaties of Nagyvarad or Speyer) the both interpretations are wrong. Specialist case ! --Mélomène (留言) 10:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- My primary source for country borders in this map (The Times History of Europe, Times Books, London, 2002) does not show any "disputed territories" but actual borders (as they were in year 1683). Principality of Imre Thököly was an separate vassal Ottoman state in that time and it is presented as such in this map. So, if you want to show political disputes in a map as well, I suggest that you upload your own map version (with different filename) and show the territorial disputes there. This map should show only actual or de facto situation in 1683 without political or territorial disputes and claims. PANONIAN (留言) 17:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi ! The Történelmi atlasz, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 1991, ISBN 963-351-422-3 CM, p. 23-26 and Westermann Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Braunschweig 1985, ISBN 3-14-100919-8, p. 102, 103, 112 & 113 and all classic others (Historic atlases Cornelsen, Meyers, Hachette...) shows the upper Hungarian kingdom as a territory disputed between the Habsburgs (Royal Hungary) and the Transylvanian (magyar) Princes (ruling Principality of Transylvania, a hungarian state, and the Partium). Most recently appears the denominations of "Upper Hungarian kingdom" (or "principality") for the disputed territory, based on the Imre Thököly's title accorded by the Sultan (even if a title is not a state) and of "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" for the Principality of Transylvania and the Partium, as a nationalist magyar "counter-attack" against the nationalist romanian "attack" (started in Ceausescu's years) who shows Transylvania as a romanian principality. Scholarly (= according with the sources of the time concerned, as the treaties of Nagyvarad or Speyer) the both interpretations are wrong. Specialist case ! --Mélomène (留言) 10:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
