There is a clear trend in recent years that historians are moving closer to more and more disciplines in the natural sciences, and that they are adopting methods in these disciplines or developing new ones for their own research projects. For this, I believe that the common language will be created by the digital revolution, quantification, which is still ongoing. Through “technological uniformization”, there is a growing need for the mass processing of data, building and interconnecting databases, and developing quantitative procedures for which, in time, a parallel narrative can be built alongside well-known master narratives. In my study, I attempt to historicalize the past of the Great Hungarian Plain for the first third of the 20th century in a different way than before, by concatenating several databases (GHA, ATTA, MÉTA) and using GIS (Esri GIS). A new result is that in addition to the construction of the railway network and water management infrastructures, the adaptation (!) of the settlement network also played a decisive role in the modernization of the Great Plain in the 19th century. The basis of modernization and economic structural transformation in the economic sense was the formation and spread of homesteads. The regions of the Great Hungarian Plain, where, instead of the city-village connection, the city-farm connection became the dominant, formed into highly developed centre areas (in a landscape context) by the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. However, the process of landscape modernization and urbanization slowed down perceptibly, even stalled at some places, due to global economic processes, reorganizing migratory movements, disproportionate landscape economic structure and growing social tensions, among others. By the beginning of the 20th century, another change in the economic structure of the Great Hungarian Plain became necessary, but this (also) could not take place due to the First World War. The Trianon peace treaty after losing the war was such a traumatic experience not only collectively but often on an individual experience level that the discourse that followed the propaganda-reinforced “loss narrative” obscured many of the aforementioned prepeace problems. Consequently, Trianon was not the cause but the catalyst for the collapse of the economic model of the Great Hungarian Plain. At the same time, it is a fact that in addition to the typically more favourable concentration of human capital in the landscape, the multi-centred developmental spatial structure formed within the landscape in the 1920s enabled a surprisingly rapid economic restoration for Trianon Hungary as a whole. Despite the slowing down of the modernization and urbanization processes, the development of the Great Hungarian Plain at the turn of the century, which was higher than in the Carpathian Basin, was able to ensure a relatively smooth socio-economic transition for a short time.