The establishment of the system of castle-counties (comitati), which is also documented in written sources, can be linked to Saint István, who organised the administration of the Kingdom of Hungary on the basis of territorial units. The centre of each county was a castle, whose estates constituted the territory of the castle-county. The castle-counties covered the entire territory of Hungary, thus public administration was guaranteed everywhere.

In the Modern Era, there were 64 castle-counties (63 + Fiume) in Hungary, as follows:

We do not know the exact number of castle-counties in the time of St Stephen, but it is likely that they were larger territorial units, so there were fewer castle-counties than in the Modern Era; later, during the Middle Ages, these territorial units became fragmented, as the number of castles increased, more centres of power were established, and more castle-counties were formed.

The development of castle-counties, however, certainly dates back to earlier periods than the time of Saint István - probably the territorial units donated by Árpád to the chieftains or clans in the Árpád era may have been the basis of the system of castle-counties of Saint István, which at the time of the conquest had been organised on a family-blood-ethnic basis.

However, geographical factors also played a role in the formation of castle-counties, which were often aligned with the catchment areas of rivers, or in the Great Plain with the units bordered by rivers. Since these geographical units obviously existed earlier, it is not a far-fetched idea that the system of castle-counties, as an administrative system, existed in the Avar period (at least in the late Avar period), as recent archaeological and archaeogenetic evidence shows that the Avars were present in large numbers at the time of the Hungarian conquest, and that the Hungarians took possession of the Carpathian Basin by practically adopting the existing Avar administrative system, which was essentially based on geographical factors. So we can say that the known roots of the development of the system of castle-counties can be traced back to the 7th century AD.

Since St István, castle-counties were certainly ruled by the ispáns (comes), who were almost absolute rulers of the territories, with only the church and the king above them. There were other types of ispáns - for example, forest ispáns, who were responsible for the royal hunting grounds, or the chamberlain ispáns - who were responsible for the royal treasury, or the palace ispáns - who were the liaison between the county ispáns and the king - later this title evolved into the title of nádor (palatine), who was also the king's deputy in many cases. The first known palace ispán was Samuel Aba himself, who was appointed by István as his deputy.

But let's return to the history of the ispanic system of St István, which is also documented in written sources. The symbolic foundation of the Christian Hungarian state is linked to the coronation of King István I (Saint István) on Christmas 1000. This symbol covered a huge amount of work that was carried out during the reign of our founding king. The first and most important task was to organise the defence of the country and to maintain its defensive capabilities, since no state could exist without protection against external enemies.

The military system, which was based on bowstring traditions, had to be transformed in a way that would build on tradition, be sustainable for the Christian state, and at the same time be effective against attacks from the West or the East. St István chose castles as the central elements of his defence. There is growing evidence that in many cases existing earthwork castles were used for this purpose, suggesting the adoption of earlier patterns. The territory, called the castle-county, which ensured the supply of the military in the castle, also became the administrative base, but at the same time it also constituted an economic unit. Castle-counties (Latin: comitatus) were headed by ispáns (Latin: comes).

Saint István organised nearly 50 castle-counties, the area and number of which changed in later years, but the system itself fulfilled the expectations and proved to be sustainable. The term "castle-county" appeared in the laws of King László I (Saint László). Chapter 1 of Book 3 states:

"... the king's envoy shall go into every castle-county, and shall summon the captains and corporals of those who are commonly called guards, together with all those below, and command them to testify against those whom they know to be guilty of theft; and if those against whom they testify wish to prove their innocence by probation, let them be granted the probation."

The text of the knight-king's first code, later numbered third, dated around 1077, goes beyond the former military function, considering the castle-county as a judicial unit. The mention of the corporals and centurions indicates a hierarchical arrangement. The castle-county was then a tool for enforcing the king's will, and is therefore referred to as a royal castle-county in the 11th and 12th centuries.

The transformation of the royal county took place in the 13th century. Social changes led to the evolution of the rights of the nobility and the increasing power of the holders led to the transformation of the castle-counties. The changes are marked by the charter of Kehida, issued in 1232 to the servants of Zala, which also demonstrates the transformation of royal counties into noble counties. Royal authority was ensured by the county ispán (comes provinciae), the head of the county, but the role of the deputy ispán elected by the nobles indicates the self-governmental character of the castle-county.

The military role of the castle-county became more important at the end of the 14th century. At the initiative of Sigismund I (of Luxembourg), it was decreed at the Diet of Temesvár in 1397 that the county had to provide soldiers according to the extent of the landlords' wealth. In accordance with earlier custom, those landlords who could raise at least one-eighth of a banderium, i.e. 50 men, went to war under their own banner, while the others together formed the banderiums of the castle-counties. Later known as the “militia portalis” (peasant militia), the defence organisation remained an important, though undoubtedly declining, element of military defence until the March 1818 laws.

During the Ottoman conquests of Hungary, castle-counties were the backbone of defence, and in addition to the conscripted soldiers, the noblemen who went to war in person also gathered here. The supply, maintenance and construction of the border forts were the responsibility of the castle-counties, but the castle-counties' own soldiers also took part in the battles. After the expulsion of the Turks, castle-counties continued to be the basic units of the insurrection that could be mobilised to defend the country. Although many people tend to underestimate the power of insurrection due to Petőfi's politically motivated, highly exaggerated lines, in 1809 the military system organised on the basis of castle-counties fulfilled its duty and only fell to a much stronger enemy.

The spread of the use of independent coats of arms in the 16th century and the appearance of castle-county seats, established through the consolidation of the place of county-seat- jurisdiction, were important cornerstones in the evolution of the identity of castle-counties.

Castle-counties played a very important role in the country's legislation. The nobles sent ambassadors to the representational diets, county by county. The majority of the lower house of the Diet consisted of these county envoys who played a very significant role in the diets of the Reform Era. Among these ambassadors delegated by the castle-counties were such great figures of our nation as Ferenc Deák, Ferenc Kölcsey and Lajos Kossuth.

The bourgeois transformation of 1848 continued to regard castle-counties as the territorial units of the central power, alongside public administration and self-government. The strength of the castle-counties is well illustrated by their identity-building role, which remained unbroken over the centuries. The number of castle-counties and their territories changed several times, the permanent status was brought about by the settlement following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, which began in 1876 and which finalised the 63 castle-counties and the Hungarian maritime region (Fiume) in 1881. At that time, castle-counties were often referred to in law as counties in a shorter form, but this did not affect the official name, which remained castle-counties.

The strength of the castle-county is well illustrated by the fact that the constitution of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, adopted on 23 June 1919, left the old administrative system in force until further settlement. The text uses the term district or county instead of castle-county, but officially and in everyday use, the term castle-county remained.

The Trianon Treaty had a significant impact on the system of castle-counties. The dictate, which was imposed on Hungary without taking into account the country’s administrative division, required a reorganisation of the territorial division and the seats of the castle-counties, which took place in 1923. To emphasise the temporary nature of the reorganisation, the name of the new units, which were formed from fragmentary castle-counties, were marked “temporarily united for administrative purposes ". The territories returned to Hungary after 1938 were incorporated into this system. The Provisional National Government, established in 1945, restored the 1938 status by decree and removed the reference to the temporary nature of the units.

Chapter V of Act XX of 1949, the Communist Constitution, officially known as the Constitution of the Hungarian People's Republic, which was drafted on the Soviet model, provided for the new system of state power: "Article 29 (1) The territory of the Hungarian People's Republic shall be divided into counties, districts, cities, and municipalities in terms of state administration." With the abolition of the name “castle-county", self-government was also consigned to the grave under the shadow of the red star.

For nine and a half centuries, Hungarian public administration was based on the system of castle-counties, which were also important components of self-government for most of their history. In 2012, as a mark of respect for Hungarian national traditions, the body called the Supreme Court since 1949 was given back its old historical name, so once again the highest judicial forum is called the Curia. The next step in the process is the renaming of counties as castle-counties, which is a welcome achievement for those who value national traditions, but it should be stressed that it is far from being a Hungarian peculiarity. Examples from the UK, Canada, the Netherlands and South Africa show that respect for tradition, the strengthening of a sense of belonging, and the emphasis on national sovereignty are also values of civilisation and culture, and a means of strengthening democratic institutions.