The nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary, i.e., the temporal upper stratum of the medieval society whose special privileges were granted by law, developed gradually during the 11-14 centuries.

The origin of the nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary can be traced back to the "men distinguished by birth and dignity" (maiores natu et dignitate) mentioned in the charters of the first kings. They descended partly from the leaders of the Magyar tribes and clans and partly from the immigrant (mainly German, Italian and French) knights who settled down in the kingdom in the course of the 10-12th centuries. By the 13th century, the royal servants (serviens regis), who mainly descended from the wealthier freemen (liberi) of the early Hungarian society, managed to ensure their special status and their privileges were granted by the Golden Bull issued by King Andrew II of Hungary in 1222. Several families of the soldiers of the royal fortresses (iobagio castri) could also strengthen their liberties and they merged into the nobility by the end of the 13th century, although most of them lost their privilages and became subject to the power of private castle-holders. Many leaders of the mainly Slavic, German and Romanian colonists who immigrated to the kingdom during the 11-15th centuries managed to emerge into the nobility. Moreover, the kings had the authority to grant nobility to common people who thenceforward enjoyed all the liberties of other nobles.

From the 14th century, the idea of "one and the same liberty" (una et eadem libertas) appeared in the public law of the kingdom which suggested that all the members of the nobility enjoyed the same privileges independently of their offices, birth or wealth. In reality, even the legislation of the kingdom made a distinction partly between the members of the higher nobility and other nobles, partly between nobles possessing lands and without land possession. Moreover, the public law also recognized the existence of some groups of "conditional nobility" (conditionarius) whose privileges were limited, e.g., the "nobiles of the Church" were subject to the authority of certain prelates and therefore, they could not enjoy all the liberties of the "true nobles of the kingdom" (veri nobiles regni). In some cases, not individuals but a group of people was granted a special status similar to that of the nobility, e.g., the Hajdú people enjoyed several privileges of the nobility not as individuals but as a community.

Similarly to other countries in Central Europe, the proportion of the nobility in the population of the Kingdom of Hungary was significantly higher than in the western countries: by the 18th century, about 5% of its population were nobles.

The "cardinal liberties" of the nobility were clearly summarized in the Tripartitum in 1514. According to the Tripartitum, the nobles enjoyed personal freedom, they were submitted exclusively to the authority of the king and they were exempted of taxation; moreover, until 1681, they were also entitled to resist any actions of the kings that would jeopardize their privileges. The core privileges of the nobility were abolished or expanded to other citizens of the kingdom by the "April laws" in 1848, but the members of the higher nobility could reserve their special political rights (they were the members of the Upper House of the Parliament) and the usage of names of the nobles distinguished them from others. Finally, all the distinctive features of nobility were abolished in 1946 following the declaration of the Republic of Hungary.

Prelude - before the establishment of the kingdom

The nomadic early Hungarian society was consisted mostly of freemen who were engaged in regular raids against the neighboring (mainly Slavic) peoples.^[1] Besides the freemen, (mostly Slavic) slaves must have also lived among the Magyars.^[1] Muslim geographers mentioned that the Magyars

excercise dominion over all of the Saqlab /the Slavic people/ who are adjacent to them, and they put upon them heavy burdens, and they are in their hands in the position of captives.

— Ahmad ibn Rustah^[2]

Early written sources prove that the Magyar freemen were organized into seven (later, after the Kabars had joined them, eight) tribes (Hungarian: törzs, Greek: phyle), while comparative studies and other sources suggest that the tribes were composed of clans (Hungarian: nemzetség, Greek: genea).^[3] The eight Magyar tribes were headed by their own princes and each clans must have had their own heads, but Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos wrote that^[3]

These eight clans /i.e., tribes/ of the Turks /i.e., the Magyars/ do not obey their own particular princes, but have a joint agreement to fight together with all earnestness and zeal upon the rivers, wheresoever war breaks out.

— De Administrando Imperio^[4]

Consequently, although the Magyar society must have been divided based on the economic and social status of its members, but the legal status of all freemen were equal.^[1]

Around 896, the Magyars invaded the Carpathian Basin and they managed to occupy its whole territory by 902.^[3] The occupied territory had been inhabited by mainly Slavs, Avars and Germans who became subject to the dominion of the Magyars;^[1] on the other hand, the name of Slavic origin of certain heads of the Magyar armies suggest that some leaders of the local population may have managed to integrate themselves into the nomadic society. Archaelogical findings prove the existence of slaves among the Magyars in the 10th century; they were the descendants either of the captives who had been living among them already before the conquest or of the local population, but the number of slaves must have increased in the first half of the 9th century as a consequence of the regular military actions.^[1] In the 13th century, Simon of Kéza described in his chronicle that

It came about that when the Hungarians took possession of Pannonia they took prisoners of war, both Christian and non-Christian. Some of these were put to death when they continued to offer resistance, according to the custom of nations; the more warlike of the remainder they took with them to fight on the battlefield, and gave them a portion of the spoils; others in turn became their property and were kept around their tents to perform various servile duties.

— Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum^[5]

Following the conquest, the Magyars endeavored to maintain their nomadic lifestyle and they made several raids to the territories of present-day Italy, Germany, France and Spain and also to the lands of the Byzantine Empire.^[1][6] Comparative studies suggest that on one hand, the regular raids contributed to the differentiation of the Magyar society because the leaders of the military actions were probably entitled to reserve a higher share of the booty for themselves, but on the other hand, these actions could also ensure that their "common" participants kept their independent status.^[1] Nevertheless, the military actions also contributed to the formation of the retinue of the heads of the tribes and the clans.^[1] The regular military actions continued westwards until the Battle of Augsburg on the Lech River in 955, when Otto, King of the Germans destroyed their troops; while the raids against the Byzantine Empire finished only in 970.^[6] After (or even before) the close of the period of the military raids, the Magyar society must have undergone a gradual transformation, and several Magyar freemen was obliged to give up their nomadic lifestyle and settle down, because the Carpathian Basin did not provide vast pastures that could have sustained a numerous nomadic population.^[1]

The christianization of the Magyar commenced during the reign of Géza, Grand Prince of the Magyars (before 972-997), who unified the western parts of the Carpathian Basin under his rule; he invited western knights to settle down in his court and granted possessions to them.^[1]

The formation of the nobility - 11-12th centuries

During the reign of Géza's son, King Stephen I (1000/1001-1038), who established the Kingdom of Hungary, the Hungarian society was legally divided into two major groups: the freemen (Hungarian: szabadok, Latin: liber), who were also mentioned as the "people of the kingdom" (Latin: gens monarchiæ), still enjoyed their "golden liberties" (Latin: aurea libertas), while the slaves (Hungarian: szolgák, Latin: servus) were treated as property of freemen.^[1] During his reign, several foreign knights immigrated to the kingdom and he granted several possessions to them, but the families of the leaders of the Magyar tribes and clans could also reserve a part of their former possessions, provided that they accepted the king's supremacy.^[7] The immigrant knights contributed to the development of the Hungarian army, because most of them were horse-mounted men-at-arms, while during the previous centuries the Magyar troops had exclusively been made of horse archers; since the maintenance of their equipment required considerable financial resources, only the wealthiest members of the Hungarian tribal aristocracy could follow their example.^[7] However, light cavalry still took a prominent part in the Hungarian strategy and therefore other "freemen" could also reserve their independent status provided that earned sufficient revenues from their possessions.^[8]

King Stephen's decrees contain reference to the "men distinguished by birth and dignity" (Latin: maiores natu et dignitate) who can be identified with the immigrant knights and the members of the tribal aristocracy who held offices in his kingdom.^[1] Although, King Stephen I ensured the private ownership of lands, but until the end of the 12th century, the monarchs remained the biggest landowners in the country and the scattered lands owned even by the wealthiest members of the royal court did not form contiguous geographical units in the kingdom.^[7]

We inclined towards the unanimous request of the Council that everybody should be the owner both of their properties and of the king's donations during their lifetime with the exception those belonging to a bishopric or a county. Moreover, following their death, their sons should hold their inheritance under similar conditions.

— Section 35 of the 2nd Decree of King Stephen I^[9]

The legal differentiation among the freemen commenced during King Stephen's rule, since his decrees prescribed different treatment for the "counts", the "warriors" and the "common freemen", although the size of the weregild to be paid by their murderer was the same which suggests that their legal status was still also equal.^[1]

• The "counts" (Hungarian: ispánok, Latin: comes) were the heads of the basic administrative units (Hungarian: vármegye, Latin: comitatus) of the kingdom, who were appointed and dismissed by the king; their office, in contrast to the practise having already been followed in the western countries by that time, was not hereditary.^[1][7] The counts enjoyed several privileges, e.g., they were submitted only to the judgment made personally by the monarch.^[7] Moreover, the "counts" had their own retinue connected to their office and they managed the royal revenues of their comitatus; thus they became the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in the kingdom.^[7] Following the gradual formation of the royal court, its dignitaries (e.g., the Palatine, the Marshal) hold the highest ranks in the kingdom.^[7]
• The "warriors" (Hungarian: vitézek, Latin: miles) also owned lands and they provided military service to the kings or to the "counts".^[1] King Stephen's decrees urged the "warriors" to join to the counts' retinue.^[1] The foreign knights who were not appointed to higher offices increased the "warriors'" numbers.^[8] Their financial conditions must have been close to that of the "common freemen", because the amount of the fines they had to pay in case of certain crimes was just twice as much than the penalties payable by the "commons".^[1]
• The "common freemen" (Hungarian: közrendűek, Latin: vulgaris) still enjoyed their liberties (e.g., the right to free movement) and they were invited to occasional assemblies convoced by the kings, but the number of "commons" who were obliged to settle down on the properties of wealthier people increased permanently during the period.^[1] Nevertheless, "common freemen" who provided services directly to the kings became exempt of taxation by the end of the 11th century.^[1]

By the second half of the 11th century, the uniform status of the "freemen" had already loosened and the decrees of King Ladislaus I (1077-1095) often referred to the "freemen" as thieves or vagabonds who were punished with slavery.^[1] The decisions of the Synod of Szabolcs (1092) prove that by that time, many of the "freemen" had gone into the service of prelates and "counts", although the Synod also prescribed that the "freemen's" lords should respect their personal freedom.^[1] Nevertheless, several families of the "warriors" managed to reserve their possessions without being dependent of the "notabilities" and they were exempted from taxation according to the decrees of King Coloman (1095-1116).^[1] In the meantime, a new group of soldiers appeared in the documents; they were the "castle's serfs" (Hungarian: várjobbágyok, Latin: iobagio castri) who did not enjoy all the liberties of the "warriors" and were personally bound to a royal castle, but they had a share in both the royal possessions managed by the head of the castle and the tax paid by the people who were obliged to provide services to the royal fortress.^[8]

The decrees of King Ladislaus I refer to the "nobles" (Hungarian: nemesek, Latin: nobilis) or the "notabilities" (Hungarian: előkelők, Latin: optimates) in contrast to the "non-nobles" (Hungarian: nemtelenek, Latin: ignobilis) who were composed of the "warriors" and the "common freemen".^[1] The financial conditions of the "notabilities" ensured that they were able to set up monasteries and grant possessions to them; these "private monasteries" not only served for burial place to the founder's family but their founder often also reserved the "right of patronage" (Hungarian: kegyuraság, Latin: ius patronatus) over them for himself and for his family.^[7]

Before 1104, King Coloman introduced a new principle when regulating the inheritance of possessions and he differentiated the lands granted by King Stephen I on one hand, and the possessions granted by King Stephen's successors on the other hand: the former were inherited by all the male descendants of the person who received the grant, while the latter could only be inherited by the actual owner's sons or (in the lack of sons) by the actual owner's brothers or their sons.^[7]

If a possession was granted by King Saint Stephen, it shall be inherited by all the descendants following the order of succession. Other kings' grants shall be passed from father to son, and if there is no son, the brother shall come next; but after his death, his sons shall not be excluded from the inheritance. However, in the lack of such brothers, the possession shall pass to the king.

— Section 20 of the 1st Decree of King Coloman^[10]

In the course of the 12th century, the "freemen" who owned possession and thus were able to serve in the kings' armies could strengthen their position; even their number started to increase when the kings began to grant their liberties to castle's serfs and serfs.^[1] The first example of this practise was a grant made by King Géza II (1141-1162) to a serf named Botus who had been serving the Church before, but who became absolved from his former duties and received a smaller possession from the king with the obligation that he would provide military service in the king's army.^[1] During the period, the "notabilities" descending from the same ancestor usually owned jointly their inherited possessions, but several examples could already be found when the members of the family divided their inheritance among themselves.^[1]

The largest part of the lands of the kingdom were still owned directly by the kings until the end of the century, but King Béla III (1172-1196) was the first monarch who alienated a whole "county" (Modrus in Croatia) by transferring the ownership of all the royal possessions in the county to Bartolomej who became the ancestor of the Frankopan (Hungarian: Frangepán)family.^[1] Although, the king stipulated that the Counts Frankopan would be obliged to arm some horse-mounted knights for the kings, but his grant set a precedent for his direct successors.^[1]

"The century of the Golden Bulls" - 13th century

King Andrew II (1205-1235), who had been struggling with his elder brother, King Emeric (1196-1204) before ascending the throne, decided that he would alterate radically his predecessors' internal policy and he started to grant enormous possessions to his partisans.^[1] When he expressed the substence of his "new arrangements" (Hungarian: új berendezkedés, Latin: novæ institutiones) in one of his charters, he mentioned that

Nothing can set bounds to the generosity of the Royal Majesty; and for a monarch, the best measure of grants is immeasurableness.

— King Andrew's charter (1208)^[1]

King Andrew II not only granted castles and whole counties (i.e., the royal domains connected to them) to his partisans, but he made "perpetual grants" (Hungarian: örökadomány, Latin: perpetua hereditas) for them.^[7] "Perpetual grants" passed not only from fathers to sons (or in the lack of sons, to brothers or their sons) but they could be inherited by all the male members of the family.^[7]

The king's new policy endangered the liberties of the "freemen" who had owned possessions in the counties and had been obliged to render military service only to the kings, but the new lords of the counties endeavoured to expand their supremacy over these "freemen".^[1][7] They commenced to call themselves as "royal servants" (Hungarian: királyi szerviensek, Latin: serviens regis) in order to express that they were linked directly to the monarch; and in 1222, they enforced King Andrew II to issue the Golden Bull.^[1][7] Although, the Golden Bull distinguished between the "nobles" and the "royal servants", but it also put the latter's liberties in writing.^[1]

We also wish that neither me or the kings following us would arrest a royal servant or cause his deterioration for the benefit of any notabilities only if an action have been taken against him and he have been sentenced in the course of ordinary legal procedure.

Moreover, we will not levy either any tax or the servants' denarius in the royal servants' possessions. We will not stay uninvited either in their houses or in their villages. (...)

If a royal servant dies without a male descendant, one fourth of his possessions shall pass to his daughters and he will be entitled to dispose of their other parts as he pleases. And if he dies without expressing his last will, they will be owned by his next kinsmen, and if he did not have any kinsmen, his possessions would pass to the king.

The heads of counties shall not make a judgement on the royal servants' possessions only if the case relates to money or tithe.

And if the king wants to wage war outside the kingdom, royal servants shall not be obliged to follow him only for the king's money; and when he has returned, he shall not levy penalty of war on the royal servants. And if the enemy attacks the kingdom with military forces, they all will be obliged to go there. (...)

— Articles 2-5 and 7 of the Golden Bull (Act of 1222) ^[11]

In the Golden Bull, the king also made a promise that he and his successors would not grant office to foreigners without the consent of their council.^[1] The last provision of the Golden Bull ensured the right of the prelates and the "notabilities" to resist any royal arrangements that could endanger their liberties determined in the Golden bull.^[8]

Should it happen that we or any of the kings following us acted against these arrangements of us, this charter shall authorize both the bishops and the notabilities and nobles (both the ones who are present and who would live later and also their descendants) to whenever resist and contradict universally or individually both to us and to the kings following us without suffering the ignominy of treachery.

— Section 2 of the Article 31 of the Golden Bull (Act of 1222) ^[12]

In 1231, King Andrew II issued a new charter that confirmed the provisions of the Golden Bull and the liberties of the "castles' serfs" were also confirmed in the charter.^[8]

We have ordered that all the castles' serfs shall be maintained in the freedom permitted by the holy kings.

— Section a) of the Article 27 of the Act of 1231

A deed issued by the "royal servants" of Zala county in 1232 indicated the next step of the formation of the nobility, because based on the authorization the king have granted them, they judged the lawsuit of Bartholomew, Bishop of Veszprém against one of the notabilities living in the county, which proved that the counties, that had been formerly the basic units of royal administration, commenced to turn into an administrative unit governed by the developing nobility.^[1]

Sources

• Bán, Péter (editor): Magyar Történelmi Fogalomtár; Gondolat, Budapest, 1989; ISBN 963 282 202 1.
• Bóna, István: A magyarok és Európa a 9-10. században ("The Magyars and Europe during the 9-10th centuries"); História - MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2000, Budapest; ISBN 963 8312 67 X.
• Fügedi, Erik: Ispánok, bárók, kiskirályok (Counts, Barons and Petty Kings); Magvető Könyvkiadó, 1986, Budapest; ISBN 963 14 0582 6.
• Kristó, Gyula (editor): Korai Magyar Történeti Lexikon - 9-14. század (Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History - 9-14th centuries); Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994, Budapest; ISBN 963 05 6722 9.
• Kristó, Gyula: Magyarország története - 895-1301 (The History of Hungary - 895-1301); Osiris Kiadó, 1998, Budapest; ISBN 963 379 442 0.
• László, Gyula: The Magyars - Their Life and Civilisation; Corvina, 1996; ISBN 963 13 4226 3.
• Tóth, Sándor László: Levediától a Kárpát-medencéig ("From Levedia to the Carpathian Basin"); Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1998, Szeged; ISBN 963 482 175 8.