Source: Donna Wagner
Burial: February 18, 1929, City Cemetery at Jacksonville, Texas by Denby F
uneral Home
Elected: Bet. 1907 - 1911, County Commissioner of Grandview in Distri ct 4 of
Johnson County, Texas
Founder: One of the founders of Watts Chapel Church in Grandview, Johns on
County, Texas
Honor: 1904, Name inscribed on the Cornerstone of the Johnson County Court
house.
Profession: He was a Lawyer, farmer and real estate agent.
Property: Bet. 1886 - 1888, Purchased and ran the Grandview Sentinel Newsp
aper before selling in 1888

Source: Wenche og Bjørn Markhus, Drammen, Norway, 

He was Exilarch of the Jews in Babylon about 508-520.
Sources:
1.  ..., "Encyclopedia Judiaca", Vol.6, pp.1024-1025.
2.  ..., "The Jewish Enclyclopedia" Vol.V, pp.288-290

AFTER Stephen's death in 1038 Hungary experienced a long period of fluctua ting
fortunes, for which disputes for the crown were chiefly responsibl e. There
was still no recognised law of succession: the Árpád family tradi tion,
following the national usage, recognised the principle of senioratu s, while
the natural affection of kings caused them repeatedly to se ek to pass over a
brother or an uncle in favour of a son. While rebelli on against a king
recognised as legitimately crowned was rare, there we re frequent disputes
between rival pretendents to the crown, these civil w ars being greatly
facilitated by the custom of assigning one third of t he country as his
appanage to the king's next of kin, known as the 'du x' or 'herceg',who was
thus able to raise an army from among his own follo wers.


The disputes began almost immediately after Stephen's death. All his so ns had
died in infancy except one, Imre, and he, too, had predeceased h is father.
Stephen bequeathed his throne to a nephew, Peter, son of his si ster and the
Doge Otto Orseolo. Peter was an overbearing youth who dislik ed his subjects
and soon had them in arms against him. In 1041 they rebell ed, driving him to
take refuge at the court of the Emperor Henry III, a nd in his place elected
Samuel Aba, a 'Kun' who had married another of Ste phen's sisters. Aba proved
as violent, in other directions, as Peter, w ho came back, assisted by Henry,
in 1046. Aba, fleeing, was strangled by ' Hungarians whom he had harmed during
his reign'. Peter was reinstated, b ut his rule was more unpopular than ever,
and the Hungarians now bethoug ht them of the surviving members of the House
of Árpád - three brothers, A ndrew, Béla and Levente, the sons of Stephen's
nephew, Vászoly, who had be en living in exile in Poland since their father
had committed some offen ce which had caused Stephen to throw him into prison
and put out his eye s. The brothers were called back; Peter was killed in
flight, and Andrew b ecame king (1047). He lived peaceably with his brothers
until he tri ed to secure the succession for his seven-year-old son, Salamon,
whom he h ad married as an infant to the Emperor Henry III's child daughter,
Judit h. Levente had renounced his rights rather than accept Christianity, but
w hen Andrew actually had Salamon crowned, Béla revolted. Andrew was kill ed
in the fighting, Salamon took refuge with his father-in-law and Béla mo unted
the throne (1060). When he died in 1063, his two sons, Géza and Ladi slas, who
were mutually devoted, at first accepted Salamon as the lawful k ing, but in
1074 the cousins quarrelled and Salamon was evicted. Géza rul ed for three
years (1074-7) and Ladislas after him for eighteen (1077-95 ). Ladislas had
only a daughter, and designated as his successor Almus, t he younger of Géza's
two sons, the elder, Kálmán, having been destined f or the church. However,
Kálmán seized the throne on his uncle's death, a nd although Almus at first
accepted the situation, the brothers ended by q uarrelling and Kálmán had both
Almus and his infant son, Béla, blinded. Ká lmán then finished his rule
(1095-1116) unchallenged, as did his son Steph en II (1116-31) after him.
Dying childless, Stephen was succeeded by the b lind Béla II, who had been
brought up in secrecy by his father's friend s. Under Béla (1131-41) and his
son Géza II (1141-62) there was no importa nt internal discord, but the
succession of Géza's son, Stephen III (1167-7 2) was disputed, first by his
eldest uncle, Ladislas II, who seized the th rone in 1162, and after Ladislas'
death, in January 1163, by his younger b rother, Stephen IV. Stephen IV's
death in the spring of 1165 happily exhau sted the sum of Stephen III's
uncles, and he had no sons. His brother a nd successor, Béla III (1172-90) had
no domestic rivals to his throne, b ut the short reign of his elder son, Imre
(1196-1204) was spent large ly in strife with his younger brother, Andrew, who
on Imre's death expell ed his infant son, Ladislas IV (who, fortunately for
his country, died t he next year) before beginning his own long reign (1205 -
35).


This endemic dynastic warfare did Hungary much harm. Not only did the figh
ting which accompanied it bring with it loss of blood and material devasta
tion, but many claimants to the throne called in foreign help - German, Po
lish and, in the twelfth century, Byzantine - thus opening the way to fore ign
interference in the country's internal affairs and sometimes bringi ng
political degradation and temporary or permanent losses of territory. B oth
Peter and Salamon sacrificed the independent status which St Stephen h ad won
for Hungary by doing homage for their thrones to the Emperor. Steph en III's
uncles were clients of Byzantium. Aba's wars against Peter's prot ectors lost
Hungary her territory west of the Leitha, which thereafter bec ame the
AustroHungarian frontier until 1918. Syrmium and Dalmatia, acquir ed earlier,
were temporarily lost in the twelfth century.


For all this, it must be said that Hungary was, on the whole, lucky in i ts
kings. Quarrelsome as they were, they were generally able, and often at
tractive. Ladislas I, who, like Stephen and his son, Imre, was canonised a
fter his death, was the outstanding personality among them: a true palad in
and gentle knight, a protector of his faith and his people, and of t he poor
and defenceless. Kálmán, nicknamed 'the Bookman', was, in spi te of his
atrocious crime against his brother and nephew, an exceptional ly shrewd and
enlightened ruler (it was he who enacted a famous Law forbid ding trials of
witches (strigae), quia non sunt). Several other of the Árp áds were men of
ability and of endearing nature. Of them all, only Steph en II was almost
entirely bad, and Andrew II, irremediably silly.


There were several factors favourable to Hungary's development in the elev
enth and twelfth centuries; chief among them, perhaps, the unusually peace ful
conditions prevailing during this period in the steppes. The Petcheneg s, who
had driven the Magyars into Hungary, were themselves pushed into t he Balkans
in the eleventh century by the Cumans, whose main power was bas ed further
east. Hungary suffered only two severe inroads from them, in 10 68 and 1091
respectively, and both were incursions of raiding parties whi ch returned to
the steppes with their booty. After Austria grew big at t he expense of
Germany, most of Hungary's other neighbours were approximate ly her equals in
strength, and Hungary contrived to live with most of th em on reasonably
friendly terms, particularly since all the smaller countr ies soon came to be
linked by a network of dynastic marriages. The wars wh ich did take place were
usually family affairs, waged in support of some c laimant to a throne and not
with the idea of expansion, for the local nati ons, including the Hungarians,
did not think in terms of national imperial ism. 'Who', wrote a chronicler
once, 'ever heard of Hungarians ruling Czec hs, or Czechs, Hungarians?' One of
the great virtues of the Árpáds as rule rs was that, in the main, they
accepted this outlook.


In these relatively peaceful conditions, the population of Hungary increas ed
rapidly, the natural growth being reinforced by a steady flow of immigr ation.
By the end of the twelfth century the cultivable parts of the Dunán túl
carried a reasonably dense population, and the Great Plain, too, was b
eginning to fill up, although more slowly. The valleys of the Vág and Nyit ra,
the political appurtenance of which had perhaps been doubtful in the t enth
century, now came definitively under Hungarian rule, and Transylvan ia was
effectively occupied (probably in several stages) and incorporate d. The
frontier now ran along the crest of the western Carpathians, throu gh the
Tatra, across the upper Poprad valley, and thence along the watersh ed of the
eastern Carpathians and the Transylvanian Alps. Here, too, the re was growth.
The valleys debouching from these mountains into the pla in filled up, while
the upper valleys and the basins behind the passes we re settled with
semi-military communities. Hungarian expansion did not rea ch into the
Austrian Alps, which were now being recolonised and consolidat ed by the
Babenbergs, nor across the Sava and Danube in the south, but Syr mium was
conquered and colonised about 1060, and in 1089-90 Ladislas I occ upied (or
perhaps reoccupied) 'Slavonia', between the middle courses of t he Sava and
the Drava. In addition, Kálmán, in 1097 took possession of t he former kingdom
of Croatia, of which he was crowned king in 1106, havi ng meanwhile secured
possession also of the northern Dalmatian coast throu gh a complex transaction
which included the betrothal of his cousin, Piros ka, to John Comnenus, then
heir to the Byzantine throne.


Croatia was a dynastic acquisition. How far the Hungaro-Croat union was re al
(in later phraseology), and how far only personal, is a question whi ch the
historians of the two countries argue and can never resolve, sin ce they are
talking in terms to which the Middle Ages assigned no preci se and immutable
meaning. It is certain that Croatia was never treat ed as an integral part of
Hungary. The royal title ran 'King of Hungary a nd Croatia' and Croatia was
administered by a viceroy ('Ban') through i ts own institutions.


But there were close links, even here; for instance, the Croat privileg ed
classes seem to have enjoyed automatically the status of their Hungari an
counterparts. And the advance to the frontiers in the north and east w as a
process of organic expansion from the earlier nucleus. The normal pro cedure
was to advance the gyepü when conditions allowed, incorporating t he former
gyepü land into the county system, and forming a new gyepü beyo nd it.
Eventually, when the frontiers became clearly fixed, counties ca me into being
along the whole line. Transylvania was a partial exceptio n. Here the
colonisation was exceptionally extensive, and carried throu gh largely with
non-Magyar elements. First a screen of Szekels was s et in front of the Magyar
settlements in the west of the country, and th en the Szekels were moved
forward into the valleys behind the main easte rn passes, the Magyars
following behind them. Then 'Saxons' (really Germa ns from the Rhineland) were
settled in the gaps in the line, round Sibi u, Brassó and Beszterce. Both the
Saxons and the Szekels enjoyed extensi ve self-government, the former directly
under the king, the latter und er a 'Count of the Szekels' representing him;
and the whole area, Saxon a nd Szekel districts and Hungarian counties, was,
in view of its dangero us and exposed situation and its remoteness from the
capital, placed und er a local governor, the 'Voivode of Transylvania'. Unlike
Croatia, howeve r, Transylvania was not a separate Land of the Hungarian
Crown, but simp ly an administratively distinct part of the kingdom of
Hungary.


Thus even if we leave Croatia out of the account, the effective area of Hu
ngary had by 1200 almost doubled since the original occupation and its pop
ulation had risen to the big figure (for the time) of some two millions.


The political unity which had been the first of Stephen's great gifts to h is
country had survived, and so had his second gift of Christianity. His d eath
had, indeed, been followed by a powerful reaction in which attachme nt to the
old beliefs had been inflamed by resentment against both the dis cipline and
the economic burdens (especially that of tithe) imposed by t he new faith, and
by its foreign associations, as personified in the Germ an and Italian
clerics. The second revolt against Peter had been led by t he pagan party, who
had expected the sons of Vászoly to restore the old re ligion. In this
outburst many monks and clerics had perished, including t he saintly St Gerard
(Gellért), martyred on the hill overlooking Buda whi ch still bears his name.
A second outbreak had occurred in 1063. After th is had been put down,
however, Christianity had not again been in dange r. None of Stephen's
successors had rested their power on the church qui te so explicitly as he,
but several of them, notably Ladislas I, had be en powerful protectors and
generous patrons of it. The ecclesiastical orga nisation of the country had
been extended pari passu with its political ex pansion, and the network of
monasteries covering the country had grown den ser.


Many of the monks were foreigners, chiefly Germans, but some of them Itali ans
or Frenchmen. Their presence had helped to raise the cultural standar ds of
the country, and had also assisted it to make important progre ss in other
fields. By the middle of the twelfth century, agriculture w as beginning to go
over from stock-breeding to arable farming and viticult ure. There were
already some towns. The gold, silver and salt-mines were c oming into fuller
production, to the especial benefit of the king's treasu ry, into which their
yield went. Hungarian coins, and also some Hungari an products, found their
way far afield.


All this growth was, of course, gradual, but it soon enabled Hungary to me et
any of her neighbours on at least equal terms. In fact, after the acces sion
of Ladislas I, nothing was heard for a long time of German clai ms to
overlordship. Later, the Emperor Manuel Comnenus made pertinacious e fforts to
establish suzerainty over Hungary, which he invaded no less th an ten times in
twenty-two years; but although vexatious, his attempts nev er seriously
threatened Hungarian independence. After 1100, indeed, it w as more often the
Hungarian kings who intervened in their neighbours' affa irs, than the
converse. Both Kálmán and Stephen II intervened repeated ly in various Russian
principalities. Béla III, who had been broug ht up at the Byzantine court and
destined by Manuel, before his marriag e, for his heir, ended by turning the
tables, and although he did not succ eed in acquiring the imperial crown, the
lustre of his own easily outsho ne that of Manuel's successors. He largely
dominated the Balkans and als o, for a while, exercised sovereignty over
Halics.

[4] Hungary in his day was almost, or quite, the leading power in south-ea
stern Europe. Symbolic of this was the fact that while his predecessors' c
onsorts had most often been the daughters of Polish, Russian or Balkan pri
nce-lets, Béla's father-in-law was the king of France himself. An interest ing
document - the statement of his revenues -sent by Béla to his prospect ive
father-in-law during the marriage negotiations, shows that these we re equal
to those of his English and French contemporaries and inferior on ly to those
of the two Emperors.

The political form of the country during the period remained that of the a
bsolutist patrimonial kingship. On the very few occasions on which a revis ion
of the laws was undertaken, the optimates, as well as the chief prelat es,
were consulted, and the king's Council seems to have evolved into a re
cognised permanent institution. Nevertheless, up to the reign of Andrew I I,
the field of the king's prerogatives was not restricted and his authori ty in
matters falling within it remained as absolute.


Otto of Freising, writing in the twelfth century, notes that if any grand ee
committed, or was even suspected of, an offence against the king's maje sty,
the king could send from his court a servant, of however low degre e, who
could, single-handed, throw the offender into chains before his

own adherents and carry him off to torture. It was only Andrew's follies a nd
extravagances that produced a revolt, in consequence of which he was fo rced,
in the famous Golden Bull of 1222, to submit to certain restrictio ns on his
freedom of action (e.g., not to appoint foreigners to ffice with out the
consent of the Council), and to concede that if he or any of his s uccessors
violated these promises, he prelates and other dignitaries and n obles of the
realm hould be free to 'resist and withstand' such violati on with-out
imputation of high treason. This jus resistendi remained a tre asured,
although seldom invoked, right of the Hungarian nation for more th an four
centuries thereafter.

[5]

Other clauses of this famous charter dealt with the position of the freem en -
that body which later usage knew as the 'Hungarian nation'.

[6] Since St Stephen's day the composition in terms of ancestry of this cl ass
must have changed largely, for the limitation of 'noble' status (the t erm
'noble' was just coming into usage, but may conveniently be used her e) to the
male line must of itself already have greatly diminished the num ber of
families able to claim it jure descensus a Scythia; not to menti on the high
mortality rate in a class which by definition was military. Ot her former
freemen had lost their status through rebellion or personal cri me, had had it
filched from them by powerful neighbours, or had been driv en by need to take
employment out of their class. On the other and, succes sive kings had
repeatedly carried through the necessary replenishment of t he national
defence forces by promoting unfree elements or importing forei gners.

The relative measure (it had, of course, never been more than relativ e) of
economic homogeneity which steppe economy had enabled the old cla ss to
preserve had also naturally vanished apace under the new condition s, and
especially with the transition to private property in land. Fooli sh kings or
pretendents to the Crown had accelerated the process by buyin g, or rewarding,
supporters with grants of land, sometimes very large, a nd even in the twelfth
century we find here and there magnates who own va st estates and demean
themselves on them in almost regal fashion. At the o ther extreme, many
'nobles' sank into real poverty, while preserving the ir political status.
These 'sandalled nobles', as later generations call ed them, may already have
outnumbered the more prosperous members of the ' nation'.


The wiser kings had, however, fought against the development of a magna te
class so Kálmán had enacted that all donations made since St Stephen 's day
should revert to the Crown on the extinction of the beneficiarie s' direct
heirs - and had reflised to make offices of state hereditary. T he class had
thus never become institutionalised, and it had, incidentall y, accelerated
its own metabolism by the frequent commission of offences w hich entailed
confiscation of its estates. The 'nation' had thus never dev eloped along the
hierarchical lines which characterised the societies of t he contemporary
western and central Europe. The most serious threat, to da te, to the freedom
of its weaker members, had come during Andrew's rei gn - he had been a notable
offender in the matter of lavish bestowal of es tates on supporters - and they
had then revolted in defence of their old l iberties. The most important
clauses of the Golden Bull were those which r estored their original status,
making the 'nation' once more a legally und ifferentiated class, the body
politic - under and with the king - of Hunga ry, all of whose members had the
same duty of bearing arms when required

[7] and the same privilege of paying no taxation to the civic power.

The passage of time had, indeed, altered the social and political functi on of
the 'nation' in another important respect. As we have said, the warr iors who
followed Árpád across the Carpathians were probably nearly, if n ot quite as
numerous as their domestic slaves and the autochthonous popula tions put
together: they could not unreasonably claim to be Hungary incorp orate. But
the promotions to their ranks, which in any case grew much rar er in the
twelfth century,[8] probably did not even make good the wastag e; they
certainly did not keep pace with the growth of the unfree populati on. They
dwindled to an oligarchy numbering only a comparatively small fra ction of the
total population. Further, the transition to private ownersh ip of land, which
gathered pace with the spread of arable farming, and to ok place equally on
clan and crown land, combined with the effects of t wo centuries of donation,
confiscation and migration, had altered the geog raphical distribution of the
class. The old relatively clear-cut divisi on into clan and crown lands was
gone. There were still substantial are as of purely crown land, still pockets
of clan land held by communiti es of small nobles, but by and large, the
nobles were in the thirteenth ce ntury developing into a landlord class,
spread fairly evenly over the enti re country.

Brian Tompsett includes her in this line but others do not. In particul ar Tim
Doyle lists Boleslaw's wife as Herminilde von Meissen a Prince ss of the
western Slavs, the daughter of Dobromir a Prince of the weste rn Slavs. This
could still be the same person as Judith of Hungary as s he was of both Slavic
and Magyar descent. Also note, Doyle only lists Lamb ert as the only child of
this union.

Other Sources: Alen, Rupert and Anna Marie Dahlquist. "Royal Families of M
edieval Scandanavia, Flanders and Kiev". (Kings River Publications, Kingsb urg
California: 1997). {1} p 105

When Béla died, in 1270, the weak points in his work soon made themselv es
felt. Stephen, who incidentally had done much to embitter his father 's last
years and to undermine his work, died after a reign of only two ye ars; no
loss in himself, but his heir, Ladislas, was only ten years old. T he
'Cumanian woman', his mother, who assumed the regency, was hated by t he
Hungarians, and although some of the magnates tried loyally enough to k eep
the state together, others, especially a few great west Hungarian a nd Croat
families, made themselves into 'kinglets', who fought each othe r, and the
king, for control of the state or for their own independence, a llying
themselves without scrupie with foreign rulers. In the confusion, m any of
Béla IV's foreign acquisitions were lost again. When Ladislas ca me to man the
estate, things were no better. He had grown up into a wil d, undisciplined
youth, far more of a Cuman than a Magyar. He favoured h is mother's people so
much that there seemed a danger that Hungary might r evert to paganism; in the
course of repeated exchanges, one Pope laid t he country under interdict and
another authorised the bishops to prea ch a crusade against the king. It took
all the efforts of the Christian ba rons to mediate a settlement under which
the Cumans, in return for the ret ention of their liberties and of certain
national customs, undertook to ac cept Christianity, to exchange their tents
for fixed abodes and 'to absta in from killing Christians and from shedding
their blood'. Meanwhile, Ladi slas himself neglected his wife and took
pleasure only among Cuman wome n. At last, in 1290, he was murdered 'by those
same Cumans whom he had lov ed'.

From the loyal Hungarians' point of view the most serious aspect of Ladisl as'
refusal to have commerce with his wife had been the danger that this m ight
involve the extinction of the dynasty; for Ladislas' only brother h ad
predeceased him, dying unmarried, as had his only paternal uncle. One Á rpád
of the blood was still alive, for Andrew II's third wife, Beatrice d' Este,
had been delivered of a boy soon after her husband's death (on whi ch she had
returned to her father's people), and this boy had in due cour se married into
a family of rich Venetian bankers and

although himself dying young, had left a son, another Andrew. A party in H
ungary had been supporting the claim of this boy to be regarded as heir pr
esumptive to Ladislas, and meanwhile, 'Duke of Slavonia'. Since a few mont hs
before Ladislas' death Andrew had, however, been a prisoner at the cou rt of
Albrecht of Habsburg, now installed in Vienna. Meanwhile his riva ls had been
impugning his father's parentage, and when Ladislas died, clai ms to the
succession were put forward by, or on behalf of, three descendan ts of the
house of Árpád in the female line: the Angevin Charles Marte ll of Naples, son
of Ladislas' sister Maria (the candidature support ed by the Pope), the
Bavarian Otto of Wittelsbach, son of Stephen V's sist er Elizabeth, and the
Bohemian Wenceslas II, grandson of Béla IV's sist er Anne. In addition, the
German King Rudolph of Habsburg recalled that Bé la IV, in his extremity, had
done him homage and invested his son Albrec ht with Hungary.

The question was resolved by the prompt action of the Archbishop of Eszter
gom, Ladomer, who got Andrew smuggled out of Vienna, disguised as a fria r,
and brought to Hungary, where he was crowned amid the jubilati on of by far
the greater part of the country. It was a coup which might ha ve proved a
great blessing to the country, for true Árpád or not, Andrew s howed himself
to be one of the best of the Hungarian kings. He defended h is position
against the foreign claimants. Leaning on the smaller noble s, he succeeded in
making headway against the unruly magnates, incidental ly sanctioning a number
of valuable constitutional institutions (for the i dea of constitutional rule
was not strange to his Venice-trained mind ). On coronation he swore to
respect the country's liberties; he repeat ed and extended Andrew II's pledge
to make no appointments to higher offi ce without the consent of the Royal
Council, and even agreed to the instit ution of a permanent salaried Council,
its membership to include represent atives of their 'prelates, barons and
nobles', whose consent was requir ed for any major decision. 'All the barons
and nobles of the realm' we re to meet annually to enquire into the state of
the kingdom and the condu ct of the high officials. Unhappily, he died on 14
January 1301, leaving o nly an infant daughter, and thus 'the last golden twig
of the generatio n, blood and lineage of St Stephen, the first Hungarian
king', was broken.

SOURCE: Area Handbook of the US Library of Congress
Stephen I
Stephen (997-1038) became chieftain when Geza died, and he consolidated h is
rule by ousting rival clan chiefs and confiscating their lands. Steph en then
asked Pope Sylvester II to recognize him as king of Hungary. The p ope agreed,
and legend says Stephen was crowned on Christmas Day in the ye ar 1000. The
crowning legitimized Hungary as a Western kingdom independe nt of the Holy
Roman and Byzantine empires. It also gave Stephen virtual ly absolute power,
which he used to strengthen the Roman Catholic Church a nd Hungary. Stephen
ordered the people to pay tithes and required every te nth village to
construct a church and support a priest. Stephen donated la nd to support
bishoprics and monasteries, required all persons except t he clergy to marry,
and barred marriages between Christians and pagans. Fo reign monks worked as
teachers and introduced Western agricultural method s. A Latin alphabet was
devised for the Magyar (Hungarian) language.

Stephen administered his kingdom through a system of counties, each govern ed
by an ispan, or magistrate, appointed by the king. In Stephen's time, M agyar
society had two classes: the freemen nobles and the unfree. The nobl es were
descended in the male line from the Magyars who had either migrat ed into the
Carpathian Basin or had received their title of nobility fr om the king. Only
nobles could hold office or present grievances to the ki ng. They paid tithes
and owed the crown military service but were exempt f rom taxes. The
unfree--who had no political voice--were slaves, freed slav es, immigrants, or
nobles stripped of their privileges. Most were serfs w ho paid taxes to the
king and a part of each harvest to their lord for u se of his land. The king
had direct control of the unfree, thus checking t he nobles' power.

Clan lands, crown lands, and former crown lands made up the realm. Clan la nds
belonged to nobles, who could will the lands to family members or t he church;
if a noble died without an heir, his land reverted to his cla n. Crown lands
consisted of Stephen's patrimony, lands seized from disloy al nobles,
conquered lands, and unoccupied parts of the kingdom. Former cr own lands were
properties granted by the king to the church or to individu als.

Stephen died in 1038 and was canonized in 1083. Despite pagan revolts a nd a
series of succession struggles after his death, Hungary grew strong er and
expanded. Transylvania was conquered and colonized with Magyars, Sz ekels (a
tribe related to the Magyars), and German Saxons in the eleven th and twelfth
centuries. In 1090 Laszlo I (1077-95) occupied Slavonia, a nd in 1103 Kalman I
(1095-1116) assumed the title of king of Croatia. Croa tia was never
assimilated into Hungary; rather, it became an associate kin gdom administered
by a ban, or civil governor.