匈牙利，中世紀最強大的王國之一，是如何變成如此弱小的國家的?為什么匈牙利是唯一一個失去了一半以上原有領土的歐洲國家?
?How did Hungary, one of the most powerful medi kingdoms, become such a small and weak country? Why is Hungary the only European country that lost more than half of its original territory?
譯文簡介
中世紀的匈牙利是一個龐大而強大的國家，因為直到19世紀或20世紀早期，這些國家的組織基礎與當前國家完全不同。
正文翻譯
How did Hungary, one of the most powerful medi kingdoms, become such a small and weak country? Why is Hungary the only European country that lost more than half of its original territory?
匈牙利，中世紀最強大的王國之一，是如何變成如此弱小的國家的?為什么匈牙利是唯一一個失去了一半以上原有領土的歐洲國家?
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
Medi Hungary was large and strong because until the 19th/early 20th centuries the states were organized on completely different bases from the current states.
In the Middle Ages, the ethnic origin of the common people (peasants, townspeople) did not matter. What mattered was that the nobility shared the same political identity. Nobles in the Kingdom of Hungary, regardless of their ethnic origin, considered themselves to belong to the Hungarian political nation. Common people, regardless of their ethnic origin, had nothing to say in state politics.
Hungary was not a singular case. There have been many such states:
Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire
But since the 19th century, states have been organized according to ethnic principle. The peoples of Europe have fought for independence and national unification.
So multiethnic entities have disintegrated.
According to the 1850 census, ethnic Hungarians were only 40% of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary + Transylvania, but without Croatia.
Such an entity had no place in 20th century Europe. At the first favorable opportunity (end of WW1), oppressed peoples (Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Ruthenians) were liberated.
中世紀的匈牙利是一個龐大而強大的國家，因為直到19世紀或20世紀早期，這些國家的組織基礎與當前國家完全不同。
在中世紀，平民(農民、城鎮(zhèn)居民)的種族出身并不重要。重要的是，貴族們擁有相同的政治身份。匈牙利王國的貴族，無論他們的種族出身，都認為自己屬于匈牙利政治階層。普通人，無論他們的種族出身，在國家政治中都沒有發(fā)言權。
匈牙利并非個例。有很多這樣的國家:
立陶宛大公國；波蘭立陶宛聯(lián)邦；保加利亞帝國；瑞典（芬蘭在12世紀至19世紀是瑞典的一部分。這并不意味著它現在必須成為瑞典的一部分）；神羅帝國；奧地利帝國，俄羅斯帝國，奧斯曼帝國。
但自19世紀以來，國家就按照種族原則劃分了。歐洲各國人民為獨立和國家統(tǒng)一而斗爭。因此，多民族實體已經瓦解。
根據1850年的人口普查，匈牙利少數民族人口僅占匈牙利王國和特蘭西瓦尼亞的40%，不包括克羅地亞。鏈接略
這樣一個實體在20世紀的歐洲沒有立足之地。在一戰(zhàn)結束終于有了一次有利的機會，被壓迫的人民(羅馬尼亞人、斯洛伐克人、塞爾維亞人、魯塞尼亞人)獲得了解放。
It’s sad to see in the comments how strong emotions are generated by demagogy and propaganda spread to somehow justify political shit.
Please be aware that all people can do horrible things. The nationality doesn’t count. Never did. In some situations everyone can become evil, including you/us. Just hope we’ll never be in such situation and let’s show how we are better.
All of us should join forces, work as a team for Europe (or preferably for a future united nations of Earth) and forget ancient structures which always served the goals of politics and some actual ruler class.
If we can not do that, and stuck in the state of blame-war and justification-searching despite our significant technical advantage, we are no better at all. That’s it.
在評論中看到煽動和宣傳如何產生強烈的情緒，以某種方式為政治謊言辯護，真是可悲。
請注意，所有人都可能做出可怕的事情。與國籍無關，歷來如此。在某些情況下，每個人都可能變成惡魔，包括你們/我們。希望我們永遠不會出現這種情況，讓我們展示我們如何變得更好。
我們所有人都應該聯(lián)合起來，作為一個團體為歐洲(或者最好是為一個未來的地球聯(lián)眾國)而奮斗，忘記總是服務于政治目標的事物和一些實際統(tǒng)治者階級。
如果我們做不到這一點，即便我們擁有巨大的科技優(yōu)勢，也仍將陷于指責戰(zhàn)爭和尋找理由的狀態(tài)，我們就根本不會更好。
就是這樣。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
The only one of those empires that still survived as an empire up to this day is the Russian one, although it lost a few territories, it’s still a multiethnic empire with an “elected” leader.
直到今天，唯一幸存下來的帝國是俄羅斯帝國，盡管它失去了一些領土，但它仍然是一個多民族的帝國，有一個“民選”的領導人。
What remains of formally Russian territory though is about 80% ethnic Russian, so even if it were fully democratic, the political power of other groups would be limited (much as, say, the voting preferences of White English people tend to dominate UK politics, not because others are excluded but simply by weight of numbers). There are a few sovereign European states where it’s impossible for a single ethnic group to dominate the government, although none of them are major powers: Belgium, Bosnia&Herzegovina and Switzerland.
然而，俄羅斯領土上80%的人都是俄羅斯族，所以即使它是完全民主的，其他族裔的政治權力也將是有限的。就像英國白人的投票偏好往往會主導英國政治一樣，不是因為其他人被排除在外了，而是單純受到人數的影響。
只有少數幾個歐洲主權國家，單一民族不可能主宰政府，盡管它們都不是大國:比利時、波斯尼亞，黑塞哥維那和瑞士。
The centuries of Ottoman occupation of southern-central Hungary must have also reduced its size compared to the Middle Ages.
奧斯曼帝國對匈牙利中南部地區(qū)長達幾個世紀的占領，也使其面積與中世紀相比有所縮小。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Such an entity had no place in 20th century Europe
Yes but some lasted for most of that century, like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Soviet unx.
“這樣一個實體在20世紀的歐洲沒有立足之地。”
是的，但有些國家在那個世紀的大部分時間都還活著，比如捷克斯洛伐克、南斯拉夫和蘇聯(lián)。
Russia is still that way. I understand that some of these are in the part of Russia that is in Asia and not just Europe but according to the Encyclopedia Britannica RussiaRussia is a diverse multi-ethnical country comprising of 120 different ethnic groups many of them with their own national territories. Within the Russian borders around 100 different languages are spoken
俄羅斯仍然是這樣。我知道俄羅斯部分在亞洲，部分在歐洲
但據大英百科全書記載，俄羅斯是一個多元化的多民族國家，由120個不同的民族組成。他們中的許多人擁有自己的國家領土。俄羅斯境內大約有100種不同的語言。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
They sided with the nazis and since they lost, they gor punished. IMO considering Budapest is still standing and such a beautiful place, they didn't get pubished enough since the motherfuckers just sold their own people so easily (90% of Hungarian jews perished). They are lucky they still have a country. (Not an attack on modern Hungarians, I actually love Hungary and budapest but quite frankly things could have turned out much worse for them back then)
他們站在納粹一邊，因為他們輸了，所以受到了懲罰。在我看來，布達佩斯仍然屹立不倒，而且是一個如此美麗的地方，他們的出版物還不夠多，因為那些混蛋們太輕易地出賣了他們自己的人民。（90%的匈牙利猶太人死亡）
他們很幸運，他們還有一個國家。(這不是對現代匈牙利人的攻擊，我其實很喜歡匈牙利和布達佩斯，但坦白地說，當時的情況對他們來說可能會更糟)
First of all, your premise is false. Lithuania, for example, lost more than 80% of its territory.
Secondly, half of the kingdom of Hungary wasn't Hungarian to begin with but Romanian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Serb and Croat. As it ceased to exist as an independent state in the 16th century, no cultural assimilation of minorities happened. On the contrary, the Ottoman occupation caused the displacement and shrinkage of the ethnic Hungarian population and the arrival of other ethnic groups. So it's no surprise that when the age of nationalism came, other ethnic groups had no intention to reconstitute the kingdom of Hungary in its medi borders and Hungary simply consolidated around existing ethnic Hungarian centres of population.
首先，你的前提是錯誤的。例如，立陶宛失去了超過80%的領土。
其次，匈牙利王國的一半不是匈牙利人而是羅馬尼亞人，斯洛伐克人，烏克蘭人，塞爾維亞人和克羅地亞人。在16世紀，它不再是一個獨立的國家，少數民族的文化融合也沒有發(fā)生。
相反，奧斯曼帝國的占領導致了匈牙利少數民族人口的遷移和減少，以及其他少數民族的到來。所以，當民族主義時代到來的時候，其他民族團體并沒有打算以中世紀的邊界重建匈牙利王國，匈牙利只是在現有的匈牙利民族人口中心附近鞏固了自己的地位，這就不足為奇了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Your comments lacks consistency. You assume a medi kingdom breaks apart due to its multiethnicity. This is definitely not true. This is how Eupore would look like if we apply your statement on all modern European countries.
The real question is: why could Hungary not conslidate from a medi state to a modern nation, when other countries could.
And such question has a very complicated anwser that is far more complex than the minority issue, which was just the outcome, not the root cause.
你的評論前后不一致。你假設一個中世紀王國因多種族而分裂。這肯定是不對的。如果我們將你的聲明應用于所有現代歐洲國家，這就是歐洲應該有的樣子。
真正的問題是:為什么匈牙利不能從一個中世紀國家發(fā)展成一個現代國家，而其他國家卻可以。
這個問題的答案非常復雜，遠比少數族裔問題復雜，少數族裔問題只是結果，而不是根本原因。
The answer is in your question. The kingdom of Hungary did not evolve into a modern state like France or Spain because it ceased to exist in the early 16th century. Therefore all Hungary could do was reemerge as a much smaller entity during the age of nationalism around ethnic Hungarian centres of population. Had it not been conquered by the Ottoman empire and divided up with the Habsburgs the outcome would probably have been drastically different. But that's fiction not History.
答案就在你的問題里。匈牙利王國沒有像法國或西班牙那樣發(fā)展成為一個現代國家，因為它在16世紀早期就不復存在了。
因此，匈牙利所能做的就是在民族主義時代以一個小得多的實體重新以匈牙利族為核心成立國家。
如果它沒有被奧斯曼帝國征服并被哈布斯堡王朝瓜分，結果可能會截然不同。但那是虛構的，不是歷史。
Exactly! The root cause is that when all european powers started centralizing and inreasing mobility and trade helped natural assimilation, HUngary was basically a province of Habsburg Empire, with a feudal society of serfs and land onwers. By the time Hungary had a short grasp of air to consolidate from 1868–1914, it was too late. And that is why the minorities could decide to break away
完全正確！根本原因是，當所有歐洲列強開始集權，增強流動性和貿易以促進了自然同化的時候，匈牙利基本上是哈布斯堡帝國的一個省，一個農奴和地主構成的封建社會。
1868年至1914年，匈牙利有了短暫的喘息機會，可以整合自己，但為時已晚。這就是為什么少數民族會決定脫離匈牙利。
Why did the Habsburgs fail to assimilate their minorities? Why did England fail to assimilate Ireland? They both survived into the modern age yet failed to do it.
為什么哈布斯堡家族沒能同化他們的少數民族?為什么英國不能同化愛爾蘭?他們都活到了現代，但都沒有成功。
Habsburgs were a monarchy. They were not interested in creating a nation state. Nation states are essetnial for constitutional monarchies and republics.
England did eradicate much of the original irish language. But difference in religion, being an island with limited english population influx, and strong irish nationalism was the main reason the irish kept their identity. (Except N-Ireland)
Point being: when England, France and Spain were radically assimilating minority languages in the 18th century, Hungarians were under Habsburg dominion, who kept latin the official langauge, introduced german as well in administration, but allowed minority langauges to be spoken unofficially and left the church langauge unchanged, and did not eradicate protestant or orthodox church. This status remained until 1920, even though attempts of magyarization did happen under the dual monarchy period.
哈布斯堡王朝是君主制國家。他們對建立一個民族國家不感興趣。民族國家對于君主立憲制和共和政體來說是必不可少的。
而英格蘭確實消滅了許多原始的愛爾蘭語。但在宗教上的差異不大，并且作為一座島嶼，英格蘭人的涌入很有限，強烈的愛爾蘭民族主義是愛爾蘭人保持其身份的主要原因。(北愛爾蘭除外)
要點是:當英國、法國和西班牙在18世紀從根本上同化少數民族語言時，匈牙利人處于哈布斯堡王朝的統(tǒng)治之下，哈布斯堡王朝保留了拉丁語為官方語言，同時在行政管理中引入了德語，但允許少數民族的語言在非正式場合使用，教會語言沒有改變，也沒有消滅新教或東正教。這種狀態(tài)一直保持到1920年，盡管在雙重君主制時期確實發(fā)生了匈牙利化的嘗試。
I think there is also the problem of critical mass. While it is relatively easy to assimilate small and disparate minorities, assimilating large distinct and geographically compact population centres is much harder. France and to a lesser extent Spain didn't have that problem. The Hapsburg and the Hungarians did.
我認為還有核心群體的問題。同化小而不同的少數民族相對容易，但同化大而不同且地理位置緊湊的人口就困難得多。
法國和西班牙都沒有這個問題，哈布斯堡和匈牙利人有。
The Habsburg empire was extremely multi-ethnic compared to other European empires, it was just not possible to create a nation state out of it. Besides the Hungarians, who were probably the best organized and most problematic minorities there were northern Slavs, southern Slavs, Romanians and of course all kinds of German settlers all over the empire. Four language groups with zillion dialects. When in 1868 the Habsburgs decided to grant the Hungarians an exceptional status among the minorities (followed with forced Hungarianization) it is no wonder that the others were pissed off and the end was just a matter of time. Had the Habsburgs decided to create a confederation instead with states created along ethnical borders back then things might have turned out completely different. I have lived in both Belgium and Switzerland, both of them only having two language/cultural groups (romance and germanic) with highly separated government structures along ethnic boundaries and still there are tensions. So it’s Franz Joseph’s fault after all :)
與其他歐洲帝國相比，哈布斯堡帝國是一個多民族的帝國，要在此基礎上建立一個民族國家是不可能的。匈牙利人可能是最有組織，最成問題的少數民族，除此之外還有北部的斯拉夫人，南部的斯拉夫人，羅馬尼亞人，當然還有遍布帝國的德國移居者。
有無數方言的四個語言群。1868年，哈布斯堡王朝決定給予匈牙利人在少數民族中的特殊地位(隨后又強迫其他族裔匈牙利化)。難怪其他人都很生氣，這只是個時間問題。如果哈布斯堡家族決定建立一個聯(lián)邦國度，沿著民族邊界建立幾個州，那么事情可能會完全不同。
我曾在比利時和瑞士生活過，這兩個國家都只有兩種語言/文化群體(羅曼語和日耳曼語)，政府結構沿著種族邊界高度分離，但緊張局勢依然存在。所以這一定是Franz Joseph的錯/笑
（注：Franz Joseph——生于1830年8月18日, 卒于1916年11月21日, 奧地利皇帝(1848-1916)兼匈牙利國王(1867-1916)，他將帝國劃分為雙重君主制，奧地利和匈牙利作為平等的伙伴共存（也即我們現在所稱的“奧匈帝國”）。1879年，他與普魯士領導的德國結成聯(lián)盟;1914年，他向塞爾維亞發(fā)出最后通牒，導致奧地利和德國卷入第一次世界大戰(zhàn)。）
I think you expect too much foresight from Franz Joseph. In his time nationalism was still new and a state based on language was just a liberal nonsense. The definition of a state (a monarchy to be specific) was based on the historic institutions such as the crown, the Church, the collective identity of the leading class, the properties they held, the natural geographical and economic borders of the carpathian basin. Minorities had no such institutions or traditions of a state, they never had. Some had their own Church, such as Orthodox Romanians, and a notion of an independent Transylvanian Principality, but even that was more of a successor of the Hungarian Kingdom than a Romanian state .
The federation would only have been possible if while leading class and the Hungarian population puts away its own nationalism, which was also a relatively new ideology, and supports the drastic reorganization of a 1000 year old state.
And we have to mention that even a federation would not have been a full proof solution to the problem of the expansionist policy of the Old Romanian Kingdom, who constantly seeked to grab Transylvania, or Serbia that also had minorities in Vojvodina. Romanians even today in the EU find the sekler autonomy a national threat.
Creating states of a federation would have been very risky. Normally you only look for such a drastic solution when it is your last option. But this was not the case before ww1. The monarchy was much more stable than they depict it today. There were tensions but not instability. Spain today is more unstable than the monarchy was. Do you see any chance that Spain will be a federation?
我覺得你對Franz Joseph期望太高了。在他的時代，民族主義還很新鮮，建立在語言基礎上的國家只是自由主義的無稽之談。
國家的定義(具體來說是君主制)是由諸如王冠、教會、領導階級的集體身份、他們所擁有的財產、喀爾巴阡盆地的自然地理和經濟邊界等歷史制度決定的。
少數民族沒有這樣的制度或傳統(tǒng)，他們從來沒有。有些人有自己的教會，比如羅馬尼亞東正教，還有一個獨立的特蘭西瓦尼亞公國的概念，但它更像是匈牙利王國的繼承者，而不是羅馬尼亞。
只有當領導階級和匈牙利人民放下自己的民族主義(這也是一種相對較新的意識形態(tài))，支持對一個有1000年歷史的國家進行激烈重組時，聯(lián)邦才有可能成立。我們必須指出，即使建立聯(lián)邦也不能完全解決老羅馬尼亞王國擴張主義政策的問題，老羅馬尼亞王國不斷尋求占領特蘭西瓦尼亞或塞爾維亞以及在伏伊伏丁那的少數族裔。即使是今天在歐盟的羅馬尼亞人也認為塞克勒自治是一種國家威脅。
在聯(lián)邦中建立州是非常危險的。通常情況下，你只會在最后選擇的時候才會尋找這種極端的解決方案。但在一戰(zhàn)之前，情況并非如此。當時的君主制比他們今天描繪的要穩(wěn)定得多。局勢緊張，但并非不穩(wěn)定。今天的西班牙比君主制時代更加不穩(wěn)定。你覺得西班牙有可能成為一個聯(lián)邦嗎?
I din’t believe my eyes ! Nobody even mention the real cause why Hungary lost 2/3 of territory and 63% of her population ! Everybody repeat the Romanian, Slovakian, Serbian explanation. They try to justify there land stilling using the nationalist explication, and NOT a word about the ANTANT. The Antant created Great Romania, Chehoslovakia, Yugoslavia. The English and the French used their Colonial Empire , bringing in the European War army;s from Africa , India, New Zeland, Australia Canada, Asia etc. but still was not enough , they looked for other country;s to bring in the war on their side. In 1915 they worked on Italy, promising them not only South Tirol from Austria, but territory in Turkey . Was more Italian in that territory then Turks ? In 1916 they try Romania, promising them Transilvania, Bulgarian and Russian territory , was easy for England and France, they promise somebody else territory, not their own ! And at the time of the Trianon treaty , they draw the borders for the knew states, who they created from Hungarian territory . They didn’t know and didn’t care who live on that territory . For them was only territory. And was not theirs ! Do you think they knew the percentage of Romanians in Transilvania ? Or they cared about the nationals right to self rule ? They who brutally put down every resistant to their colonial oppression ,countless revolt in India and other colonies . Do you really believe they been concerned about the nationality’s in Hungary ? In Romanian history books, you don’t find the treaty Romania signed with the Antant, where they promised them territory’s if they enter in the war on their side. They bribed Romania with the territory’s.Poor Romanians, many of them believe , their country entered the war because of their brothers in Transilvania . If so, why they did not entered the war when it started ? Why they had to wait 2 years, until the Antant came up with the bribe ? How Churchill said, after become the ally of Stalin.—If Hitler invade the hell, I would ally with the Devil ! ( England has no friends, only interests )
我真不敢相信我的眼睛！根本沒有人提到匈牙利失去三分之二的領土和63%人口的真正原因！
大家都在重復羅馬尼亞人，斯洛伐克人，塞爾維亞人一類的解釋。他們試圖用民族主義的解釋來為他們的土地辯護，而對“三國協(xié)約”（Triple Entente）只字未提。正是因為“三國協(xié)約”由此創(chuàng)建了大羅馬尼亞（Great Romania），切霍斯洛伐克（Chehoslovakia）和南斯拉夫。英國和法國利用他們的殖民帝國，把來自非洲、印度、新西蘭、澳大利亞、加拿大、亞洲的殖民軍隊引入歐洲戰(zhàn)爭。
（注：三國同盟是德、奧、意三國 ；三國協(xié)約是英、法、俄三國，目的就是為了重新瓜分世界。由于各國種種矛盾，引發(fā)戰(zhàn)爭，從而形成三國同盟和三國協(xié)約。
形成三國同盟和三國協(xié)約的矛盾國和其矛盾有：1．法德矛盾（普法戰(zhàn)爭的后果問題）；2．主要矛盾英德矛盾（世界市場和殖民地問題）；3．俄奧矛盾（巴爾干問題）。）
但這還不夠，他們開始將其他國家引入戰(zhàn)爭并站在自己這邊。1915年，他們慫恿意大利，不僅許諾從奧地利得到南泰洛，而且還許諾土耳其的領土。這些地方的意大利人比土耳其人更多嗎？
1916年，他們動員羅馬尼亞，承諾給他們特蘭西瓦尼亞，保加利亞和俄羅斯的領土。張張嘴怎么說都行，畢竟不是從英國和法國而是從他國領土割讓土地！
在特里亞農條約下，他們劃定了如今所熟知的國家的邊界，這些國家都成立于匈牙利的領土上。他們不知道也不關心誰住在那片土地上。對他們來說，這只有領土，并且不是自己的。
（注：特里亞農條約（Treaty of Trianon），又譯作特里阿農條約，是1920年協(xié)約國集團和匈牙利簽訂的一項制定匈牙利邊界的條約。）
你覺得他們知道特蘭西瓦尼亞有多少羅馬尼亞人嗎?你覺得他們會關心這些國民的自治權利嗎? 他們殘酷地鎮(zhèn)壓了每一次反抗他們殖民的壓迫斗爭，以及無數次在印度和其他殖民地掀起的壓迫斗爭。你真的相信他們會在乎匈牙利人的國籍嗎?在羅馬尼亞的歷史書里，你找不到羅馬尼亞和“三國協(xié)約”的人簽署的條約，后者承諾，如果他們站在自己的一邊參戰(zhàn)，就會得到領土。
許多可憐的羅馬尼亞人相信，他們的國家參戰(zhàn)是為了他們在特蘭西瓦尼亞的兄弟。如果是這樣，為什么戰(zhàn)爭開始時他們沒有參戰(zhàn)? 為什么他們要等2年，直到“三國協(xié)約”動員并賄賂? 在成為斯大林的盟友之后，丘吉爾曾說：如果希特勒入侵地獄，我將與魔鬼結盟！(英國沒有朋友，只有利益)