Tinto Flavour #9 - 7th of March 2025 - Hungary

[Zbbts]

I was just watching Redhawk's video where he answers a couple of questions about EU5, and there's something he says that I'm a bit confused about. In the part where he talks about personal unions, Hungary and Croatia are brought up as an example, and he says that the personal union is at the lowest level of integration, Croatia is not even a junior partner. They act almost completely autonomously, outside of having the same ruler and being in the "union".

I hope that this will be fixed. Croatia had some autonomy, sure, but it had been in a personal union with Hungary since the 12th century, it's nowhere near comparable to the personal union of Hungary and Poland under Louis the Great for example. (which would be similar to what was described) I would still advocate for it to be represented as a Banate (like it was proposed to have Slavonia as one), but if it remains a PU, it should definitely not have that amount of autonomy.

That would explain why I saw Croatia being annexed by countries other than Hungary or losing territory to someone else, while seeing Hungary being intact (meaning they probably didn't participate in Croatia's defensive war before). What you saw in Redhawk's video would explain this, hopefully they ramp the integration up with a step or two until launch, because this is silly.

 

[ArVass]

That would explain why I saw Croatia being annexed by countries other than Hungary or losing territory to someone else, while seeing Hungary being intact (meaning they probably didn't participate in Croatia's defensive war before). What you saw in Redhawk's video would explain this, hopefully they ramp the integration up with a step or two until launch, because this is silly.

View attachment 1304197
View attachment 1304200
View attachment 1304201
View attachment 1304204

I was just watching Redhawk's video where he answers a couple of questions about EU5, and there's something he says that I'm a bit confused about. In the part where he talks about personal unions, Hungary and Croatia are brought up as an example, and he says that the personal union is at the lowest level of integration, Croatia is not even a junior partner. They act almost completely autonomously, outside of having the same ruler and being in the "union".

I hope that this will be fixed. Croatia had some autonomy, sure, but it had been in a personal union with Hungary since the 12th century, it's nowhere near comparable to the personal union of Hungary and Poland under Louis the Great for example. (which would be similar to what was described) I would still advocate for it to be represented as a Banate (like it was proposed to have Slavonia as one), but if it remains a PU, it should definitely not have that amount of autonomy.

Exactly, @Pavía Croatia should start either as a junior partner with several integration levels/laws in; they had no separate foreign policy, for example, and the problem you mentioned earlier in this thread of them allying the Serbs should not happen, as they had no authority in that direction; or start as some sort of a PU-vassal situation.
Related issue - in almost all the gameplay videos released, Hungary immediately attacks Bosnia. This should not happen for two reasons:
1. Bosnia was, in fact (although mostly nominally), already a vassal of Hungary;
2. They were allied, and on good terms, with Hungary

Thank you for your consideration!

 

[koreanjesus218]

@Pavía

There was a mention of Hajduks in the Serbia Tinto flavour, and I thought I might suggest something when it comes to Hungary/Transylvania.

First, in Hungarian, Hajdúk is the plural, while Hajdú is the singular. But I know in english Hajduk is the singular, so I'll use that.

The Hungarian Hajduks were created from serfs when István Bocskai emancipated them after they fought in his uprising. They were settled down in certain areas (known as the Hajdúság), and were granted certain privileges. Because of this, they can no longer be considered serfs/peasants, but they wouldn't fit into any other estate either. Later more Hajduk settlements were created, some settlements were granted "Hajdúszabadság", these became known as Hajduk cities (Hajdúvárosok). Eventually the nobles in the 18th century started to abolish Hajduk privileges and force them back into serfdom (after the turks were ousted, they weren't needed for border protection anymore).

This is why I'm suggesting that Hajduk should be a seperate estate that can be created after a decision to emancipate serfs in the Age of Reformation (many joined Bocskai due to religious oppression). It would also be nice to have events where the nobility estate tries to force them back into serfdom if the Hajduk estate loses power/influence.

 

[Uskok]

I actually think Redhawk's description of Croatia as being in a loosely integrated personal union with Hungary is quite accurate for the year 1337. While it's true that Croatia was in a personal union with Hungary since 1102, the level of integration remained relatively low well into the 14th century.
Croatia retained its own institutions, such as the Sabor (assembly) and the office of the Ban, who governed in the king’s name. Technically, Croatia could conduct its own military campaigns and foreign policy, but in practice, this was rarely the case—not
because it was legally forbidden, but because of internal divisions within the Croatian nobility and a general dependence on Hungarian military and political power.
By 1337, Croatia was not a junior partner in the way modern personal unions are sometimes portrayed (like Castile-Aragon or the later Austro-Hungarian model). Instead, it was more of a loosely connected kingdom under the same monarch, with limited coordination on external matters unless initiated by the crown.
Therefore, representing Croatia as a personal
union with Hungary, but with a low level of integration, would actually be the most historically accurate. It shouldn't be a fully autonomous independent entity, but neither should it be treated as a fully absorbed vassal or internal region. This distinction is important and reflects the complex political reality of Central Europe in the 14th century.

I hope that there will remain the possibility of more independent conduct of foreign policy within the personal union with a lower degree of integration.

 

[Uskok]

For Croatia:

Hajduci (Special Unit)
Description:
Hajduci are irregular guerrilla groups operating in the mountainous and forested areas of the Balkans. They sometimes act as folk heroes, and at other times as ruthless outlaws. During the Ottoman expansion, many Christian communities encouraged hajduci to attack caravans, supply lines, and Ottoman garrisons. Although informal, their courage and knowledge of the terrain make them a useful ally — if they can be contained.

Uskoci (Naval Raider and Special Unit)
Description:
Uskoci are borderland warriors who fled the Ottomans and settled under the protection of the Habsburgs, most often in Senj (Croatia). Using small, fast ships, the Uskoci became known for attacking Ottoman and Venetian ships, often ignoring peace treaties and diplomatic consequences. Their activities caused frequent diplomatic tensions, but they were an invaluable naval force in the defense of the Adriatic coast.

 

[Zbbts]

@Pavía

There was a mention of Hajduks in the Serbia Tinto flavour, and I thought I might suggest something when it comes to Hungary/Transylvania.

First, in Hungarian, Hajdúk is the plural, while Hajdú is the singular. But I know in english Hajduk is the singular, so I'll use that.

The Hungarian Hajduks were created from serfs when István Bocskai emancipated them after they fought in his uprising. They were settled down in certain areas (known as the Hajdúság), and were granted certain privileges. Because of this, they can no longer be considered serfs/peasants, but they wouldn't fit into any other estate either. Later more Hajduk settlements were created, some settlements were granted "Hajdúszabadság", these became known as Hajduk cities (Hajdúvárosok). Eventually the nobles in the 18th century started to abolish Hajduk privileges and force them back into serfdom (after the turks were ousted, they weren't needed for border protection anymore).

This is why I'm suggesting that Hajduk should be a seperate estate that can be created after a decision to emancipate serfs in the Age of Reformation (many joined Bocskai due to religious oppression). It would also be nice to have events where the nobility estate tries to force them back into serfdom if the Hajduk estate loses power/influence.

I very much like this idea, although I wonder if this strata of people would've appeared if the Ottomans were halted in the Balkans for example (but they could also appear if you are neighbors with a non-christian great power). As an estate they could work similarly to cossacks (might even use the same estate icon), and even if you settle them, they could reappear as an estate privilege (for example "settled Hajduks" privilege with the peasants estate) which would give things like livestock production bonus, maybe some minor military ones (not even necessarily combat power/ability but something like combat speed -for higher initiative- or a minor manpower bonus) in exchange for less tax income from the peasants estate.

They had an event in eu4, but that was a combat ability bonus for like 20 years or something, here they could make it something permanent like an estate, a privilege or maybe a law (or policy).

Hope the devs didn't forget about this event and will reappear somehow but in a better way. And also it could be a general thing with many Eastern European/Balkan countries, not exclusive to Hungary.

Btw I come from one of these Hajduk towns called Derecske. It has a typical Ottoman friendly (strictly not at all violent) coat of arms.

 

[koreanjesus218]

I very much like this idea, although I wonder if this strata of people would've appeared if the Ottomans were halted in the Balkans for example (but they could also appear if you are neighbors with a non-christian great power). As an estate they could work similarly to cossacks (might even use the same estate icon), and even if you settle them, they could reappear as an estate privilege (for example "settled Hajduks" privilege with the peasants estate) which would give things like livestock production bonus, maybe some minor military ones (not even necessarily combat power/ability but something like combat speed -for higher initiative- or a minor manpower bonus) in exchange for less tax income from the peasants estate.

They had an event in eu4, but that was a combat ability bonus for like 20 years or something, here they could make it something permanent like an estate, a privilege or maybe a law (or policy).

I contemplated whether they would have emerged without the role the Ottomans took IRL, but I thought in the end, they would be a cool flavour mechanic, that could be explained in almost any scenario. In the case where they don't become as influential, it could just be an estate privilege as you say, but there should be the possibility that they become powerful enough to form their own estate from the Commoners estate. I also think it would be interesting to explore the other "extreme", as a what if Hajduk privileges became more widespread, maybe even leading a rebellion instead of the nobles and forming something like the Cossak Hetmanate, but alternate history stuff like that is probably best left for a DLC.

 

[Zbbts]

I contemplated whether they would have emerged without the role the Ottomans took IRL, but I thought in the end, they would be a cool flavour mechanic, that could be explained in almost any scenario. In the case where they don't become as influential, it could just be an estate privilege as you say, but there should be the possibility that they become powerful enough to form their own estate from the Commoners estate. I also think it would be interesting to explore the other "extreme", as a what if Hajduk privileges became more widespread, maybe even leading a rebellion instead of the nobles and forming something like the Cossak Hetmanate, but alternate history stuff like that is probably best left for a DLC.

I like and support this.

 

[ArVass]

@Pavía

There was a mention of Hajduks in the Serbia Tinto flavour, and I thought I might suggest something when it comes to Hungary/Transylvania.

First, in Hungarian, Hajdúk is the plural, while Hajdú is the singular. But I know in english Hajduk is the singular, so I'll use that.

The Hungarian Hajduks were created from serfs when István Bocskai emancipated them after they fought in his uprising. They were settled down in certain areas (known as the Hajdúság), and were granted certain privileges. Because of this, they can no longer be considered serfs/peasants, but they wouldn't fit into any other estate either. Later more Hajduk settlements were created, some settlements were granted "Hajdúszabadság", these became known as Hajduk cities (Hajdúvárosok). Eventually the nobles in the 18th century started to abolish Hajduk privileges and force them back into serfdom (after the turks were ousted, they weren't needed for border protection anymore).

This is why I'm suggesting that Hajduk should be a seperate estate that can be created after a decision to emancipate serfs in the Age of Reformation (many joined Bocskai due to religious oppression). It would also be nice to have events where the nobility estate tries to force them back into serfdom if the Hajduk estate loses power/influence.

The problem with making Hajdús a separate estate is that it opens a certain can of worms, because then you have to make other privileged groups in Hungary their own separate estates too - the way the Székely, Cuman, and Saxon privileges worked is somewhat similar to what the Hajdús got under Bocskai, especially the Székelys. This might not be feasible, even though a great idea.

What definitely could be done is representing the Seats and the Hajdú Towns with buildings with local benefits; Székely and Cuman seats, as well as Hajdú Towns having a military character to them, grant manpower (makes sense so that you can enlist Székely Lófő cavalry, Cuman Horse Archers, and Hajdú regiments at greater numbers than what their fraction in the total population would mean) and increased levy output and/or levy starting experience (military people, meaning their eligible male population is all skilled), lower income from tax from these locations, and increased power of the Commoners estate (as the "lower nobility" these people belonged to is likely more akin to free commoners); and Saxon seats having an urban character with opposite effects (less levies, more trade income, etc.).

 

[koreanjesus218]

The problem with making Hajdús a separate estate is that it opens a certain can of worms, because then you have to make other privileged groups in Hungary their own separate estates too - the way the Székely, Cuman, and Saxon privileges worked is somewhat similar to what the Hajdús got under Bocskai, especially the Székelys. This might not be feasible, even though a great idea.

What definitely could be done is representing the Seats and the Hajdú Towns with buildings with local benefits; Székely and Cuman seats, as well as Hajdú Towns having a military character to them, grant manpower (makes sense so that you can enlist Székely Lófő cavalry, Cuman Horse Archers, and Hajdú regiments at greater numbers than what their fraction in the total population would mean) and increased levy output and/or levy starting experience (military people, meaning their eligible male population is all skilled), lower income from tax from these locations, and increased power of the Commoners estate (as the "lower nobility" these people belonged to is likely more akin to free commoners); and Saxon seats having an urban character with opposite effects (less levies, more trade income, etc.).

Yeah, I thought it might be an issue as well. I would preferably have the seats be their own estates as well (I don't know how else their privileges could be adjusted), but I understand that that might be hard to manage. I thought it made most sense to have Hajduks as their own estate due to their similarity to cossacks, who do have their own estate in EU4. On the other hand, their privileges were also really similar to the Szekelys, so maybe it is arbitrary.

I don't know how serfdom is represented in the game (has there been a TT on it?) and I admit I conflated the commoners estate with serfs, so there might not even be seperate serf pops to "convert" to Hajduks. But that's mainly what I wanted the estate for, to represent the emancipation of serfs in a somewhat unique way, even though it was temporary IRL.

 

[Fehervari]

While it's true that Croatia was in a personal union with Hungary since 1102

*according to Croatian historiography

 

[Uskok]

*according to Croatian historiography

* according to real history and not someone's imagination.

e.g.

‘Ars et virtus’ – 800 Years of Common Heritage of Croatia and Hungary

The Hungarian National Museum and the Galerija Klovićevi Dvori of Zagreb jointly present the cultural and historical relations between Croatia and Hungary via a temporary exhibition.

www.hungarianconservative.com

 

[Fehervari]

according to real history and not someone's imagination.

There's no need for an aggressive response. The question of Croatia's legal status vis-a-vis Hungary from 1091/1097/1102/1105 to 1868 is absolutely unsettled. There's no consensus, it's open to debate. As your linked article proves, yes, there are adherents/acceptors to the idea of personal union in Hungary too. I wrote "Croatian historiography", since the argument of Hungarian-Croatian personal union stems from there, and pretty much all Croatian historians view it as a matter of fact.

The side that argues that Croatia was an autonomous province, an "attached part" of Hungary also has its adherents and valid arguments.

 

[Uskok]

There's no need for an aggressive response. The question of Croatia's legal status vis-a-vis Hungary from 1091/1097/1102/1105 to 1868 is absolutely unsettled. There's no consensus, it's open to debate. As your linked article proves, yes, there are adherents/acceptors to the idea of personal union in Hungary too. I wrote "Croatian historiography", since the argument of Hungarian-Croatian personal union stems from there, and pretty much all Croatian historians view it as a matter of fact.

The side that argues that Croatia was an autonomous province, an "attached part" of Hungary also has its adherents and valid arguments.

There was no aggressive response, I just made a link that does not relate to Croatian historians.

You're right that the status of Croatia in relation to Hungary from the late 11th century to 1868 is not definitively settled and continues to be interpreted differently. However, several key historical facts are relevant to understanding the relationship:

• Succession and Personal Union: After the death of the last native Croatian king, Petar Snačić, in 1097, the Hungarian king Coloman was crowned King of Croatia. According to some sources, including the Pacta Conventa (whose authenticity is debated), Coloman’s rule was accepted under conditions that guaranteed Croatia a degree of political autonomy.
• Institutional Separation: Throughout the medieval and early modern periods, Croatia retained its own Parliament (Sabor), the institution of the Ban (viceroy), a distinct legal system, and separate taxation and military obligations. These elements point to Croatia being a separate political entity under the same crown, not merely a province of Hungary.
• Terminology in Official Documents: Many historical documents refer to "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" alongside "Regnum Hungariae," suggesting a formal distinction between the kingdoms, even if they shared the same monarch.
• De Facto Political Power: While there were periods — particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries — when Hungarian or later Habsburg central authority was stronger in Croatia, this did not eliminate the long-standing institutional autonomy that Croatia had previously enjoyed. Croatia was never formally abolished as a political entity until later administrative reforms.
• The Croatian-Hungarian Compromise (Nagodba) of 1868: The very fact that a negotiated political agreement was necessary between Croatia and Hungary in 1868 confirms that Croatia had maintained a distinct legal-political status. A province would not have required such an arrangement.


In conclusion, although historiographical interpretations vary, historical evidence supports the view that Croatia held a distinct legal and political status within the framework of a personal union with Hungary. Both Croatian and Hungarian historiographies reflect different aspects of this complex reality, shaped by national perspectives and political developments over the centuries.

 

[Fehervari]

I can recognise ChatGPT's writing style from miles away. ChatGPT writes whatever one wants it to write.
Here, this is what it spewed out to me:

1. Integration, Not Voluntary Union (1091–1102)​

• Hungary intervened in Croatia after the extinction of the native royal line, initially under King Ladislaus I, then solidified by King Coloman.
• This was a dynastic conquest or intervention, not a mutual agreement.
• Croatia was incorporated into the Hungarian Crown Lands; not a personal union of equals.
• Deér, like Pauler and Budak, highlights that early Croatian affiliation with Hungary came through military pressure and dynastic politics, not a negotiated constitutional framework.

2. The Pacta Conventa is a Later Invention​

• The so-called Pacta Conventa, traditionally dated to 1102, is not a contemporary document and is considered by all critical historians (Deér, Budak, Pauler, Horváth István) to be a 14th-century forgery or at best a retrospective political tool.
• It was instrumentalized from the 18th century onward (especially by Skerlecz and later Croatian nationalist historiography) to assert Croatian constitutional independence within the Kingdom.
• Even Croatian historian Ferdo Šišić, though cautious, acknowledged its non-contemporary origin.

3. Autonomy Was Fluctuating and Politically Conditional​

• While Croatia retained certain local institutions (e.g., ban, Sabor), these were subject to Hungarian royal authority and not guaranteed by any constitutional settlement.
• Autonomy was politically expedient, not foundational.
• This situation persisted through the medieval and Habsburg periods, especially after 1527 when Croatia turned to the Habsburgs for protection from the Ottomans but remained under the Hungarian Crown.

4. The 19th Century Debates Were Heavily Politicized​

• Both Hungarian and Croatian narratives in the 19th century retrojected modern legal concepts onto medieval history:
  • Croatian politicians used the Pacta Conventa as a contractual basis for historic statehood.
  • Hungarian scholars like Horváth István responded with assertions of complete conquest and provincial status, denying any foundational agreement.
• Deér shows how both sides in these debates constructed ahistorical legalistic models to serve contemporary political goals.

5. Modern Historiography Rejects the Binary: Not Full Autonomy, Not Simple Conquest​

• The best modern interpretations (e.g., Budak, Deér, Pauler, and recent Hungarian and Croatian scholars) reject both:
  • the Croatian myth of a 1102 contractual personal union,
  • and the Hungarian myth of a simple annexation or outright conquest.
• Instead, they describe a gradual integration, shaped by dynastic politics, military intervention, and the patrimonial character of medieval kingship.
• Croatia was a kingdom with special status, integrated into Hungary but without full sovereignty, and with variable autonomy that declined over time.

6. 1868 as a Turning Point​

• Only in 1868, with the Croatian-Hungarian Settlement (Nagodba), did Hungary formally recognize Croatia as a partner country within the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen.
• This was the first legal codification of Croatia’s autonomy in a modern constitutional sense.

---

Key Takeaway:​

Croatia was not an equal partner of Hungary from 1102, nor was it simply a conquered province without status. It was a kingdom subordinated to the Hungarian crown, with limited and fluctuating autonomy, whose relationship to Hungary was later retroactively misrepresented for political purposes. Critical historiography dismisses nationalist distortions and situates the Croatian-Hungarian relationship within the broader medieval context of dynastic politics and patrimonial monarchy.

 

[Uskok]

I can recognise ChatGPT's writing style from miles away. ChatGPT writes whatever one wants it to write.
Here, this is what it spewed out to me:

To understand why the foreign Arpadović dynasty came to power in Croatia in 1102, with which Croatia would be connected only by the person of the ruler, it is necessary to go back to the last years of the 11th century, which are in many ways significant for the subsequent course of Croatian history. King Dmitar Zvonimir died in 1089 without a direct heir, and his son Radovan even earlier. On the throne for a short time, until 1091, was Stjepan II, son of Gojslav II and nephew of Petar Krešimir IV. For a while he was Krešimir's co-ruler, but around 1070 he retired to a monastery. However, new circumstances returned him to the throne, and as he died soon after, he became the last ruler from the Trpimirović dynasty. In Croatia, there was general anarchy in which the nobles mercilessly fought among themselves. Jelena, the wife of the late King Zvonimir, formed an alliance with the nobles Petar Kakaunt and Petar Gusić and began to pursue her intention to bring her brother, the Hungarian King Ladislaus (c. 1040–1095), to the Croatian throne. The two nobles arrived in Hungary and offered Ladislaus the rule of the Croatian-Dalmatian kingdom, convincing him that it was disunited, without a ruler and without any external help.

The king accepted the invitation, gathered an army and in 1091 set out for Croatia, crossing the Drava near Virovitica. He achieved great success in Slavonia, where he conquered the area from the Drava southwards without much resistance. When he reached the location mentioned in historical records as Gvozd, i.e. the wide mountainous area in Gorski Kotar and Lika, resistance increased. However, this did not discourage Ladislaus, but the news that Byzantium, which still had formal authority over the Dalmatian cities, wanted to stop his campaign. Skillful imperial diplomacy sent the nomadic Cumans who had invaded from the north to Hungary, forcing the king to quickly return to his homeland. However, before that, he managed to secure new gains in the south in order to create the foundations for the final conquest of Croatia. He appointed his nephew Almoš (c. 1070 – c. 1129) as his deputy. Mentioned in historical documents as a duke and/or herceg, Almoš ruled the region of Slavonia.
Another measure of Ladislav would greatly influence Croatian history: in 1094, he founded the Zagreb Diocese, to which he subordinated the entire region of Slavonia and appointed a Czech named Duh as its first bishop.

Shortly after eliminating the Cumanian threat, Ladislaus died in 1095, and although Almoš was intended as his successor, he was succeeded by the duke's brother Koloman (before 1074 – 1116). The new king first wanted to resolve any disagreements over the occupation of Croatia, so he concluded an alliance with Pope Urban II (c. 1035 – 1099). He married the Norman princess Buzila, daughter of the pope's ally Duke Roger I. After that, Koloman concluded an alliance with the Venetian Republic, specifically with Doge Vitale I Michele, in which they mutually recognized their authority over the acquired territory. The Doge could retain the title of Duke of Dalmatia on the condition that Koloman's right to the title of Croatian King was recognized. With all these skillful diplomatic and family moves, Koloman opened the way to the conquest of Croatia. After gathering an army, in the spring of 1097 he crossed Slavonia and reached the northern foothills of Gvozd. There a famous battle took place in which the last ruler of the Croatian name, Petar Snačić (Svačić), was killed, and thus the possibility of unifying the Croats around a single domestic political name disappeared. On his return, Koloman successfully resolved the crisis caused by Almaš's dissatisfaction with the fact that he had not succeeded Ladislaus.

Despite the victory at Gvozd, it took Coloman several more years to conquer all of Croatia. He embarked on his final campaign in 1102, but he encountered fierce resistance from an alliance of Croatian nobles united after Peter's death. In order to avoid further bloodshed, the alliance agreed to sign the so-called Pacta conventa. This was an agreement by which Croatia entered into a personal union with Hungary. The most important of all the points of the agreement was the separate coronation of Coloman with the Croatian-Dalmatian crown. This ceremony was held in Biograd na Moru. As soon as he was crowned, Coloman decided not to honor the agreement made with Venice and in 1105 began a campaign in Dalmatia. He first set out for Zadar, where he encountered fierce resistance. Thanks to the mediation of Bishop Ivan of Trogir (Orsini), he managed to reach an agreement with Zadar and swore at the council to preserve the privileges of that city. Coloman then enters Zadar and, at the request of the Benedictine abbess Vekenega, confirms royal freedoms to the monastery of St. Mary, as evidenced by a charter. In Zadar, there is another historical reminder of Coloman: the early Romanesque monument of St. Mary, which Vekenega erected with funds received from him.

In this state union, Croatia always preserved its state-political distinctiveness and the position of a separate kingdom within the royal titulary, although the custom of separately crowning the Hungarian king as the Croatian king did not survive (only the first two kings of the Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom – Koloman and his son Stephen – had a separate coronation). The king in the Croatian lands was replaced by a dignitary with the title of ban (one or more of them). The mutual relations between the constituent kingdoms were regularly reviewed when individual dynasties died out and new ones were elected, especially in the period after the creation of class institutions (from the mid-14th century), and on such occasions the Croatian classes often emphasized Croatian distinctiveness and independence in relation to Hungary at councils (the Council of the Kingdom of Croatia in Cetin in 1527, the Croatian Pragmatic Sanction in 1712).

 

[Fehervari]

To understand why the foreign Arpadović dynasty came to power in Croatia in 1102, with which Croatia would be connected only by the person of the ruler, it is necessary to go back to the last years of the 11th century, which are in many ways significant for the subsequent course of Croatian history. King Dmitar Zvonimir died in 1089 without a direct heir, and his son Radovan even earlier. On the throne for a short time, until 1091, was Stjepan II, son of Gojslav II and nephew of Petar Krešimir IV. For a while he was Krešimir's co-ruler, but around 1070 he retired to a monastery. However, new circumstances returned him to the throne, and as he died soon after, he became the last ruler from the Trpimirović dynasty. In Croatia, there was general anarchy in which the nobles mercilessly fought among themselves. Jelena, the wife of the late King Zvonimir, formed an alliance with the nobles Petar Kakaunt and Petar Gusić and began to pursue her intention to bring her brother, the Hungarian King Ladislaus (c. 1040–1095), to the Croatian throne. The two nobles arrived in Hungary and offered Ladislaus the rule of the Croatian-Dalmatian kingdom, convincing him that it was disunited, without a ruler and without any external help.

The king accepted the invitation, gathered an army and in 1091 set out for Croatia, crossing the Drava near Virovitica. He achieved great success in Slavonia, where he conquered the area from the Drava southwards without much resistance. When he reached the location mentioned in historical records as Gvozd, i.e. the wide mountainous area in Gorski Kotar and Lika, resistance increased. However, this did not discourage Ladislaus, but the news that Byzantium, which still had formal authority over the Dalmatian cities, wanted to stop his campaign. Skillful imperial diplomacy sent the nomadic Cumans who had invaded from the north to Hungary, forcing the king to quickly return to his homeland. However, before that, he managed to secure new gains in the south in order to create the foundations for the final conquest of Croatia. He appointed his nephew Almoš (c. 1070 – c. 1129) as his deputy. Mentioned in historical documents as a duke and/or herceg, Almoš ruled the region of Slavonia.
Another measure of Ladislav would greatly influence Croatian history: in 1094, he founded the Zagreb Diocese, to which he subordinated the entire region of Slavonia and appointed a Czech named Duh as its first bishop.

Shortly after eliminating the Cumanian threat, Ladislaus died in 1095, and although Almoš was intended as his successor, he was succeeded by the duke's brother Koloman (before 1074 – 1116). The new king first wanted to resolve any disagreements over the occupation of Croatia, so he concluded an alliance with Pope Urban II (c. 1035 – 1099). He married the Norman princess Buzila, daughter of the pope's ally Duke Roger I. After that, Koloman concluded an alliance with the Venetian Republic, specifically with Doge Vitale I Michele, in which they mutually recognized their authority over the acquired territory. The Doge could retain the title of Duke of Dalmatia on the condition that Koloman's right to the title of Croatian King was recognized. With all these skillful diplomatic and family moves, Koloman opened the way to the conquest of Croatia. After gathering an army, in the spring of 1097 he crossed Slavonia and reached the northern foothills of Gvozd. There a famous battle took place in which the last ruler of the Croatian name, Petar Snačić (Svačić), was killed, and thus the possibility of unifying the Croats around a single domestic political name disappeared. On his return, Koloman successfully resolved the crisis caused by Almaš's dissatisfaction with the fact that he had not succeeded Ladislaus.

Despite the victory at Gvozd, it took Coloman several more years to conquer all of Croatia. He embarked on his final campaign in 1102, but he encountered fierce resistance from an alliance of Croatian nobles united after Peter's death. In order to avoid further bloodshed, the alliance agreed to sign the so-called Pacta conventa. This was an agreement by which Croatia entered into a personal union with Hungary. The most important of all the points of the agreement was the separate coronation of Coloman with the Croatian-Dalmatian crown. This ceremony was held in Biograd na Moru. As soon as he was crowned, Coloman decided not to honor the agreement made with Venice and in 1105 began a campaign in Dalmatia. He first set out for Zadar, where he encountered fierce resistance. Thanks to the mediation of Bishop Ivan of Trogir (Orsini), he managed to reach an agreement with Zadar and swore at the council to preserve the privileges of that city. Coloman then enters Zadar and, at the request of the Benedictine abbess Vekenega, confirms royal freedoms to the monastery of St. Mary, as evidenced by a charter. In Zadar, there is another historical reminder of Coloman: the early Romanesque monument of St. Mary, which Vekenega erected with funds received from him.

In this state union, Croatia always preserved its state-political distinctiveness and the position of a separate kingdom within the royal titulary, although the custom of separately crowning the Hungarian king as the Croatian king did not survive (only the first two kings of the Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom – Koloman and his son Stephen – had a separate coronation). The king in the Croatian lands was replaced by a dignitary with the title of ban (one or more of them). The mutual relations between the constituent kingdoms were regularly reviewed when individual dynasties died out and new ones were elected, especially in the period after the creation of class institutions (from the mid-14th century), and on such occasions the Croatian classes often emphasized Croatian distinctiveness and independence in relation to Hungary at councils (the Council of the Kingdom of Croatia in Cetin in 1527, the Croatian Pragmatic Sanction in 1712).

Where is this quoted from?

It speaking so matter of factly doesn't instill much trust in its impartiality...

 

[Ivanho19]

There are several views on the Pacta conventi, which are often contradictory and dependent on the period and views of the researchers in which they were formed. Thus, the views of both Croatian and Hungarian historians change depending on social and state circumstances. There are three copies of the Pacta conventa, namely the Trogir one, which is the oldest, and the Split and Vatican ones, which the Trogir one served as a source. They state the year 1102, which is the year in most cases when the agreement was made. Precisely because of the copies from the 14th century and the period in the history of Croats and Hungarians in the 14th century, when the Angevins came to the throne of the Croatian-Hungarian Kingdom, it is assumed that the agreement was made in the 14th century. This thesis is advocated by some historians, the first of whom was Nada Klaić, who wrote after World War II, where she strives for Croatian independence. Historians who support this view reject the contents of the Pacta conventa as an authentic source. By researching the nobility of the twelve tribes that appear in the Pacta conventa, it can be concluded that some of them do not correspond to the time of its creation in 1102, but to the 14th century. Some historians claim that the privileges that the nobility received are characteristic of the 12th century, while the other part says that such a development of the nobility and privileges was not possible before the 14th century. There were also those who relied on material sources such as Mladen Ančić and Nikola Jakšić.
The found Coloman coin suggests that the king was a corruptible nobility and that he was indeed in the territory of medieval Croatia and Dalmatia. We also do not know whether there were exactly twelve tribes as it is written in the Pacta conventi itself, because the symbolism of the number twelve is extremely important throughout history. It is only possible that it was intended to emphasize its importance. Ultimately, we do not know exactly when the Pacta conventi and the nobility of the twelve tribes, who concluded an agreement with the king, were created.

 

[Uskok]

Where is this quoted from?

It speaking so matter of factly doesn't instill much trust in its impartiality...

I don't know exactly which part you're referring to, but here are a few examples.

Zagrebačka biskupija – Wikipedija

hr.m.wikipedia.org

Pacta conventa - Hrvatska enciklopedija

Hrvatska enciklopedija

www.enciklopedija.hr

https://repozitorij.unizd.hr/islandora/object/unizd%3A7682/datastream/PDF/view

CEEOL - Article Detail

www.ceeol.com

There are people who are partial about what does not fit their view. Given the large gap, it is difficult to be 100% accurate. Different historians wrote depending on the situation and the politics of the time.

Also there are adherents/acceptors to the idea of personal union in Hungary too. Officially

‘Ars et virtus’ – 800 Years of Common Heritage of Croatia and Hungary

The Hungarian National Museum and the Galerija Klovićevi Dvori of Zagreb jointly present the cultural and historical relations between Croatia and Hungary via a temporary exhibition.

www.hungarianconservative.com

 

[ArVass]

There was no aggressive response, I just made a link that does not relate to Croatian historians.

You're right that the status of Croatia in relation to Hungary from the late 11th century to 1868 is not definitively settled and continues to be interpreted differently. However, several key historical facts are relevant to understanding the relationship:

• Succession and Personal Union: After the death of the last native Croatian king, Petar Snačić, in 1097, the Hungarian king Coloman was crowned King of Croatia. According to some sources, including the Pacta Conventa (whose authenticity is debated), Coloman’s rule was accepted under conditions that guaranteed Croatia a degree of political autonomy.
• Institutional Separation: Throughout the medieval and early modern periods, Croatia retained its own Parliament (Sabor), the institution of the Ban (viceroy), a distinct legal system, and separate taxation and military obligations. These elements point to Croatia being a separate political entity under the same crown, not merely a province of Hungary.
• Terminology in Official Documents: Many historical documents refer to "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" alongside "Regnum Hungariae," suggesting a formal distinction between the kingdoms, even if they shared the same monarch.
• De Facto Political Power: While there were periods — particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries — when Hungarian or later Habsburg central authority was stronger in Croatia, this did not eliminate the long-standing institutional autonomy that Croatia had previously enjoyed. Croatia was never formally abolished as a political entity until later administrative reforms.
• The Croatian-Hungarian Compromise (Nagodba) of 1868: The very fact that a negotiated political agreement was necessary between Croatia and Hungary in 1868 confirms that Croatia had maintained a distinct legal-political status. A province would not have required such an arrangement.


In conclusion, although historiographical interpretations vary, historical evidence supports the view that Croatia held a distinct legal and political status within the framework of a personal union with Hungary. Both Croatian and Hungarian historiographies reflect different aspects of this complex reality, shaped by national perspectives and political developments over the centuries.

I can recognise ChatGPT's writing style from miles away. ChatGPT writes whatever one wants it to write.
Here, this is what it spewed out to me:

It's funny, because Croatia is both a sovereign kingdom in personal union with Hungary and a subordinate province of the Hungarian Crown, depending on if you are talking about it in the context of the Kingdom of Croatia (de jure a separate kingdom, owned by the kings of Hungary but not "technically" subordinate) or the Banate of Croatia (de facto governs Croatia on behalf of the king as a subordinate vassal). I think it would be great if the game had some sort of Governorship-like "regency" system for junior partners, so that Croatia could have its king and its Ban at the same time somehow