Is the 300 club good for Numista?

Lately there has been a constant push to split existing groupings of coins into ever smaller countries/kingdoms/territories. I can't help but wonder how much of that is fueled by collectors trying to up their country count.

Please note that I am not aiming my comment to any person in particular, but rather to the trend.

Some of them are logical. But I also support some country merges.

I've been pondering the same thing myself.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I could have qualified with a few to spare before I broke up my collection to specialise. Now my ambition is to get as close as possible to my very exclusive Dirty Dozen Club, membership one. I quite like the 300 Club concept though and everyone in it should be proud. Let's not cheapen it by meaningless divergences from Krause.

Some of the "countries" we have here should have been moved to tokens long ago. That is why I try suggesting rework of country list - this would solve all the discussions.

Exactly- Things like Sealand and Hutt River should be in Tokens, and I don't mean to stir up any political disputes, but countries like Abhkazia and Somalialand should be merged into their associated nations, at least until they get international recognition, and some countries could be merged (South Africa + the Boer Republics, Spain + Spanish Civil War, and 3 of the 4 Malays could go together, excluding the Malay peninsula (which should be renamed the Malay States)).

Agree, this whole catalogue has gotten messier and messier and it really irks a neat freak like myself (one of the reasons I've started a campaign to clean up the tokens). I started the "round the world numista style" thread, and it was going fine, but I gave up a long time ago because people keep adding countries.

Oh, I agree about the mess and entirely support the efforts to shape a framework. These are very complex subjects which have gone unsolved for generations but I actually think that we have more than enough expertise, professional and numismatic, to find a solution.

I've already made a proposal to address both the token question which was met with almost unanimous approval but then stalled out when it came to actually implementing it.

I think/hope serious collectors only laugh at some preteens exaggerating the volume of their collections and are amused about the 'circle jerk' going on.

Iam not sure, but this whole game it's making has made me stop adding new country's to my collection. Being from the US I don't under stand why the United states and Pre Federal are two different country's. If we are going to make a new country ever time the money changes names. God Brazil should be listed about 8 times. This thing about spitting up German states, we don't have a handle on it now. How are we going to if we just start making everything a new country. Let clean our house up first. And go from there. Just my thoughts
yours daryl

IMHO* ... The 300 Club is not good for Numista ..

I feel that it promotes biased competition which is not what Numismatics or coin collecting is about. Goals set should be set by the individual and not as a group. Anytime there is a competition, there will be individuals that will try to circumvent the requirements ...


Example: Remember the member ranking system a while back. It placed members in numerical standings according to their contributions to the catalog. I think it was one of the things that helped create the mess that the catalog is in now ..


* IMHO = In My Honest Opinion

Yes it does have a lot of great things for collectors . The 300 club as done a lot of good in, goal making and the competition. That not and issue to me. I was thinking myself at making a run for it. But there seam to be a issue with it and adding country's what needs to be fix. One would think the 300 club it self should make up its own list of country's it approves of. And only changes it if all the member vote yes. Well just my two cents
edit This ideal of the 300 club making it own approved list of country's would make it a clean goal, with no sidelines getting in the way.

The latest talk of splitting Czechoslovakia and German states are perfect examples of this. With the arguments used for Czechoslovakia, South Africa should be split into at least 3 countries; Boer Republics, Colonial South Africa and the Republic of South Africa (Which is just silly).

Maybe the 300 Club should change focus and rename to "Missing less than 100" club. That will refocus some people, but then it would probably lead to consolidation of countries on a massive scale.

I understand the point my dear Derf but as it's not a program sanctioned by Numista we're kinda stuck with it. The best outcome is for the management to measure any proposed splits against a personal agenda.

I thought that the rankings system was a pretty good way to recognise contributors but unfortunately is was misused by one the the junior administrators as a tool to denigrate others with. I believe that it has since also lead to a whole lot of chicanery and manipulation of the figures by those unfortunate souls with self esteem issues.

No good idea goes unpunished I reckon.

PS: Czechoslovakia was only rearanged within, no new country was created, only currencies.

Quote: "Jarcek"​PS: Czechoslovakia was only rearanged within, no new country was created, only currencies.

​Aye. That should always be the go to option. Personally I'd like to see a lot of the splits reversed and incorporated back into the country as seperate periods. Interesting the Krause treats Russia and the Soviet Union as the same country.

I reckon they don't have a 300 club. ;)

@Jarcek Thank you for correcting me. That is the correct way of doing these changes in my opinion. My apologies for incorrectly refering to Czechoslovakia.

Nevermind but it prompted me to look at Netherlands East Indies, and you have some request pending now.

Laṃkā, Lankadweepa, Lakdiva, Lakbima, Sihala, Tāmraparnī, Taprobane, Singhala, Silan, Sarandib,Ceilão, Ceylon, Sri Lanka


under Numista laws and '300 club members' 14 different countries for the same island. Pathetic.

Oh Hi Hamster

The hamster is in prison but he ordered me to help the 300clubmembers to reach 400 "countries".
He told me the names are in chronological order starting from 400 b.c.

I really couldn't care less about the 300 club except for it being a nice joke. I like adding countries but I refuse to add anything that is never used as real money. As such I am now stuck at 278 countries, but as I enjoy the hunt more than the kill I hope I can stay under 300 for decades to come.

I would just like the catalogue to be as accurate as possible in historical context. South African Republic (Transvaal Republic, one of the Boer states) simply is not the same as the South African Union that annexed it. Sealand and other crap can just be with tokens. I personally don't care for any non-circulating coins so that excludes a lot of Pacific entities, Belarus (for now, real coins are coming soon) and the disputed territories that minted some NCLT just for propaganda reasons.

I love the discussions on this and I appreciate any feedback to where the catalogue is heading. With regard to German States I would prefer to improve the structure compared to the long list people see now. Before 1871 the German states consisted of a few larger kingdoms, a couple of free cities and very many lesser local territories. If we can somehow bring some context to the German States part of the catalogue that would just be another great step for this wonderful site.

I guess I'm a member of the 300 club but I sort of figured it was more of joke than a real entity. I have managed to collect coins from 320 countries without any NCLT's (save one or two). I also strive to collect from countries that issue coinage used for commerce. Even though I have coins for places like French cities, Spain-civil war, etc., I don't count those in my personal collection as countries. I'm pretty much in line with what jokinen just said.

Guys,

Correct me if I am wrong, but adding countries can only be approved by referees, not by individuals who want to increase their count. It seems to me that referees are the ones that have to agree on what is officially a country in Numista and what is not. The rest of us can propose whatever countries we want, which should be reviewed and settled by a panel of referees, and then we would have to respect the referees' decision. This should eliminate a lot of problems, regardless of whether or not we personally agree with it. There have to be some people in authority in the site.

Another thing, as I understand the 300 club is something made up by members and it is not an official Numista "club." As such, Numista referees should not even consider the 300 club in their decision in making a new country. Making of new countries should have a very explicit guidelines against which every request has to be evaluated. If these guidelines don't currently exist, then that is a place to start. If they do exist, then it has to be applied. It might not be a bad idea to publish these criteria, so that members know what to look for when they are considering adding a country, and if rejected, referees can point them to the document, section, paragraph, etc., and this should make it easier to explain why it was denied.

Just few points:

- only Team members can create new countries
- Guidelines currently do not exist - it is up to team members - and that is the problem.
- We are currently holding status quo (with some exceptions in historical countries still missing) for new countries (usually modern ones)
- We do that because we hope (and pressure for that grows with every passing day) that Country list can be reformed - to something like (roughly) countries/territories (colonies)/unrecognized entities

And why the problem was created in the first place - just ask American, Seborgan, French and Russian - what they think is a country. You will get a pretty different results.

The 300 Club is my 2nd stated goal in my profile. The Club has served as a conduit to my 1st (Canadian Cents)and 3rd (Provincial Tokens) goals, introduced me to some wonderful, like-minded people, and helped fill many hours of "idle" time (which usually involved the 3B's; beer, bowling, and breasts).

Even if the catalog is updated to include only 278 countries, I'll try to join that Club and enjoy all the other aspects this site has to offer.

Quote: "Jarcek"​Just few points:
​
​- only Team members can create new countries
​- Guidelines currently do not exist - it is up to team members - and that is the problem.
​- We are currently holding status quo (with some exceptions in historical countries still missing) for new countries (usually modern ones)
​- We do that because we hope (and pressure for that grows with every passing day) that Country list can be reformed - to something like (roughly) countries/territories (colonies)/unrecognized entities
​
​And why the problem was created in the first place - just ask American, Seborgan, French and Russian - what they think is a country. You will get a pretty different results.
​

​Yes, I understand there are differences in opinion, which is the reason I stated that if there is no set of guidelines, then that is a good place to start. You can start with a dictionary definition of what is a country and modify it for numismatic purposes, or something of that nature. This can be done until you reach a majority (50%+1, 2/3 of the panel, or whatever limit you guys set). Once that is done and you have a rubric, then you can go and check if the countries in Numista fit those guidelies, and add or remove countries based on the guideline. Without a definition of what is a country it is impossible to solve the problem. I believe that if this is done and published, this should automatically cut down on the 300 club problems as well.

Imho
300
country club is good in as much as it encourages a chase to breach the mark
It is just a figment of collective imagination.
In every hobby you get a high by defining a milestone and chasing it
As soon as you reach you go for a new one.
creating countries i feel is and should not be related to it.

regards

Problem is that even UN do not have a clear definition. That is why it was proposed - and I believe it will be done sometimes in the future - to modify the country list.

Once such rework is done, we can have several types of listings - including one for unrecognized/entities - this would eliminate most country related discussions. Also, two listings would have dealt a big blow to any "300" club.

For example, both Seborga and Hutt river would go into that category immediately.

p.s. Here is a Webster's dictionary definition for Country and Nation:

"Simple Definition of nation: a large area of land that is controlled by its own government. "

Of course this does not say anything about international recognition or any other political views, but that doesn't have anything to do with Numismatics.

The application of this could be something like this:

Kingdom of Guatemala (territory Chiapas, Belize, parts of Mexico all the way to parts of Panama) not a country, because it was under Spanish rule

Central American Federation (Central American Republic), a country because it was under it's own government

Guatemala, a country
Belize, a country, never mind that it was illegally inhabited by the british and stolen from Guatemala. Politics have nothing to do with numismatics.

El Salvador, a country.

etc

It doesn't have to be a perfect definition, it just has to be a definition. I'm just saying this seems to me that this is a root cause for a lot of problems, and instead of trying to fix the resulting problems, it might be better to attack the root cause.

Those are my two bits anyway.

Cheers

I think we can have well-defined countries, that have sub-sets. E.g German States can be a 'country' with each state itself being a sub-set?

To correct something: everyone can ask for creating a country, but there are 2 different examples:

• when a coin is clearly new or part of a listing with no referee: Team members only
  
• when a coin is part of a listing with a referee: the referee is the owner of the decision to create or not the country. I did after making a large bilingual consult for Hispania and C. Britain, as referee of Gaul ; apuking did the same with Belgium - Feudal as in charge of German states which included pre-SNL coinage.
  

Putting in my thoughts in, sometimes coins are misclassified and are apart of nations that they weren't at one time. A great example of this is Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Macau, and Hong Kong. British Hong Kong should be separated from current Hong Kong as the coins were different and same with all of the other nations I listed again going with the fact the coin were issued under colonial rule and that was under an entirely different nation than what we have today.

300s club is just a community-based trendy thread, and not a push to create new countries. Which new countries were "created" in the last 6 months?

Regarding country-list, yes, there are many entities or effective "countries" / territories listed that are all together, especially ancient ones.
And some do not exist as "Numista-countries".
And some "Numista-countries" simply never existed at all.
And some are empty. with no coins listed
...And some have listed as coins, pieces of fantasy coinage.

However,I disagree that this is intended to somehow generate buzz on creating new countries.

I used to be a real splitter when it comes to countries. I recently found a listing of countries in my collection as of November 2012 - back then there were 130 - which includes such entries as Weimar Germany, Franco's Spain and French Third Republic, as well as more usual "countries" like Vichy France, Polish Empire (=Poland-Lithuania, not to be confused with Poland Kingdom, which was a separate entry), Orleans (misidentified Dombes), RSFSR (=Russia geographically, but usually lumped with USSR), and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (~=Yugoslavia)... not to mention Prussia, Baden, and Hanover.
(There was also the lovely entry for "Hungary[-Austria]", which meant the Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary.)

More recently, I've (mostly) accepted a position where obvious predecessors and successors of the same country are still the same country - but that still leaves places like Baden, Dombes or Tver (though there are no Tver coins on Numista yet, so that's an issue for future cataloguers to deal with) as their own countries (even as France is the same country from Henri IV to this day, aside from Vichy).
Basically, if it's a separate country in Paradox Interactive (or would have been if it wasn't too small for inclusion), and issued their own separate coins in the relevant period, it's a separate country for the purposes of my collection (minus the obvious exceptions where one country is a successor of another).
I'm not really sure what to do with colonies, admittedly, but that's another question entirely (and, for the most part, can be done on a case-by-case basis - there just aren't that many).

I probably would not accept a fantasy set as representing its own "country". But these things tend to be above my budget (~$5/item) anyway. (And it would be hard to draw a definite boundary without having to exclude things like Alderney.)

Quote: "January First-of-May"​I used to be a real splitter when it comes to countries. I recently found a listing of countries in my collection as of November 2012 - back then there were 130 - which includes such entries as Weimar Germany, Franco's Spain and French Third Republic, as well as more usual "countries" like Vichy France, Polish Empire (=Poland-Lithuania, not to be confused with Poland Kingdom, which was a separate entry), Orleans (misidentified Dombes), RSFSR (=Russia geographically, but usually lumped with USSR), and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (~=Yugoslavia)... not to mention Prussia, Baden, and Hanover.
​(There was also the lovely entry for "Hungary[-Austria]", which meant the Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary.)
​
​More recently, I've (mostly) accepted a position where obvious predecessors and successors of the same country are still the same country - but that still leaves places like Baden, Dombes or Tver (though there are no Tver coins on Numista yet, so that's an issue for future cataloguers to deal with) as their own countries (even as France is the same country from Henri IV to this day, aside from Vichy).
​Basically, if it's a separate country in Paradox Interactive (or would have been if it wasn't too small for inclusion), and issued their own separate coins in the relevant period, it's a separate country for the purposes of my collection (minus the obvious exceptions where one country is a successor of another).
​I'm not really sure what to do with colonies, admittedly, but that's another question entirely (and, for the most part, can be done on a case-by-case basis - there just aren't that many).
​
​I probably would not accept a fantasy set as representing its own "country". But these things tend to be above my budget (~$5/item) anyway. (And it would be hard to draw a definite boundary without having to exclude things like Alderney.)

I wouldn't say many successor states to former nations are the same as they will change politically like Vichy France when it was absorbed back into France as well as Mozambique, Angola, Hong Kong, etc are all very different from their colonial pasts.

You know, Krause is just one catalog that has already made this easy. The table of contents. Use the Alphabet as the landing page for countries. Click on the letter of interest, there is your country! With a flag maybe! Then there is no grotesque mile long list, but every country can have its place. I think there is always room for debate, I cannot easily wrap my head around spanish philippines, US philippines, and Republic of philippines being one country...but it should have its day and I might be able to deal with it. It is odd that Russia and the USSR are in the same country. But it should be allowed a discussion. It is strange that micro nations have more respect than much larger nations with hundreds of year histories that languish unknown in wash basket catch all categories...I wish it could be discussed. The 400+ list is too clunky. A 26 item list would instantly be more manageable.

Not too sure it is the 300 country club that is driving all the splitting. It has been, in the past, special interest demands by certain vocal members. Like Hungarian states. Is that really a country? It was bootstrapping basically.... the argument went that well there are German States etc. so why not Hungarian states? I agree with the poster above. Go with the Krause manual. Those should be the only authorized entries.

I'm not a member and don't plan on it. Plus I'm a neat freak so more efficient merging rather than splitting is better for me. I don't mind the club but I have noticed many of those looking for splits are those with that type of goal/collection. So in that war it's bad

I've 30 countries missing to join, but I don't want to get them that way. I want new coins, like all collectors should try to do instead.

The 300 club is indifferent for the Numista website.

I don't get why people bother with merging-splitting territories, we are not loosing or getting new coins only because the site owners decide for new definitions of what IS a "new country".

Of course I want to have the highest number of "countries" based on the site, just because I am collecting this way, those who collect in other ways should not get worried, since no coin is being deleted from the collection.

If you are bothered about the split-merge, then you care about the number of "countries". Otherwise, nothing changes.

jmo

I agree with Chasinva69 that chasing 300 countries is not behind all requests, but I am pretty sure it is behind some. Just look at some of the comments on the German States split.

@chomp-master
I am at 270 also, and like you, I intend to get there one day by hunting coins.

I am a member of the 300 club and primarily collect world coins on a one from every country basis. Finding Numista about a year and a half ago and learning of the 300 club renewed my interest in world coins that had laid dormant for about 50 years. I obviously like the concept of the 300 club and any other informal club that increases interest in the membership.

I do not care about split-merge as far as gaining or losing a country. I am more interested in a better way of finding out when a split merge happens. I also believe that a new country should be well defined before it is created. In other words, what territory does the new country include and what were the starting and ending dates that this new country issued coins.

As a club the 300 country I think is good. But like anything good there is some bad. I been thinking of starting a 10,000 coin club. Even though iam not there yet. But that is my goal. and get my collection in order. My be work on starting that this weekend.

Quote: "ALLRED1950"​ " thinking of starting a 10,000 coin club"

​I think that is a great idea, though I don't think I'll get there.
Anyone interested in a Fifty Emperors club?

Quote: "ard"​

Quote: "ALLRED1950"​ " thinking of starting a 10,000 coin club"

​​I think that is a great idea, though I don't think I'll get there.
​Anyone interested in a Fifty Emperors club?
​

​I hope I might, what with my typical coin shop purchase being several dozen coins from bargain bins would be a pain to enter all of them though!

And, like fifty Roman emperors, or fifty emperors total from any empire? It would probably be too easy to get the latter.
(The former would be cool, but a club I'm unlikely to join anytime soon, because I'm trying to constrain my purchases to $5/item - more like $2 in practice, but much of the cool stuff just doesn't come up until $3 or so - which, for ancient coins, is tiny. I only have one Roman silver, and doubt I'd get any more that cheaply.)

I think 50 Emperors in generalis clearly easier, even if I saw that the idea comes from a collector of Roman coins. We had some other Empires to list (Chinese Empire, Byzantine Empire which is the Eastern continuity of Roman Empire, French Empires, British kings as Emperors of the Indias, Japan which still has an Emperor...) Even in the Roman Empire only, 50 Emperors would be hard.

Overall I would say that the club is a good thing, it gives a clear goal to aim for, it gives likeminded collectors a chance to discuss their goals and progress, but i's the actions of a few who have split countries seemingly for the sake of trying to boost their numbers. I would think that club members themselves would be against splitting, because the more countries there are, the less of an achievement it is to reach the 300 country mark.

I think it is a good thing, and it is just a different way that people collect. Speaking for myself, I don't understand how people can collect by date, mint mark and privy mark. It seems really boring to me, I tried it and didn't like it at all. What I do like though is history, and a large part of my coin collection revolves around the history of the coins.

Some of the people in the "club" are also some of the most vocal opponents of the pointless splits, merges and dumb fantasy/micro nations in the main list. I hate Hutt River and wish it would be relegated to the lowest pit in the token bin and never spoken of again.

Speaking for myself, I totally ignore the way numista catalogs coins. I have my own system that I use because I've been through the changes in the Indian states, Princely States, native states, Persian states, central Asian, Asian Khantes, etc. I used to try to keep up and recatalog my collection, but it is to easy for people to change so the only thing I do is enter it in numista and have my own organization.

This works better for me and my goals. A lot of the countries are just catch all buckets anyway. India is an excellent example, there are tones of little nations with a long and rich history that people just shove into India States or India Ancient. I understand part of the impulse, but on the other hand some of those nation were around longer than many of our modern nations.

In my own collection I have moved to issuing authority, which handles a host of messy dynasties, city states, petty kingdoms and other things. Much more tidy for me.

I hear a lot of the same talk about how we need definitions and blah, blah, blah.

I totally agree, but what people don't seem to realize is that the reason we have these problems is because the definitions are different. I can't find the post now, but there is one where people from the French side come over and tried to understand people from the English side. The basic point was that apparently in large sections of the world, many of the things the English side is calling not coins are viewed as real, honest to God coins. They apparently don't understand why we make some sort of arbitrary line between these are coins and these are not.

So bleat like sheep all you want about definitions, but the French side and apparently the owner of the side, have definitions that seem fairly uniform. The exception being with micronations and fantasy issues. Some of the people on the French side like them (which is why they are still in the list) and some don't see the point.

What I am saying is that we can talk definitions all day but we appear to have cultural assumptions that are incompatible with the cultural assumptions of our hosts.

The other thing I find strange is that these problems seem to revolve around usage issues also. The shifting around of coins and countries doesn't bother me as much because I just do searches for my coins. I can't really see browsing for a coin. I can state this in a way that is concise and simple, but not everyone will understand; namely it is a relational database and not a spreadsheet.

Summary:
1. The club is not a problem,
2. there are cultural problems in the conversation
3. user use case also drives certain complaints

Quote: "jadejackal"​I think it is a good thing, and it is just a different way that people collect. Speaking for myself, I don't understand how people can collect by date, mint mark and privy mark. It seems really boring to me, I tried it and didn't like it at all. What I do like though is history, and a large part of my coin collection revolves around the history of the coins.
​
​Some of the people in the "club" are also some of the most vocal opponents of the pointless splits, merges and dumb fantasy/micro nations in the main list. I hate Hutt River and wish it would be relegated to the lowest pit in the token bin and never spoken of again.
​
​Speaking for myself, I totally ignore the way numista catalogs coins. I have my own system that I use because I've been through the changes in the Indian states, Princely States, native states, Persian states, central Asian, Asian Khantes, etc. I used to try to keep up and recatalog my collection, but it is to easy for people to change so the only thing I do is enter it in numista and have my own organization.
​
​This works better for me and my goals. A lot of the countries are just catch all buckets anyway. India is an excellent example, there are tones of little nations with a long and rich history that people just shove into India States or India Ancient. I understand part of the impulse, but on the other hand some of those nation were around longer than many of our modern nations.
​
​In my own collection I have moved to issuing authority, which handles a host of messy dynasties, city states, petty kingdoms and other things. Much more tidy for me.
​
​I hear a lot of the same talk about how we need definitions and blah, blah, blah.
​
​I totally agree, but what people don't seem to realize is that the reason we have these problems is because the definitions are different. I can't find the post now, but there is one where people from the French side come over and tried to understand people from the English side. The basic point was that apparently in large sections of the world, many of the things the English side is calling not coins are viewed as real, honest to God coins. They apparently don't understand why we make some sort of arbitrary line between these are coins and these are not.
​
​So bleat like sheep all you want about definitions, but the French side and apparently the owner of the side, have definitions that seem fairly uniform. The exception being with micronations and fantasy issues. Some of the people on the French side like them (which is why they are still in the list) and some don't see the point.
​
​What I am saying is that we can talk definitions all day but we appear to have cultural assumptions that are incompatible with the cultural assumptions of our hosts.
​
​The other thing I find strange is that these problems seem to revolve around usage issues also. The shifting around of coins and countries doesn't bother me as much because I just do searches for my coins. I can't really see browsing for a coin. I can state this in a way that is concise and simple, but not everyone will understand; namely it is a relational database and not a spreadsheet.
​
​Summary:
​1. The club is not a problem,
​2. there are cultural problems in the conversation
​3. user use case also drives certain complaints

​Nicely stated. I agree with your assesment, especially the cultural differences.

Quote: "Chasinva69"​Not too sure it is the 300 country club that is driving all the splitting. It has been, in the past, special interest demands by certain vocal members. Like Hungarian states. Is that really a country? It was bootstrapping basically.... the argument went that well there are German States etc. so why not Hungarian states? I agree with the poster above. Go with the Krause manual. Those should be the only authorized entries.

​I am for logical grouping of some smaller entities, that is the reason why Hungarian states has been created. Instead of having 13 more countries, now you can find them logically group in there. It pretty much follows the logic of German states or Austrian states or Canadian provinces. We also have corrected Krause's confusion, where Transylvania is a separate listing, but indeed its rulers claimed the Hungarian throne, so it belongs here, so does private issues of 2 Hungarian landlords who are wrongly listed under Austrian states in Krause.

It pretty much explains my views on the subject: Less is more!
I have suggested to merge all Celtics in one, but yet failed to convince Mr. Chomp-master
I was against splitting Austria and Austria-Habsburg and I will strongly deny all ideas to split Hungary into Hungary Kingdom and Hungary Republic ...