Differences between Western(Catholic-Protestant) and Orthodox civilisations.

[Angela]

@Kamani...Finally, someone with some sense and a grasp of logic. What does the Orthodox faith of Byzantium have to do with the accomplishments or lack of them of the Russians who were converted by them?

As two of my academic degrees were in European History and I have been reading about it since probably before the poster upthread was born, and I've also taken innumerable courses in Christian theology, I will try to provide some background and a few links should anyone actually be interested in actual history and facts.

This "argument", such as it is, seems to rest on the fact that there is something unique to Christian Orthodoxy in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that adversely affects intellectual and economic development. This shows an absolute lack of understanding of the history of the countries involved and of the theology of the three branches of Christianity.

I'll first address the history. The Eastern Roman Empire...Byzantium...lasted for a thousand years after the fall of Rome.The westerners during the Dark Ages were barbarians in comparison. Indeed, The Emperors of Constantinople were content to concede all of it to the barbarians except for Italy.

Should anyone wish to educate themselves, there are innumerable works in Italian about the Byzantines, but I will list only those in English:

This is an extraordinary effort...dozens of podcasts about Byzantium. Great for long car trips. You have to start with episode one unless you’re already familiar with the history.
http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2012/05/

This online book provides excellent information about the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade . As an ancillary benefit, it highlights the extraordinary civilization of this Orthodox Christian empire.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kk...onepage&q=sack of constantinople 1203&f=false

This helpful book examines the economics of Byzantium…

http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books-in-print/the-economic-history-of-byzantium


Now, it is true that the fortunes of the Greeks changed with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
This is an exhaustive work detailing the fall and the effects:
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1101http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/


As a result of conquest and occupation, their history changed drastically. It's true that they did not participate in the Renaissance or The Enlightenment. That affected their development in contrast to that of the West. Those are the vicissitudes and tragedies of fate. It has nothing to do with the value or lack of it of their religion.

The development of the Renaissance in Italy is a vast subject, much too complicated to discuss in this type of thread. Let it suffice to say that there were numerous influences, from memories and knowledge and artifacts still present within Italy, to contact with Byzantium through trade during the 1200s and 1300s and continuing after the Fall of Constantinople, to contact with the Muslim Caliphates, to the mindset of the Italians themselves, in my opinion.

Moving on to the "Slavic" countries of eastern Europe, their development or lack of development is also the result of the myriad migrations, invasions, influences or lack of influences of their own particular history. To attribute all of it to the religion they happen to share with the Byzantines is simplistic reasoning of the worst kind. Plus, I don't know how it has escaped the attention of some posters that some Slavs are Catholic (the Poles) and some Slavs are Orthodox (the Russians).

Turning to the theology, there are far fewer differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism than there are between either of them and Protestantism. Indeed, the only major difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism concerns the primacy of the Papacy. (There are other minor theological differences, but I will not bore everyone by discussing them.) In the days when more people were more concerned about these things, a Catholic out of reach of a Catholic Church could attend Mass and receive Communion from an Orthodox priest. They are within the Apostolic Succession despite the differences in ritual and language and they can validly administer the sacraments. That is decidedly not the case with the Protestant sects, not even the Anglican and Lutheran churches, which are also very similar in terms of theology.

Given the discussions up post about the Renaissance in Italy there should not be any doubt that there is no conflict between this theology and the development of trade, commerce, etc. For goodness' sakes, the Italians dominated trade and commerce in the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance, with the Tuscans inventing bookkeeping and banking.

And now I've wasted too much time on this...people who try to make one to one correspondences between religion and development or between genetics and development understand neither genetics, nor religion, nor history.

Ah well, more people for the ignore pile. Pretty soon there will be more in it than out of it.

 

[Stears555]

I have no doubt there were differences, I never said there weren't any.
Interesting video, yes I'm aware Hungary was at the frontier between Christendom and the Ottoman empire, at times Hungary was under half Christian and half Muslim control.

Wrong. Ottomans were unable to conquer Kingdom of Hungary, only 1/3 part of it for 150 years. Ottomans have never lived there, Ottomans sent Orthodox and Muslim balkan slavs to the occupied fortresses.


The vast majority of the seventeen and nineteen thousands Ottoman soldiers in service in the Ottoman fortresses in the territory of Hungary were Orthodox and Muslim Balkan Slavs instead of ethnic Turkish people.^[6] Southern Slavs were also acting as akinjis and other light troops intended for pillaging in the territory of present-day Hungary^{[7] Further information:}

• Laszlo Kontler, "A History of Hungary" p. 145
• Inalcik Halil: "The Ottoman Empire"

 

[Stears555]

@Kamani...Finally, someone with some sense and a grasp of logic. What does the Orthodox faith of Byzantium have to do with the accomplishments or lack of them of the Russians who were converted by them?

As two of my academic degrees were in European History and I have been reading about it since probably before the poster upthread was born, and I've also taken innumerable courses in Christian theology, I will try to provide some background and a few links should anyone actually be interested in actual history and facts.

This "argument", such as it is, seems to rest on the fact that there is something unique to Christian Orthodoxy in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that adversely affects intellectual and economic development. This shows an absolute lack of understanding of the history of the countries involved and of the theology of the three branches of Christianity.

I'll first address the history. The Eastern Roman Empire...Byzantium...lasted for a thousand years after the fall of Rome.The westerners during the Dark Ages were barbarians in comparison. Indeed, The Emperors of Constantinople were content to concede all of it to the barbarians except for Italy.

Should anyone wish to educate themselves, there are innumerable works in Italian about the Byzantines, but I will list only those in English:

This is an extraordinary effort...dozens of podcasts about Byzantium. Great for long car trips. You have to start with episode one unless you’re already familiar with the history.
http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/2012/05/

This online book provides excellent information about the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade . As an ancillary benefit, it highlights the extraordinary civilization of this Orthodox Christian empire.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kk...onepage&q=sack of constantinople 1203&f=false

This helpful book examines the economics of Byzantium…

http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books-in-print/the-economic-history-of-byzantium


Now, it is true that the fortunes of the Greeks changed with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
This is an exhaustive work detailing the fall and the effects:
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1101http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/


As a result of conquest and occupation, their history changed drastically. It's true that they did not participate in the Renaissance or The Enlightenment. That affected their development in contrast to that of the West. Those are the vicissitudes and tragedies of fate. It has nothing to do with the value or lack of it of their religion.

The development of the Renaissance in Italy is a vast subject, much too complicated to discuss in this type of thread. Let it suffice to say that there were numerous influences, from memories and knowledge and artifacts still present within Italy, to contact with Byzantium through trade during the 1200s and 1300s and continuing after the Fall of Constantinople, to contact with the Muslim Caliphates, to the mindset of the Italians themselves, in my opinion.

Moving on to the "Slavic" countries of eastern Europe, their development or lack of development is also the result of the myriad migrations, invasions, influences or lack of influences of their own particular history. To attribute all of it to the religion they happen to share with the Byzantines is simplistic reasoning of the worst kind. Plus, I don't know how it has escaped the attention of some posters that some Slavs are Catholic (the Poles) and some Slavs are Orthodox (the Russians).

Turning to the theology, there are far fewer differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism than there are between either of them and Protestantism. Indeed, the only major difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism concerns the primacy of the Papacy. (There are other minor theological differences, but I will not bore everyone by discussing them.) In the days when more people were more concerned about these things, a Catholic out of reach of a Catholic Church could attend Mass and receive Communion from an Orthodox priest. They are within the Apostolic Succession despite the differences in ritual and language and they can validly administer the sacraments. That is decidedly not the case with the Protestant sects, not even the Anglican and Lutheran churches, which are also very similar in terms of theology.

Given the discussions up post about the Renaissance in Italy there should not be any doubt that there is no conflict between this theology and the development of trade, commerce, etc. For goodness' sakes, the Italians dominated trade and commerce in the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance, with the Tuscans inventing bookkeeping and banking.

And now I've wasted too much time on this...people who try to make one to one correspondences between religion and development or between genetics and development understand neither genetics, nor religion, nor history.

Ah well, more people for the ignore pile. Pretty soon there will be more in it than out of it.

Byzantine Orthodox church was a nationalist church, and represented the interests of Byzantine people. (a proto-Nationalist chauvinist church) However Catholic church of Rome was universal, therefore it supported the new barbarian Western states in Early medieval and high medieval era to develop technology agriculture in catholic countries (effect of catholic monasticism). However Byzantine greeks had no interest to develop signifficatly the Orthodox foreign countries, they seem the orthodox faith as an export material, which grow their influence.

Proto-chauvinism xenophobia and Orthodox church are the same things.

 

[Stears555]

Again, I've never state that itself the religion (the belief) and development of civilization have strong relations. I've said that the churches (as religious organizations and institutions and their infrastructure with churches monasteries monks clergy ec) have strong impact. Remember, the technological swift of crusade era. It was caused by the church, but not the religion. (Jesus and the Bible, itself the real religion have never wanted similar mascares and wars) Remember the activity of high medieval monks, their rule in the development of agriculture, and the preservation of literacy, the ruins of classic (PAGAN!!!) erudition. Their effects are not based on the faith, but on the church as an organization and its infrastructure.

 

[joeyc]

The flight of Byzantium scholars from the approaching Turkish armies into the previously more backward west created an explosion of learning that led to the Renaissance. And the Rus were actually more advanced than most of the medieval societies of western Europe until the Russians suffered a slight setback in the form of the Mongol invasions.

Is this a joke? LOL the Russian civilization was founded by a bunch of Swedes and Finns, who were 30 times more primitive than anything west of the Oder river. Mongols only sacked the most southern cities of Russia. Actually both Genghiz Khan and Tamerlan were very useful to the formation of the Russian state, since they eliminated the various Turkic nomadic tribes like Volga Bulgars and Pechenegs, who were harrassing the Ruskies. Without them now in Moscow people would speak a Turkic language and pray to Allah bowing to Holy Mecca.

 

[Stears555]

Most of medieval Hungarian cathedrals and palaces were destroyed during the Ottoman wars. But a few of them survived these times.Hungary and Poland were the easternmost bastillon of The Western civilization against Muslims and Orthodox East.


Medieval Hungarian High Culture (palaces churches, paintings, sculpture, music and fine-arts) Short 5min video, watch it in full HD !

 

[Stears555]

The roots of chauvinism and xenophobia:


There is a well known historical reason for this. Byzantium was always in close contact with the absolutism of the Eastern peoples, the ideas of despotism derived from there.
In Byzantium they could never separate religion from Imperial politics. The religion began under the patronage of the emperor, interwoven with the empire, with the realm, with the political power. The Orthodox Church's servility derives from here. This situation has not changed during the last one and a half thousand years, it produced the state-church in all Orthodox countries, executing the power of government administration and supervision, almost as an organ of police. In such a political system, the clergy cannot progress and remains on a low level, the state does not develop either, life becomes rigid. This is the cause of the amazing primitiveness one notices when crossing the border of Orthodoxia.
In Balkan fashion, lies are considered virtue and to cheat someone is a glory. It would be a mistake to believe that these acts would cause some sort of remorse.
The Byzantines wanted to dominate the world. They elevated this concept to the rank of messianism in the Balkans and later in Russia, where the Greek Orthodox faith was gaining ground. Ever since, in the ethos of Orthodoxia, the East is the incarnation of morality, perfection, truth, it is itself the light, as opposed to the West, which is the nest of sin and decay. The West has to be conquered. In the New Testament the chosen people are the Byzantines whose duty it is to guard the Ortho-dox faith and to prepare the redemption of humanity.
Professor Hans Kohn writes in his book Pan-Slavism (New York: Vintage Books 1960): "Khomyakov (1804--60) a leading Slavophile thinker was convinced by the events of 1848 that hope resided only in Orthodox Slavdom. He predicted in 1848 the end of Austria and of the last Charlemagne's Empire, and the disappearance of papal power 'in the archives of history, followed by Protestantism and by Catholicism... Now it is the turn of Orthodoxy, the turn of the Slav races to enter the stage of the world...'."
In the East, religious ceremonies are held in each country's language. Today this sounds quite natural, but during the Middle Ages when the Church (of Rome) had a definite role in uniting and reconciling people, the Latin liturgy played a great part in making it possible for the Church to became universal and international, and without doubt, this lead to the develop-ment of European spirituality. In the Balkans the Greek-language Church was established and with its assistance the Gothic- the Armenian-, the Syrian-, the Coptic-, and the Slavic national Churches arose. However the uniting strength and authority over individual nations and churches was missing from this system.
The Orthodoxy in every country remained on the level of its surroundings due to its rigid isolation. Basically it cultiva-ted bold nationalism, however in the early stages more accent was placed on religion than on language. This is well manifes-ted in the historic Serb--Croat hostility, which also serves as a good example of the type of thousand year-long religious ground-conditioning which cannot dissolve even with the decline of the importance of religion.

 

[John Doe]

Wrong. Ottomans were unable to conquer Kingdom of Hungary, only 1/3 part of it for 150 years. Ottomans have never lived there, Ottomans sent Orthodox and Muslim balkan slavs to the occupied fortresses.


The vast majority of the seventeen and nineteen thousands Ottoman soldiers in service in the Ottoman fortresses in the territory of Hungary were Orthodox and Muslim Balkan Slavs instead of ethnic Turkish people.^[6] Southern Slavs were also acting as akinjis and other light troops intended for pillaging in the territory of present-day Hungary^{[7] Further information:}

• Laszlo Kontler, "A History of Hungary" p. 145
• Inalcik Halil: "The Ottoman Empire"

I never said that it was half Islamic, but that it was under partial Muslim (Turkish) control, and you just admitted that it was, for at least 150 years.

 

[Stears555]

I never said that it was half Islamic, but that it was under partial Muslim (Turkish) control, and you just admitted that it was, for at least 150 years.

But Turks did not lived there (only some high rank military officers). Ottoman Turkish army conquered some parts of Hungary, but It was the Orthodox and Muslim slavs who guarded their conquests.

 

[John Doe]

But Turks did not lived there (only some high rank military officers). Ottoman Turkish army conquered some parts of Hungary, but It was the Orthodox and Muslim slavs who guarded their conquests.

Alright, but it was still officially under Turkish control, just without colonisation, the British controlled India for over a 100 years, but there was little colonisation, but it was still under British control for that amount of time.

 

[Stears555]

Did you read my new interesting thread? http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30505-Orthodox-Church-and-Xenophobia-in-the-21th-century?

 

[Yetos]

Again, I've never state that itself the religion (the belief) and development of civilization have strong relations. I've said that the churches (as religious organizations and institutions and their infrastructure with churches monasteries monks clergy ec) have strong impact. Remember, the technological swift of crusade era. It was caused by the church, but not the religion. (Jesus and the Bible, itself the real religion have never wanted similar mascares and wars) Remember the activity of high medieval monks, their rule in the development of agriculture, and the preservation of literacy, the ruins of classic (PAGAN!!!) erudition. Their effects are not based on the faith, but on the church as an organization and its infrastructure.

it was not the schism,

it was the crusades,
if I have time I will expand later.

until you can find and think what crusades manage to do,
to help you,
Algebra, Palimpsest, excange of Culture, Templars & Knights, Holy Shroud and rest,
and more situations like this
ANATOMY an act Forbiden by Church!!!

main reason the remove of FEAR from people's heart, that Church input,
the challenging of Templars against Church,
the Algebra and Palimpsest study and the Universal laws,

catalytic
the papper, the printing press, the first publication of bible,
NO MORE PROPHETS, NO MORE 'ILLUM' WISE GUYS, people know.

if you want to search more,
find when Con/polis first time change hands, and to whom, and how?

it was not the Schism,
at 6th century, saints and 'holy fathers' go public and targert even emperors, Fear dark ages,
at 12th century scholars scientists rulers, go public against Church, Renaissance

 

[Aberdeen]

Is this a joke? LOL the Russian civilization was founded by a bunch of Swedes and Finns, who were 30 times more primitive than anything west of the Oder river. Mongols only sacked the most southern cities of Russia. Actually both Genghiz Khan and Tamerlan were very useful to the formation of the Russian state, since they eliminated the various Turkic nomadic tribes like Volga Bulgars and Pechenegs, who were harrassing the Ruskies. Without them now in Moscow people would speak a Turkic language and pray to Allah bowing to Holy Mecca.

The Mongols and Turkish tribes were a major problem for Russia from the time of the first Mongol invasion in 1223 until the defeat of the Crimean Khanate in 1778, and it greatly hindered the economic and social development of Russia. Moscow was sacked many times, with the two most destructive raids happening in 1382 (resulting in Moscovy being a vassal of the Golden Horde until 1480) and the attack by the Crimean Khanate in 1571. The Mongols and Tatars raided as far north as the Novgorad territories and as far west as Poland and Hungary.

 

[Aberdeen]

Most of medieval Hungarian cathedrals and palaces were destroyed during the Ottoman wars. But a few of them survived these times.Hungary and Poland were the easternmost bastillon of The Western civilization against Muslims and Orthodox East.


Medieval Hungarian High Culture (palaces churches, paintings, sculpture, music and fine-arts) Short 5min video, watch it in full HD !

Hungary is and always has been quite a backward place, except for the period when it was part of the Austrian empire. To speak of painted savages in mud huts as "high culture" is a bit much.

 

[Garrick]

Most of medieval Hungarian cathedrals and palaces were destroyed during the Ottoman wars. [/QUOTE]

Hungary and Serbia had very good relations in Middle age, including kinship of Royal families:
http://books.google.rs/books?id=Y0N...ties with hungarians Uros middle ages&f=false

In the time of Ottoman Empire, Serbs were among defenders of Hungary and Austria:

“The Hungarian kings encouraged the immigration of Serbs to the kingdom, and hired many of them as soldiers and border guards.”

“European powers, and Austria in particular, fought many wars against the Ottoman Empire, relying on the help of the Serbs that lived under Ottoman rule. During the Austrian–Turkish War (1593–1606), in 1594, the Serbs staged an uprising in Banat, the Pannonian part of Turkey. Sultan Murad III retaliated by burning the remains of Saint Sava the most sacred saint of all Serbs. Serbs created another center of resistance in Herzegovina, but when peace was signed by Turkey and Austria, they were abandoned to Turkish vengeance.

“The Great War between Ottomans and the Holy League took place from 1683 to 1699. The Holy League was created with the sponsorship of the Pope and including Austria, Poland and Venice. These three powers incited the Serbs to rebel against the Ottoman authorities, and soon uprisings and guerrilla warfare spread throughout the western Balkans, ranging from Montenegro and the Dalmatian coast to the Danube basin and Old Serbia (Macedonia, Raška, Kosovo and Metohija).”

Etc.
...
Balkan nations, especially Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs, had hard time five centuries under Ottoman Empire, Islamic rule and Sharia law.

Prior to Ottoman conquest, Balkan regions were developed as other European regions, but under Ottoman rule these regions enormous lagged. ...

Hungarian king Louis I of Hungary, who ruled 1342-1382, had idea to unite Balkan nations, Serbs, Bosnians, Bulgarians and Wallachians against Ottomans.

He wanted that they convert to Roman Catholicism and make a united front against Muslim inviders.

But Ottomans were penetrated rapidly and they were numerous superior against defender militaries.

Serbs lost two key battles, battle of Marica, 1371 and battle of Kosovo, 1389.
And other nations lost their battles, Balkans became territory of Ottoman Empire.
...
And Hungarians lost battles, and part of Hungary were Ottoman territory, but much time shorter than Balkan.
Possible it is reason why ISIS included Hungary (as Slovakia and Austria) in Caliphate, the part of Caliphate called Orobpa).

You can see this map in Internet, and in forum you would be find it in related threads.

 

[Stears555]

Most of medieval Hungarian cathedrals and palaces were destroyed during the Ottoman wars. [/QUOTE]

Hungary and Serbia had very good relations in Middle age, including kinship of Royal families:
http://books.google.rs/books?id=Y0N...ties with hungarians Uros middle ages&f=false

In the time of Ottoman Empire, Serbs were among defenders of Hungary and Austria:

“The Hungarian kings encouraged the immigration of Serbs to the kingdom, and hired many of them as soldiers and border guards.”

“European powers, and Austria in particular, fought many wars against the Ottoman Empire, relying on the help of the Serbs that lived under Ottoman rule. During the Austrian–Turkish War (1593–1606), in 1594, the Serbs staged an uprising in Banat, the Pannonian part of Turkey. Sultan Murad III retaliated by burning the remains of Saint Sava the most sacred saint of all Serbs. Serbs created another center of resistance in Herzegovina, but when peace was signed by Turkey and Austria, they were abandoned to Turkish vengeance.

“The Great War between Ottomans and the Holy League took place from 1683 to 1699. The Holy League was created with the sponsorship of the Pope and including Austria, Poland and Venice. These three powers incited the Serbs to rebel against the Ottoman authorities, and soon uprisings and guerrilla warfare spread throughout the western Balkans, ranging from Montenegro and the Dalmatian coast to the Danube basin and Old Serbia (Macedonia, Raška, Kosovo and Metohija).”

Etc.
...
Balkan nations, especially Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs, had hard time five centuries under Ottoman Empire, Islamic rule and Sharia law.

Prior to Ottoman conquest, Balkan regions were developed as other European regions, but under Ottoman rule these regions enormous lagged. ...

Hungarian king Louis I of Hungary, who ruled 1342-1382, had idea to unite Balkan nations, Serbs, Bosnians, Bulgarians and Wallachians against Ottomans.

He wanted that they convert to Roman Catholicism and make a united front against Muslim inviders.

But Ottomans were penetrated rapidly and they were numerous superior against defender militaries.

Serbs lost two key battles, battle of Marica, 1371 and battle of Kosovo, 1389.
And other nations lost their battles, Balkans became territory of Ottoman Empire.
...
And Hungarians lost battles, and part of Hungary were Ottoman territory, but much time shorter than Balkan.
Possible it is reason why ISIS included Hungary (as Slovakia and Austria) in Caliphate, the part of Caliphate called Orobpa).

You can see this map in Internet, and in forum you would be find it in related threads.

The ratios of attackers (enemies) and defenders are the important. There were much more enemy from orthodox countries than supporter. Forexample, immigrant serbs of Voivodine (Kingdom of Hungary ) were pro-hungarian, but the vast majority of serbs (who didn't live in Voivodina) were anti-Hungarian during the Ottoman wars. Most Orthodox serbs hated more the western christians, than the ottomans.

The cultural economical legal infrastructural development of orthodox balkan slavs was always very slow before the Otoman conquest , due to the wide spread late-nomadism (high ratio of mountain shepherds) in their societies.
Turks were unable to conquer whole Hungary, because -unlike the poor and backward balkanite slavs- we had the money to build up the castle and fortification systems.
It is no wonder, that in Hungarian language, the Balkan world meaned "GHETTO" too , before the adoptation of ghetto word in the early 20th century.

 

[Stears555]

Hungary is and always has been quite a backward place, except for the period when it was part of the Austrian empire. To speak of painted savages in mud huts as "high culture" is a bit much.

Just read some books about Hungarian history. Hungary's golden age (political military and economic ) was the medieval age, when the Habsburgs did not ruled Hungary.

Austria and Hungary have always been separate states, so Austrians did not developed Hungary.


[h=3]The status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution[/h] Hungary was a regnum independens, a separate Monarchy as Article X of 1790 stipulated.^[1] According to the Constitutional law and public law, the Empire of Austria had never lawfully included the Kingdom of Hungary.^[2] After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (of which the Kingdom of Hungary had not been part), the new title of the Habsburg rulers - Emperor of Austria - did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript,^[3] thus the country was part of the other Lands of the empire largely through the common monarch.^[1]

The administration and government of the Kingdom of Hungary were not united with the common administrative and governmental structure of the Austrian Empire. The central governmental structures remained well separated from the imperial government, and they were linked largely by the person of the common monarch. The country was governed by the Council of Lieutenancy of Hungary (the Gubernium) - located in Pressburg (Pozsony, now Bratislava) and later in Pest - and by the Hungarian Royal Court Chancellery in Vienna.^[4]
The Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary had always maintained separate parliaments. (See: Imperial Council (Austria) and Diet of Hungary.) Legally, except for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, common laws never existed in the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary.
Since the beginnings of the personal union (from 1527), the government of Kingdom of Hungary could preserve its separate and independent budget. After the revolution of 1848-1849, the Hungarian budget was amalgamated with the Austrian, and it was only after the Compromise of 1867 that Hungary received a separate budget.^[5] From 1527 (the creation of the monarchic personal union) to 1851, the Kingdom of Hungary maintained its own customs borders which separated it from the other parts of the Habsburg-ruled territories.^[6] Since 1867, the Austrian and Hungarian customs union agreement had to be renegotiated and stipulated every ten years. The agreements were renewed and signed by Vienna and Budapest at the end of every decade because both countries hoped to derive mutual economic benefit by the customs union. The Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary contracted their foreign commercial treaties independently of each other.^[7]

 

[joeyc]

The Mongols and Turkish tribes were a major problem for Russia from the time of the first Mongol invasion in 1223 until the defeat of the Crimean Khanate in 1778, and it greatly hindered the economic and social development of Russia. Moscow was sacked many times, with the two most destructive raids happening in 1382 (resulting in Moscovy being a vassal of the Golden Horde until 1480) and the attack by the Crimean Khanate in 1571. The Mongols and Tatars raided as far north as the Novgorad territories and as far west as Poland and Hungary.

The number of mongol raids against Moscow and the northern Russian cities can be counted on one hand during that 5 centuries long period. Cities along the Baltic shore, like Pskov, Novgorod,... were never touched.

The center of the Russian civilization was in the North, right next Baltic and Finnic tribes. Ukraine in Russian means borderlands and like most of Southern Russia, it was occupied by various Turkic Mongolian tribes. Most of them were eliminated by the mongols. Tamerlan destroyed the Golden Horde and various other khanates between Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Mongols and Tatars were also good in weakining both the Caucasian and Turkish Anatolian kingdoms. Most of Georgia and Circassia lied in ruins after Genghiz Khan and Tamerlan's conquests.

The whole Ottoman army was to be saved by the Venetian fleet and the Serbian army after the defeat against Tamerlan. The Mongols destroyed both the Seljuks and the various Islamic kingdoms of Central Asia and Anatolia.

 

[Aberdeen]

The number of mongol raids against Moscow and the northern Russian cities can be counted on one hand during that 5 centuries long period. Cities along the Baltic shore, like Pskov, Novgorod,... were never touched.

The center of the Russian civilization was in the North, right next Baltic and Finnic tribes. Ukraine in Russian means borderlands and like most of Southern Russia, it was occupied by various Turkic Mongolian tribes. Most of them were eliminated by the mongols. Tamerlan destroyed the Golden Horde and various other khanates between Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Mongols and Tatars were also good in weakining both the Caucasian and Turkish Anatolian kingdoms. Most of Georgia and Circassia lied in ruins after Genghiz Khan and Tamerlan's conquests.

The whole Ottoman army was to be saved by the Venetian fleet and the Serbian army after the defeat against Tamerlan. The Mongols destroyed both the Seljuks and the various Islamic kingdoms of Central Asia and Anatolia.

Try reading some actual history books - they'll give you a very different perspective. Although Gengis Khan disliked islam, many of his descendants became moslems and, after conquering the Turks, incorporated them as allies. Russia suffered massively from attacks by Mongol/Turkish armies for centuries and eventually freed itself from the Tatar yoke on its own, with no help from the rest of Europe. That's partly what's at the base of the often paranoid foreign policy views of historical Russia.

 

[Aberdeen]

Just read some books about Hungarian history. Hungary's golden age (political military and economic ) was the medieval age, when the Habsburgs did not ruled Hungary.

Austria and Hungary have always been separate states, so Austrians did not developed Hungary.


The status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution

----------------------

It wasn't entirely the fault of the Hungarians that their country was so backward during the Middle Ages. The Mongol invasion resulted in widespread destruction and the loss of nearly half the Hungarian population. I guess the Hungarians weren't very good at defending themselves.