Chapter XIV: Part 14

"Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the
Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The
original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called
Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian
mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,
who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the
most important of the western branches are the Finns and
Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk
Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great
Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish
tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the
plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the
reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.
They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the
name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has
been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is
difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the
foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the
degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by
historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;
but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,
the description given of them by an old chronicler of the
ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely
with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

_Dr. W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55._

"That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural
Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions
being against it. Hence it is just possible that a
whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the
Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most
Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

_R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 11._

"According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling
caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor
the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';
and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the
rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_A. J. Patterson,
The Magyars,
volume 1, chapter 1._

{1668}

HUNGARIANS:
Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

"The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and
probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by
internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home
for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores
of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly
struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the
very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the
eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their
chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the
frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the
conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of
about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,
and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The
country which they prepared to take possession of, and the
central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up
into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin
and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and
Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with
his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four
centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most
dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost
unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from
victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the
land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the
same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the
Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.
Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on
the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was
Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far
from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody
adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken
by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor
Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.
The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought
the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down
from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient
to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths
of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by
mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from
the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were
simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the
inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of
Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were
repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy
tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her
geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of
these new neighbours."

_E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 1, chapter 1._

See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.
Ravages in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
Repulse from Germany.

"The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by
the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,
in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the
Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the
Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his
son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest
estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic
faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and
they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the
heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho
dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,
unless they were true to each other, their religion and
country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were
reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in
eight legions, according to the division of provinces and
tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].
… The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly
passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the
Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the
baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The
battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the
Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with
an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought
under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in
merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred
years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the
flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers
of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the
hope of mercy."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
chapter 55._

ALSO IN:
_W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 135 (volume 1)._

_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 2, pages 656-665._

_A. W. Grube,
Heroes of History and Legend,
chapter 8._

----------HUNGARIANS: End--------

HUNGARY:
Ancient.

See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

HUNGARY:
The Huns in possession.

See HUNS.

HUNGARY:
The Avars in possession.

See AVARS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
Christianization of the Magyars.
Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

"King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN
EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan
Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was
never again able to cross, and even within these limits the
Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part
they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to
exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast
they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from
the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to
develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours
gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …
Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke
of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,
and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her
influence in favour of her religion.
{1669}
She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came
to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and
Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic
conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the
'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of
the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He
sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was
able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great
Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,
continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to
Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and
solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name
of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort
of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially
from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate
relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the
empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir
presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,
daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of
Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another
married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,
Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European
states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by
Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the
position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its
conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar
historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the
invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king
Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use
persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he
hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an
ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who
graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,
and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that
he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the
Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to
Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege
of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of
the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity
of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,
however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,
still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this
great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom
between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of
Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.
His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in
the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his
son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written
his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as
a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were
harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of
August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his
nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was
driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the
country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a
tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of
Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother
Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with
revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in
1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails
in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This
prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry
IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating
position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him
of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for
having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged
to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling
against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged
the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience
to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in
the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He
was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to
make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The
dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …
The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]
was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been
elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left
the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made
himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had
himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of
Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,
Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted
them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself
crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this
time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very
much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria
in later times."

_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapters 5-6._

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.
Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
The Golden Bull of King Bela.
Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
The end of the Arpad dynasty.

"Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
several important events. Having entirely reduced
Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
German settlers received from the king a separate district,
being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
throne in 1205. …
{1670}
Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
of this charter were as follows:

1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
previously tried and legally sentenced;

3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the
property of the nobles;

4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor
given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

The most important point, however, was article 31st, which
conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case
of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions
contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower
clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the
determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of
the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the
charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning
of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions
caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary
in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,
after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in
Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a
greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary
with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the
Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and
Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of
Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions
facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on
the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the
total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with
astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a
few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not
contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised
snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making
their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths
of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo
was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of
state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a
proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king
[calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed
the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable
people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their
homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work
of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and
then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in
the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the
Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving
assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a
prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to
Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime
Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the
death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne
by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen
was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied
himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew
and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called
the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal
dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were
continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own
tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,
was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the
house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with
Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his
son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops
before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to
sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew
having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this
matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.
Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.
Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,
who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of
his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring
them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of
Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

_E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 1, chapter 2._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.
Wallachian struggle for independence.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
Conquests of Louis the Great.
Beginning of wars with the Turks.
The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
{1671}
This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
Austria, who reigned only two years."

_C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe, period 5._

"Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first
prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of
Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the
Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had
married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,
Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured
for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German
Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,
to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with
her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though
40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future
husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in
Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her
to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian
nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his
dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund
expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon
after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and
immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her
agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.
He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.
… The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both
to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal
expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,
before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,
forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity
and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti
Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;
while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king
in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged
the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the
clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the
feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations
were now adopted respecting the military system of the
kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually
to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus
[Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of
the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of
Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife
Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long
minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her
to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown
should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging
that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would
endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the
duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the
Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.
… Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the
court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth
brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,
was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of
the arrangement that had been made; and the news having
arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor
of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry
the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the
Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had
accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.
… The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was
headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was
compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,
carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her
infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick
III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and
Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed
upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that
one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the
contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, Dec. 24th,
1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the
ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the
great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over
the Turks gave him enormous influence."

_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
introduction (volume 1)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1364.
Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386.
Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444.
Wars of Huniades with the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
Regency of Huniades.
His defeat of the Turks and his death.
His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement
that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary
until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be
possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without
issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two
daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother
Casimir.
{1672}
The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia;
and the administration during his minority vested in two
Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the
Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George
Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in
the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a
ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young
Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians
entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the
redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the
Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found
himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the
Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of
the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the
age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the
Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign
at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of
Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were
directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government
caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the
custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor,
and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a
force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous;
he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and
compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person
of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then
assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in
their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together
with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal
great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic
does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following
year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant
of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a
level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia
at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to
visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the
power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as
to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An
attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna;
but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and
prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an
apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the
regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the
credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the
moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over
his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks
[1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation;
the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the
Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna;
whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm.
… The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain
preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle,
were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to
30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see
TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long
survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the
enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions.
Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who
were as much the idols of their country as they were objects
of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took
care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but
the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus
Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter,
Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his
favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King
Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured
into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457].
Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the
indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his
prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant
disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering
for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged
the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the
Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI.,
whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians
rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on
the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified
their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing
his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for
40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled
himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and
his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him
in a war with the new King of Hungary."

_Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 28 (volume 2)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1444.
Wallachia taken from the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.
King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of
Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the
Turks.
Conquest and occupation of Austria.

Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of
George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his
father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now
involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was
agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles
breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to
Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having
subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built
the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed
Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,
Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and
prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,
he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated
by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by
an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the
united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two
sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years
and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to
repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of
Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a
reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself
[on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of
100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the
side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.
{1673}
Having in consequence of these successes delivered his
dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to
gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had
afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating
Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had
abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to
fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of
Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland
and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally
conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."
Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks
(1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.
"Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the
smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran
the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and
either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,
as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,
and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions
imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment
of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,
when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in
hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by
his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he
acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,
Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in
1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his
death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his
arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the
former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four
years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of
the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that
they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the
neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of
Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite
residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary
dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach
of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to
convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of
Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the
small force at his command, could only retard the progress of
the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In
consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in
November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted
to retain possession of the conquered territories, until
Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed
the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that
period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 18 (volume 1)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
Death of Matthias.
Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of
Jagellon.
Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.
Loss of the Austrian provinces.
Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.
Insurrection of the Kurucs.
Loss of Belgrade.
Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.
The end of Hungarian independence.

"When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias,
who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his
power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present
time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power
had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of
Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had
no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his
natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his
successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50,
without having arranged anything definitely for the future of
his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the
reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to
watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of
rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned
to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of
Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old
rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St.
Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by
Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against
Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate.
Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the
Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against
his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of
Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, …
whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed
to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in
case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in
which the king disposed of the country without consulting the
diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks
thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet
II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not
be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save,
and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly
disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by
the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in
his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and
later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave
the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to
Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. …
To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a
terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz
came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade
against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves,
as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then
turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible
insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection
of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief
leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the
Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle
near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their
vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on
a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a
red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage
that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died
in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be
summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the
defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was
corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and
his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion.
{1674}
The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the
leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of
sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the
greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever
deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign
who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before
he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his
subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia,
captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took
it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The
key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King
Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes
were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when
joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies
of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman
quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300
cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against
the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the
captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey
of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the
Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured
Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the
right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army
was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory,
archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom
Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by
Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi
wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help
to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the
impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At
first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the
Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his
army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that
then the main body of his troops should close around them.
When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were
overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat.
They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them
lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain;
seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the
field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and
after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they
reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias
Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were
either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the
tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land
covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended
with Louis II."

_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 15._

ALSO IN:
_L. Felbermann,
Hungary and its People,
chapter 3._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
Election of John Zapolya to the throne.
Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.
Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.
Great invasion by Soliman.
Siege of Vienna.
The sultan master of the greater part of the country.
Progress of the Reformation.
Soliman's last invasion.

"No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,
under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily
electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir
to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,
far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,
was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of
the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne
found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania
and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at
Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,
which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya
king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod
receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the
palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,
first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the
widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to
enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her
role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married
to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon
repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's
arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic
party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of
Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between
representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.
Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts
beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the
Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the
capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign
mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine
himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom
for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the
renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from
the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the
great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met
no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to
enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon
"Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.
His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed
himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to
pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that
his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected
native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and
Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's
mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna
[1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of
Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of
Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not
forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though
neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the
advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the
Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their
way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have
numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish
boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of
the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the
surrounding country terribly ravaged.
{1675}
Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands
of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery
the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is
"an epoch in the history of the world."]

_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 9. _