Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Question on Chapter 5

Expand Messages
  • Martin Votruba
    ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Vasv%C3%A1r ... The petty grievances were that the whole Slovak nation, 90% of the population, was being told that
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > What were the terms of the peace treaty of Vasvar

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Vasv%C3%A1r


      > This author seems more interested in listing the petty
      > greivances of the Protestants

      The petty grievances were that the whole Slovak nation, 90% of the
      population, was being told that its faith was evil, denied its faith,
      and forcefully turned to another faith. It caused several major
      insurgencies in the Kingdom in the 17th century. Such petty
      grievances, religious conflicts, are major topics in European
      histories, just as they are in our present.


      > than the fact whole countries had been lade waste

      This is a history of the Slovaks, not of Europe. There are plenty of
      English books that describe the Ottoman--Habsburg wars. There are
      merely 3 more-or-less meaningful, very short histories of the Slovaks
      in English, and this is one of them. Focusing on one country or
      ethnic group is inevitable in European histories that are as short as
      this one, there's no way to cover even events in the neighboring areas.


      > And what exactly happened to areas turned into Sanjaks

      No Slovak area was turned into a sanjak. It's not part of the history
      of the Slovaks. This is a history of the Slovaks in the Kingdom of
      Hungary, not a history of the kingdom as a whole.


      > And he barely mentions the outbreak of the plague

      Which outbreak? The one of the 14th century did not have quite the
      same impact in the Slovak areas and to the north-east that it did west
      and south of the Kingdom. There are books on the plagues in Europe.
      Histories of the Slovaks mostly focus on things that are not readily
      available elsewhere.


      Martin
    • Mark Sabol
      Claudia, A big complaint against the treaty concerned the disposition of the fortified town of Nove Zamky/Ersekujvar/Neuhausel. It had just recently been
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Claudia,

        A big complaint against the treaty concerned the disposition of the
        fortified town of Nove Zamky/Ersekujvar/Neuhausel. It had just recently
        been wrested from the Turks at a high cost in lives during a long siege, but
        the treaty -- for the sake of immediate peace in the East, which allowed the
        Empire to deal more effectively with the French in the West -- provided that
        it be given up to the Turks again. It was thus again a well-fortified
        Turkish position deep into territory that otherwise was under Imperial
        control, and it would become a staging area for attacks on the surrounding
        region in advance of the siege of Vienna two decades later. More generally,
        the treaty essentially accepted the status quo, and the people who were
        vulnerable to Turkish attack would have preferred, of course, to follow up
        the success at St. Gotthard with continued fighting to push the Turks back
        toward Istanbul.

        But that was probably impossible at the time. The forces that had been
        gathered to fight at St. Gotthard, including Protestant north German troops
        and, I think, even some French troops, would not have stayed around for a
        protracted campaign pressing deeper to the east. And, even with those extra
        troops, the Imperial force had been outnumbered by the Turks and had won the
        day, to some extent, by luck. A repeat battle might well have turned out
        differently, and the treaty avoided that possibility.

        Mark Sabol

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Claudia Medvik" <cmmedvik@...>
        To: "SlovakWorld" <slovak-world@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:55 AM
        Subject: [Slovak-World] Question on Chapter 5



        What were the terms of the peace treaty of Vasvar that the Hungarian locals
        so violently opposed?

        This author seems more interested in listing the petty
        greivances of the Protestants than the fact whole countries had been lade
        waste and turned into killing fields by the Turks and the Austrians in turn.

        And he barely mentions the outbreak of the plague, not giving any numbers.
        Smallpox was totally ignored, even though it was so prevelant that even
        monarchies from England to all over Europe were affected.

        And what exactly happened to areas turned into Sanjaks that the Turks owned?

        Claudia
        _________________________________________________________________
        Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook - together at last. Get it
        now.
        http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Claudia Medvik
        Thanks Mark, I always have the feeling since I didn t grow up in Slovakia, that things everyone knows there, they don t think to mention. So I m afraid I m a
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Mark, I always have the feeling since I didn't grow up in Slovakia, that things 'everyone'
          knows there, they don't think to mention. So I'm afraid I'm a bit picky and demanding for details.
          And excluding the events that happened ourside of Slovakia, but very much affected Slovakia,
          is very frustrating. I guess that makes the telling the history of just Slovakia very difficult. And
          everyone here seems to know volumes more that these authors.

          What I am impressed with is that Slovakia was a rather democratic culture from early times, and
          didn't take to absolutism at all. That is VERY impressive!

          Claudia


          To: Slovak-World@yahoogroups.comFrom: marksabol2@...: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:13:39 -0400Subject: Re: [Slovak-World] Question on Chapter 5




          Claudia,A big complaint against the treaty concerned the disposition of the fortified town of Nove Zamky/Ersekujvar/Neuhausel. It had just recently been wrested from the Turks at a high cost in lives during a long siege, but the treaty -- for the sake of immediate peace in the East, which allowed the Empire to deal more effectively with the French in the West -- provided that it be given up to the Turks again. It was thus again a well-fortified Turkish position deep into territory that otherwise was under Imperial control, and it would become a staging area for attacks on the surrounding region in advance of the siege of Vienna two decades later. More generally, the treaty essentially accepted the status quo, and the people who were vulnerable to Turkish attack would have preferred, of course, to follow up the success at St. Gotthard with continued fighting to push the Turks back toward Istanbul.But that was probably impossible at the time. The forces that had been gathered to fight at St. Gotthard, including Protestant north German troops and, I think, even some French troops, would not have stayed around for a protracted campaign pressing deeper to the east. And, even with those extra troops, the Imperial force had been outnumbered by the Turks and had won the day, to some extent, by luck. A repeat battle might well have turned out differently, and the treaty avoided that possibility.Mark Sabol----- Original Message ----- From: "Claudia Medvik" <cmmedvik@...>To: "SlovakWorld" <slovak-world@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:55 AMSubject: [Slovak-World] Question on Chapter 5What were the terms of the peace treaty of Vasvar that the Hungarian localsso violently opposed?This author seems more interested in listing the pettygreivances of the Protestants than the fact whole countries had been ladewaste and turned into killing fields by the Turks and the Austrians in turn.And he barely mentions the outbreak of the plague, not giving any numbers.Smallpox was totally ignored, even though it was so prevelant that evenmonarchies from England to all over Europe were affected.And what exactly happened to areas turned into Sanjaks that the Turks owned?Claudia__________________________________________________________Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook - together at last. Get it now.http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]Yahoo! Groups Links






          _________________________________________________________________
          Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
          http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ron Matviyak
          Some questions have been raised about what Spiez covered in his history of Slovakia and what he left out. There are differences I would also like to see, but
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Some questions have been raised about what Spiez covered in his
            history of Slovakia and what he left out. There are differences I
            would also like to see, but he is working under the human constraints
            all historians have.

            Today a local Alaskan professor of history published a column in the
            paper that addresses some of the broad points of history. Here are
            some of his ideas on 'the four kinds of history' that are possible;
            the full article is at
            http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/9355590p-9269593c.html
            the article should be there for a few days.

            I suggest anyone looking at just the historical context ignore his
            introductory commentary which attempts to relate the article to
            today's politics. Skip that and get to the history. Let's not get
            into politics except historical Slovak politics.

            "What is history? That depends on your point of view"
            "Though it may seem simple at first glance, history is actually
            complicated and difficult. There are really four different things we
            call history.

            The conservative writer Marilyn Robinson summed them up nicely in a
            1995 essay on McGuffey's Readers, those early 19th century primers
            that taught American youngsters to read and shaped their morals and
            worldview.

            First, Robinson wrote, there is the temporal past, the simple
            chronology of what happened. It's not easy to put that together
            because we can't list everything. So someone has to choose what will
            be listed. One might say, "Well, just list the important stuff." But
            that's no solution. What is not considered important to one person may
            be very important to another.

            The second thing we call history is the documentary record, which
            includes artifacts as well as written material. Robinson calls this
            the recorded past. Historians rely most on documents because they
            don't change. But they don't necessarily tell the truth, either;
            rather, they are often likely to reflect the particular version of the
            truth someone wanted credit for. They are subject to the same
            manipulation as chronology. Moreover, they're biased toward the
            literate and official, and very subject to the caprices of
            record-keeping itself, including inadvertent omissions, fire and water
            damage, and other deteriorations.

            third "history:" the cultural past. That's the mostly unspoken
            assumptions about what constitutes truth, beauty and goodness that we
            inherit from our upbringing.

            Finally, there is the interpreted past, the past measured for its
            significance. Those judgments, without which history is just a bunch
            of dates, faces and places, are subject to the "motives, enthusiasms,
            sensibilities, talents and scruples of the interpreters." The message
            here is choose your historian carefully, for the story you get depends
            on your choice.
            Is history of any use, then? Yes, in the same way as "Hamlet": Despite
            its uncertainty, it contains powerful lessons about what it means to
            be human, and how to live a human life.
            Steve Haycox is a professor of history at the University of Alaska
            Anchorage."
          • konekta@nm.psg.sk
            I have a different classification of history : 1. Written by one side. 2.Written by the other side. 3.Written by independent, unbiased side. They are and must
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I have a different classification of "history":
              1. Written by one side.
              2.Written by the other side.
              3.Written by independent, unbiased side.
              They are and must be all diefferent.
              Vladimir

              _____

              From: Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Ron Matviyak
              Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 12:15 AM
              To: Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Slovak-World] Re: Question on Chapter 5



              Some questions have been raised about what Spiez covered in his
              history of Slovakia and what he left out. There are differences I
              would also like to see, but he is working under the human constraints
              all historians have.

              Today a local Alaskan professor of history published a column in the
              paper that addresses some of the broad points of history. Here are
              some of his ideas on 'the four kinds of history' that are possible;
              the full article is at
              http://www.adn
              <http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/9355590p-9269593c.html>
              com/opinion/comment/story/9355590p-9269593c.html
              the article should be there for a few days.

              I suggest anyone looking at just the historical context ignore his
              introductory commentary which attempts to relate the article to
              today's politics. Skip that and get to the history. Let's not get
              into politics except historical Slovak politics.

              "What is history? That depends on your point of view"
              "Though it may seem simple at first glance, history is actually
              complicated and difficult. There are really four different things we
              call history.

              The conservative writer Marilyn Robinson summed them up nicely in a
              1995 essay on McGuffey's Readers, those early 19th century primers
              that taught American youngsters to read and shaped their morals and
              worldview.

              First, Robinson wrote, there is the temporal past, the simple
              chronology of what happened. It's not easy to put that together
              because we can't list everything. So someone has to choose what will
              be listed. One might say, "Well, just list the important stuff." But
              that's no solution. What is not considered important to one person may
              be very important to another.

              The second thing we call history is the documentary record, which
              includes artifacts as well as written material. Robinson calls this
              the recorded past. Historians rely most on documents because they
              don't change. But they don't necessarily tell the truth, either;
              rather, they are often likely to reflect the particular version of the
              truth someone wanted credit for. They are subject to the same
              manipulation as chronology. Moreover, they're biased toward the
              literate and official, and very subject to the caprices of
              record-keeping itself, including inadvertent omissions, fire and water
              damage, and other deteriorations.

              third "history:" the cultural past. That's the mostly unspoken
              assumptions about what constitutes truth, beauty and goodness that we
              inherit from our upbringing.

              Finally, there is the interpreted past, the past measured for its
              significance. Those judgments, without which history is just a bunch
              of dates, faces and places, are subject to the "motives, enthusiasms,
              sensibilities, talents and scruples of the interpreters." The message
              here is choose your historian carefully, for the story you get depends
              on your choice.
              Is history of any use, then? Yes, in the same way as "Hamlet": Despite
              its uncertainty, it contains powerful lessons about what it means to
              be human, and how to live a human life.
              Steve Haycox is a professor of history at the University of Alaska
              Anchorage."






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.