Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Pacta Conventa

Medule, Nada Klaic, as with most historians, didn't prove anything. Her supposition is that Pacta Conventa was s/t invented in the Hungarian-Croat political duelling of the 19th century. The overwhelming majority of Croat historians do not accept this & generally accept some sort of arrangement occurred b/w the Hungarian monarch & the Croat nobles.

By putting in the minority view of Nada Klaic, in a general article like this one, you are giving her view undue weight. I believe the views of Nada Klaic are already covered in the detail inthe Pacta Conventa article, thus it is not required in this article which only makes a passing reference to it. iruka 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not minority view. It is view of Hungarians and also some Croatian historians like I. Goldstein too. --Medule 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Most Croatian historian including Croatian contemporary history considers it a valid treaty. There are also certain Hungarian historians who do dispute the validity of it, but they are just like those in Croatia, a minority. All Croatian and non-Croatian historians agree that 'Pacta Conventa' was most certainly real and valid. In other words nothing was proven as you claim. Tar-Elenion 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nada Klaic, although interesting for reading and quite informing is a terrible historian and never should her works be taken as more reliable than, say, Ferdo Šišić. --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ivo Goldstein and Nada Klaic are most prominent medivialist in Croatia. Also most prominent Hungarians took Klaic view. Pacta Conventa is taken seriously only because of Croatian POV of Croatian nationalistic historians. --Medule 17:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How can they be most prominent when Nada practically claims that the border of Croatia never surpassed the river of Una and modern Croatian historiography tells everything contrary to Nada Klaic? --PaxEquilibrium 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Croatian historiography is builduing on national myths. You have Nada Klaic, Goldstein and also some others in Croatia that tell us that croatian borders at that time are just myths. --Medule 09:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pacta conventa is invention and big forgery done much later. Nada Klaic has proved that. Hungarian history also has same view on that. --Medule 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pacta conventa is forgery but this is not changing historical facts which is that there have been agreement between Hungarian king and Croatian nobles. Evidence of that is fact that Croatia was never been assimilated into Hungary but it has been associate kingdom administered by a ban. You can say 2 kingdoms but 1 king.

Examples for that:

  • In 1526 Hungary (or at least greatest part) has elected John Zápolya for king.Croatia on other hand has on 1 january 1527 elected Ferdinand.
  • Other evidence os that Croatia has accepted Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 independent (before) of Hungary.
  • In time of Austro-Hungary death of 1918 Hungary has accepted independence of Croatia (and entry to future Yugoslavia) because Croatia is not part of Hungary but state in union with Hungary which is having right too choose own future. For example independence of Slovakia or Transylvania has not been accepted.

For last argument I will use term Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. This land are:

  • Kingdom of Hungary
  • Kingdom of Croatia
  • Principality of Transylvania.

Question for the end. Can somebody defeat all my arguments that kingdom of Croatia has been in union with Hungary (2 states 1 king) ? --Rjecina 18:36, 28 April 2007 (CET)

I must agree. Look at Scandinavia and the Kalmar Union from 1397. Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Sweden never accepted this and crowned their own kings but Norway was ruled by the Danish king. One king, two kingdoms. Later Norway came under Sweden's king. - Litany 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)



Hungaro-Croatian reign did exist

In order to response some historiographerss who deny existence of Kingdom of Croatia I quoted some veryfieable sources

The time history of the world, 5th edition, ISBN:953-6510-62-6 pages 138,142,143, 145,147, 150-151, 186.Name Croatia is displayed on the maps.


The World book Encyclopedia volume 4, 1994 ISBN:0-7166-0094-3 Pages 1148b-1148c " In 1102, Kalman, the king of Hungary, also became king of Croatia, thus creating a political union between Croatia and Hungary that lasted for more than 800 years. Despite this Union, the Croats always kept their own parliament , called the Sabor "


Encyclopaedia Britannica , 15th edition , vol.3

"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor, and was legally an independent kingdom."

[sub]Digital edition of Britannica 2007 Ultimate reference suite[/sub]

"Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy). In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles. "

Collier's Encyclopedia, 1995, vol.7 , Library of Congress catalog number 94-70743 Dynastic struggles amoung the leading Croatian families facilitated the task of foreign powers and finally king Kalman of the Arpad dinasty of Hungary seized Dalmatia from Venice and brought Croatia under his control. Seeking to prevent a popular uprising against their own authority , the tribal chiefs of župans of Little Croatia( the territory between Dalmatia and Slavonia) negotiated an agreement with Kalman in 1102, which authorized a personal union between the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia under the rule of the king of Hungary, and which excluded the Croatian nobility from taxation and guaranted inviolability of their properties

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/cr/Croatia.html

A part of the Roman province of Pannonia, Croatia was settled in the 7th cent. by Croats, who accepted Christianity in the 9th cent. A kingdom from the 10th cent., Croatia conquered surrounding districts, including Dalmatia, which was chronically contested with Venice. Croatia’s power reached its peak in the 11th cent., but internecine strife facilitated its conquest in 1091 by King Ladislaus I of Hungary.

In 1102 a pact between his successor and the Croatian tribal chiefs established a personal union of Croatia and Hungary under the Hungarian monarch. Although Croatia remained linked with Hungary for eight centuries, the Croats were sometimes able to choose their rulers independently of Budapest. In personal union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own diet and was governed by a ban, or viceroy.

So, mr. GiorgioOrsini/NovaNova/Purger/BarryMar (or however you call yourself this time)and your companions (Giovanni Giove) I do not where have you picked those "historiographers" who deny the existent of Kingdom of Croatia. Are they experts like Arrigo Petacco  ???

Or you just fabricated your own quotes??? --Anto (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Croatia had their own kings. Hungarian king Ladislaus I was trying to spread his political influence to the Adriatic Sea by using Croatian kings. When Croatian king Dmitar Zvonimir died a few of Croatian "tribes" and Dalmatian cities invited him to accept a Croatian Kingdom throne, since he was a brother of king Zvonimir's widow. He accepted it, crossed the Drava river but he was stopped at Gvozd (Velika Kapela) mountain. His political plan was finalized by his nephew Coloman who beat last Croatian king Petar Svačić at the same place – Gvozd mountain. In 1102 Coloman made a contract of personal union – Pacta Conventa with the headmen of 12 Croatian tribes (Croatia was organized in 12 territorial units). Croatia didn't lose the territory, neither sovereignty. Croatian ruler was Ban (Bans were rulers of the early Medieval Croatian states) - vassal of Hungarian king. For example the church organization was the same. 19 Croatian and Dalmatian cities were noted as dioceses and 1 Hungarian at the territory of Croatia (officially it was "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"), Zagreb diocese was the main Croatian but not on the "Croatian and Dalmatian" list. It was on the Hungarian list but just as symbol of "Pacta conventa". Documents were written separately for 2 kingdoms(kingdom), like Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae from 12th century! But king was only one person. Zenanarh (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: ongoing debates

I would have to say that most Historians now generally state that the Pacta Conventa was a fraud written centuries after the fact

Secondly, one must see the Hungarian take-over of Croatia for what it is- a conquest. Yes, Croatia had bans, religious independence, etc; but this is not new. In fact, these are the keys to smoothe take-over, in order to appease the people. This has been practiced many a time over the centuries. It was a relatively diplomatic conquest, but one it was Hxseek (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

if there did not exist the pact conventa, then it sure doesn't matter, because hungarians stuck to their own territory just as the pacta conventa is written as. Odd that there would not have been an agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.23.38 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger idea is a bad one

No to the merge. Dromadar (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the other talk page, not to sound rude, but you have a very poor reason to be against this merger. Both articles combined (even ignoring any overlap) would only come out to about 28K. Removing overlap between the articles would probably bring it down even more. For a merger of some kind since they refer to the exact same thing. Radagast83 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger was a good idea Hxseek (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ban

Was Croatia governed by a ban that was responsible to the Hungarian king? If yes, why is it getting delelted?--Bizso (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is full with false informations

There was no union between Hungary and Croatia. Hungary simply seized Croatia in 1091 and croatia became a province. This article is full with false informations and contradictions. I can't understand why can't croatian people acknowledge their history. Toroko (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Toroko, i heard that you are reverting slovak city names.. What's next? --Dvatel (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Croatia was not just a province. At that time Croatia was semi-autonomus kingdom in Hungary and Coloman was King of Hungary, Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia [1] Florin Curta (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press. pp. 496. ISBN 0521815398, 9780521815390.

--Dvatel (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Hungary did not "seize" Croatia in 1091, but Croatian aristocracy accepted Hungarian king as Croatian king too. And they did that partly because of self-interest, because having king in Budapest actually gave them more power to exercise in Croatia. But the article is full of what is best to call "mythology". Most obvious example is proclaiming Tomislav to be first Croatian king, which is generally accepted by Croatian public although every serious historian will say it is not true. Everything we know of king Tomislav, including claim that he got his crown and insignia from Rome, comes from only one written source, which is not reliable at all (on Croatian it is called "Ljetopis popa Dukljanina"). As there are two criteria for proclaiming somebody a king, as first Croatian king should be considered Trpimir (first ruler with, so to say, independent foreign policy), or Petar Kresimir 4., for whom we know for sure that he received crown and insignia from Constantinople. But it is just one example. Smob (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it did pass almost a year but I must answer to Smob's previous discussion. The main argument for Tomislav kingship is the letter of Pope John X to Tomislav in which he calls him ...delecto filio Tomisclao, REGE Chroatorum... and in the same line he continues et Michaeli,(...) DUX Chulminae... which shows that Pope did defer between this two titles. All Croatian rulers before Tomislav bared titles dux, princeps or comes, and from Tomislav times Croatian ruler is refered as rex (king) or dux magnu. Also, Petar Kresimir IV wasn't the first king that received crown and insignia from Constantinople, but that was king Stjepan Držislav (Stephen Držislav of Croatia. --Ro0103 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine vassal

The Byzantine Empire at the death of Basil II in 1025

The Kingdom was a Byzantine vassal for quite a while. We have Latin, but we also need Greek for full balance. The trouble is, I never studied Greek and don't know how to translate "Kingdom of Croatia" :P. The best I could come-up with was "βασιλεία η Κροατία", though I'm not sure that's ok. For a full translation we'd need to translate the following into Ancient Greek:

  • 1) "Kingdom of Croatia
  • 2) "Kingdom of the Croats" or "Croat Kingdom"

Which were the two names used for the Kingdom by various sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, this may not be relevant, but that map is broken in the relevant bit - it lists Zagreb in 1025 but the first ever recorded mention of that name dates to 1094. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that myself. I guess its because no single capital of the realm existed... Its not just the map, though, the Croatian Kingdom certainly was under the suzerainty of the Byzantine emperors for a significant period. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The local capitals of various Croatian dukes are however documented, and Zagreb (that is, Kaptol/Gradec) was never among them, so that just doesn't make any sense... --Joy [shallot] (talk)
Yes ok, its a mistake I noticed it when I placed the map in the History of Dalmatia article quite a while ago. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Croatia was a vassal of the Byzantine prior to the kingdom, and for a short period of time, after Tomislav. As Croats settled on a part of their territory and later adopted it as their own. During the kingdom, only the littoral parts were apart from for a long period of time.Er-vet-en (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This'l be it. Er-vet-en (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, Stephen Držislav received a crown from the Empire, no? And there was a number of pro-Papal rulers, while others were pro-Byzantine? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Gojslav and Krešimir III were Byzantine vassals after 1018., when Bulgaria became a province along with Rascia. The most prominent pro papal ruler was Demetrius, since he was actually portrayed in a Vatican fresco. Er-vet-en (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Name in Greek (discussion)

The Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) was a Byzantine vassal for quite a while. We have Latin, but we also need Greek for full balance. The trouble is, I never studied Greek and don't know how to translate "Kingdom of Croatia" :P. The best I could come-up with was "βασιλεία η Κροατία", though I'm not sure that's ok :). For a full translation we'd need to translate the following into Ancient Greek:

  • 1) "Kingdom of Croatia
  • 2) "Kingdom of the Croats" or "Croat Kingdom"

...which were the two names used for the Kingdom by various sources. I'm aware Ancient and modern Greek are quite different, but I figure if anyone's gonna know its you guys... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In Byzantine sources, Croatia is mentioned as Χροβατία or Χρωβατία (Chrovatia), and the people as Χρωβάτοι. As for the "kingdom" part, the Byzantines never applied the term βασιλεύς to rulers other than the Byzantine (and occasionally the Holy Roman) emperors. IIRC, in the De Administrando (written in the 930s), the only term used for the ruler of the Croats is archon, i.e. ἄρχων Χρωβατίας would be the term for "Lord of Croatia". The title "king", being a papal donation, may not ever have been formally recognized by the Byzantines. I'll check up on the 11th-century situation though. Constantine ✍ 11:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Constantine is 100% correct. The term βασιλεύς is actually Imperator and the lesser "kings" were referred to as "rex". In general in De administrando imperio, none other than the Byznatine/Roman Emperor is referred to as βασιλεύς/imperator.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the Byzantine Emperor called himself "Basileus" and I figured the Emperor probably wouldn't share the same title with the King of Croatia :P, that's why I was pretty sure my weak translation was dead wrong. So if the title of the ruler is archon ("lord"), how would we translate "Lordship of Croatia", and additionally, "Lordship of the Croats" (if the latter is translated any differently)? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, the territory under an archon in Byzantine times would be an archontia, but AFAIK that term was reserved for the Byzantine provinces under archons, and not applied in the sense of "lordship" to other nations. To the best of my knowledge, the only territorial term applied to Croatia was χώρα, i.e. "land". If you want to use an attested term, I'd say stay with plain Χρωβατία. Constantine ✍ 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way,I have read recently that "rex" may be translated to "Ρήγας".--Michael X the White (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
To be more precise, it is "Ρηξ" (i.e. a direct transliteration from Latin). The declension has produced forms like genitive "του Ρηγός", and hence modern Greek nominative "Ρήγας". I don't know how far back this process goes, and whether or not it was found in Byzantine vernacular. Anyhow, I have not been able to find the term Ρηξ in connection with the Croats. Constantine ✍ 20:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Well that's a real problem... "archon" is the title of the ruler, but "archontia" is only for Byzantine provinces. "Rex" is not used for the ruler and the equivalents of both "rex" and "regnum" are not used in connection with the Croats. Those are practically the dark ages so I guess it does not surprise when a state name is not completely addressed in sources. What would be the translation of "Regnum Croatiae" in Byzantine Greek? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Regnum could be rendered in many ways, βασιλεία being the most direct one, but I very much doubt the Byzantines ever used such a term in regards to the Croats. As Catalographer also says below, to avoid neologisms, I recommend staying with plain Χρωβατία. Constantine ✍ 10:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you need that translation for, do you want to stick it up in the lead sentence of the article? Don't. Such translations in historical languages are pretty useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, its seems like valid historical information considering the Kingdom was part of the Byzantine Empire. Its useful historic info... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Byzantines in their primary sources just used the name Χορβατία Chorvatia without naming it a kingdom. So I suggest this name. Any other term would be a neo-historical neologism. Is there really a contemporary Medieval Latin source calling it Regnum or is it a neo-latin term of the Renaissance? Catalographer (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
-:)What about also the Old Croatian name of the kingdom in Glagolitic alphabet?. That would be certainly a historical info.Catalographer (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if you can write it up. Be sure that nobody knows how to spell "AAAAAAA!!" in Glagolitic in Croatia :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are people who can spell it. Some people write it. My mother made a wool sweater for her grand-daughter with her name in Glagolithic script. If an old woman can use it I don't see why young DIREKTOR can't ;) Check here [2]. Zenanarh (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Zen :), its defunct, its like the Runic alphabet, and worse - its a nice touch with the sweater but nobody seriously uses it, and I can safely say the vast majority of people don't have the first idea how to write their own name in it.
What's your take 1) on the merge and 2) the inclusion of the Byzantine name for Croatia? Also, what's your opinion of this --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here [3] you can see how it's writen in Glagolithic - Z'V'NIM(I)R' (ZVONIMIR) KRAL' HR'VAT'SK'[I] piece. You can't include it here because there's no Glagolithic font available in wikipedia, Catalographer's attempt is Cyrillic script. You can have Glagolithic font on your own computer if you install that font from page I've shown, but wiki pages wouldn't recognise it. Zenanarh (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you should use Byzantine name of kingdom here in the article. What for? Why not Arabian? Latin name was official in the documents- it's logic to have it here but any other is useless. Zenanarh (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Ok, I merged every syllable from the Croatia in personal union with Hungary article into here. I also repaired much of the text and organized it more efficiently (the text wasn't even in chronological order :P). Before someone gets the idea this is somehow "anti-Croatian" (as has been my experience so far), please note that this format and merge is more "pro-Croatian" than any other, as it arguably supports continued Croatian seperate statehood during the 1102-1527 period. The successor state is listed as "Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair deal. The Kingdom of Hungary article should be included and be within "wikiproject Croatia" to compensate things further. Er-vet-en (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the Kingdom of Hungary article is a merged article, covering all Hungarian kingdoms up to 1945... not just the medieval one. Its a thoroughly stupid approach if you ask me, taht article ought to be four or five seperate ones... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then be so kind to elaborate on your choice of adding this article to the Hungarian Project since it covers the topic of both the independent state and the union. Er-vet-en (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm I see what you're saying, reciprocity? Well that would be ok if the Hungarian/Croatian union was anything like "reciprocal". Anyway feel free to do whatever you like on Talk:Kingdom of Hungary :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning images

Images and templates should not sandwich text on both sides. The History of Croatia template has to be included, but in order to do so we need to remove some images. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't sandwich text between images pls Er-vet-en. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Croatian

I don't know anything about "Old Croatian", but somehow I doubt that it was quite the same as modern Croatian. How would someone say "Hrvatsko Kraljevstvo" in Old Croatian? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Something such as "old Croatian" simply do not exist. What exists is historical development of Croatian language through many centuries and language spoken in 9th century was not the same as in, lets say, 14th. But "old Croatian" language is not relevant for your question, since official language - the one used in politics - until middle of 19th century was Latin. Smob (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Old Croatian" refers to material culture, architecture,... not to the language. It is term used in archaeology. Zenanarh (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Very well, very well, you could've just said we have no idea what the language was like... Now that I think about it, I remember that the Baška tablet (1100) is the oldest written sample of the language used by common people in these areas during the Middle ages. I imagine its hardly sufficient to extrapolate an entire language from :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ha? Language is very well known. Ikavian Chakavian Croatian and Ikavian Scakavian Croatian. 1st (Cha) is older, it originated as symbiosis of Dalmatian language and Western proto-South Slavic (Cha, Kaj were direct descendents of it) pushed to the islands in the 16th century. 2nd (Sca) somewhat younger, it originated as symbiosis of Chakavian and Stokavian, the other thinking is that it was ancestor of Cro Stokavian. Zenanarh (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh brother... do we know the language or don't we? If we do, lets mention the name of the kingdom it in the article, if we don't lets not. That's all I'm saying. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course we know it, but you've already got answer - it's irrelevant since the Latin name was official. Zenanarh (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it may be irrelevant for the infobox, but I don't see why it should not be mentioned in the article at all? Seems like interesting, valid information? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, according to Macan, official Latin name in first period (until the union with Hungary) was Regnum Chroatorum and the right translation to it would be Kraljevstvo Hrvata (similar to Regnum Francorum). Again, according to Macan, the state wasn't referred in that time as Hrvatska or Croatia but Hrvati or Croats like in (today often used phrase) u Hrvata - at Croats. Ro0103 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Suspected as much but did not have confirmation, ty. A Byzantine Greek translation would be very good indeed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Insignia

It would be nice if we had a source on the chequy shield being used between 925–1102 and 1102–1527. I'm thinking about removing the chequy if no sources are brought forth. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/coat1.html

Ding Dong Er-vet-en (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ding Dong? The earliest chequy coa was 1491? Looks like I wasn't very wrong. Some twenty/thirty years later and we'd need to remove it. I cannot believe a fantasy coa was used for this article for so long before the merge. What is with Croatian history that makes it more like Tolkien's work than actual history... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you'l have to give that falcon thing some credibility. After all, it is entirely speculative, don't be so dramatic. :) Er-vet-en (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Falcon thing? Oh that... what about that? I'm talking about the chequy that was incorrectly representing a medieval state - just because people thought it would look better I guess. Plus if it is "entirely speculative" - don't include it. Can we please stop with the nonsense myths... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that you're accusing me of something... Other than that, you are objective and thought provoking. Nothing more, nothing less. Do as you want. :)) Er-vet-en (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Accusing you? LoL no! :) I'm just frustrated at the amount of incorrect mythical junk I've found on enWiki's Croatian history articles. I imagine hrWiki's version reads like a fairy tale. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_199609/ai_n8746333/ A nice little article by a writer from Canada.

The precise origin and date when it was first introduced has not been determined, leading to many hypotheses and legendary tales about its origin. On present-day Croatian territory it originated during the time of Croatian national rulers. Among the first known examples of this coat of arms appeared on the pentagram or Eucharistic star relief (plate 1), completed in the traditional Medieval Croatian interlace motif. This pentagram was part of the decorations found on the Split baptismal font dated in the 11 th century. Chiselled on this stone monument are the profiles of three birds which contain shields of squares on their wings, with the first square raised (signifying the visually stronger colour red)

Not necessarily an official symbol, but certainly proving the early image of one. I am not going into debates wheter can this be taken into consideration or not, simply pointing things out. Dont get mad at me. Er-vet-en (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Some relief does not make the chequy a symbol of this state or its king/dynasty. The official part is my point - why was/is this coa used as a symbol of early Croatia if we have no idea that it was the symbol of early Croatia? Such nonsense is not encyclopedic. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The last COA should be used, right? OK, this is a long period of time, and, surely the chequy was not in use for all time, but from 15th century onwards, it represents the Kingdom of Croatia. You can see it (with crown) around 1525 on seals and personal COA of Vladislas II of Hungary with subscription "Croatia". That would mean official use of COA. (ref: Marko Jareb, Hrvatski nacionalni simboli, Zagreb, 2010.)
Also, very interesting, the chequy can be also found on the entrance of Church of St. Lucy (Sv. Lucija) near Baška, the same church in which Baška tablet was found. The chequy there is not for the decoration, but more as a sign on the entrance. In this way, chequy can be connected to King Zvonimir, but this can be only speculation. --Ro0103 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I don't know why the chequy I introduced was replaced by the seal. The above comments refer to the previous situation. Before I merged the articles, this article covered only the period up to 1102 - and had an ordinary red/white chequy derived from the current Croatian coat of arms. I was quite appalled that this fantasy coat of arms was in use for so long. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Originally, I intended the seal to be put beside the chequy (since some similar articles contained insignia of their rulers). Since that didn't work (the template would not cope); I replaced it (temporarily) to see what would happen - eventually the pečat will perhaps be deleted anyway. Er-vet-en (say) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Balkans or haemus

Using the term Balkans as the place where Croats settled is an at least 1000 years span anachronism, i.e. using modern term to name something that did not exist, or existed under other name at the time about which is written or spoken. I suggest to say that they moved to peninsula of haemos, what is today known as the Balkans. The name Balkans was first used in 19th century therefore, no reason to call this peninsula with this name for the earlier history.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


The arrival of Croats

In the light of genetic researches, the "arrival of Croats" seems false. 90% of the modern Croats contain similar genetic markers as the 5-6000 years older ancient locals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I have been told, the Croats that first settled in the area became genetically mixed with local Illyrians. They however maintained the roots of the Slavic language they arrived with (as opposed to Albanians who it is believed by some historians that the tribes who settled there from what is modern day Georgia adopted the Illyrian language... however that is just speculation as I don't believe the Illyrian language is known for certain). Serbs on the other hand, maintained their Slavic genes with less genetic mixing. It is a sensitive subject though and much of it is speculation. No offense intended to anyone reading this.207.236.177.82 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Pacta Conventa - forgery

  • The Balkans: from Constantinople to communism by Dennis P. Hupchick; Macmillan, Feb 3, 2004, Page 65

Recent scholarship has demonstrated that the Pacta Conventa was a fourtenth-century forgery and that what exactly transpired in 1102 remains unknown.

  • The former Yugoslavia's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook by Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar; ABC-CLIO, 2004, page 16

The Pacta Conventa never existed, but the story about it was important for the Croatian position in the Habsburg Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Croats claimed their rights on the basis of this agreement.

  • The formation of Croatian national identity: a centuries-old dream by Alex J. Bellamy; Manchester University Press, 2003 page 37

The exact nature of the agreement, and even its existence, is impossible to determine as historians believe that a transcript of the Pacta Conventa preserved in the city of Trogir is actually a fourteenth-century fake.

  • Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 by Florin Curta; Cambridge University Press, Aug 31, 2006, page 267

The Pacta conventa is most likely a late medieval forgery, not a twelfth-century source.

  • The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526 by Pál Engel, Tamás Pálosfalvi, Andrew Ayton; I.B.Tauris, Aug 16, 2005 page 35

According to a fourteenth-century forgery, he also made a convention (pacta conventa) with the heads of the Croatian clans,

  • Religious separation and political intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Mitja Velikonja; Texas A&M University Press, 2003 page 44

This event is described in a document entitled Pacta conventa (or Qualiter). Coloman ennobled the "bearers of ... suggest that the document is a forgery and dates from a later period

--71.163.236.199 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know that this document was produced later. What's your point? Zenanarh (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not a document, it's a forgery which cannot be referenced at all nor used to explain anything. The forgery is not a property of Hungarian National Museum in Budapest, it's in city of Trogir archives.--71.163.236.199 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You have no idea how many historical documents are forgeries. You don't know how many historical documents are rewritings and not originals. However, this document doesn't explain anything, nor it is used to explain anything. How this document is treated is shown in the article. What is important is that relations between 2 kingdoms in personal union were exactly how this document defined, this document was produced to reflect these relations.
It was kept in Trogir archives in the past, it is kept in Hungarian National Museum in Budapest today. Zenanarh (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This forgery IS used in this article to "prove" status of Croatia as a member of the (nonexistent) union with Hungary, which was rejected (the "union") by Hungarian historians. Certainly, the forged document is not in Hungarian National Museum. --71.163.236.199 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing things. Hungarian historians disputed origin of Pacta Conventa and not Union of 2 kingdoms. This personal union was reflected in many other documents and facts: like separate original documentations of 2 kingdoms, separate crownings of the king, once for Kingdom of Hungary, another time for Kingdoma of Croatia and Dalmatia, separate laws in 2 kingdoms - like different taxes on 2 territories, etc. You have a very rich imagination. Zenanarh (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
References please! I do not see anything separate. Even Croatian bans(Viceroys) were Hungarians and the members of Croatian Diet were Hungarians nobles.--71.163.236.199 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP has a point. We do not really know what happened in 1102. Solid secondary sources are necessary, preferably published neither in the Balkans or in Hungary, for the existence of an actual personal union. Separate coronation ceremonies do not necessarily indicate the existence of a personal union, and citing any historical documents on their own is WP:OR. We know the term "Croatia-Hungary" is virtually without usage outside Croatia. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, you should try to stop with any comment about history because you don't understand history. Separate coronation ceremonies do not necessarily indicate the existence of a personal union - really? So if Bela IV for first coronated in Hungary as the king of Hungary, then a few months later in Dalmatia as the king of Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia - 2 separate coronations for 2 separate kingdoms - what is that? A joke? Stick to your communist stuff if that's all you can do. Don't mess with things you don't understand. Zenanarh (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, two separate coronations do not necessarily indicate a personal union. You require a reliable source that states there was a "personal union" before you can claim there was a personal union. I'm sorry if you find that illogical, but that's WP:V. To conclude something like "two coronations must mean two kingdoms" is textbook WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
Furthermore, I will not be insulted. I request that you please strike your offensive comments above or you will be reported immediately. -- Director (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
@Zenanarh, you are not responding. Kindly remove your personal attacks so we can continue discussing like civilized people. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Instance; Frederick Barbarossa was crowned as king of Germany, then was crowned as king of Italy after his military expeditions (assuming that he forced the people into submission and officially laying full claim on the land he razed by crowning himself) and so on... Crowning can mean securing territories and avoiding obstacles that can appear in the future. Not that I have a clear stance on this issue, just side-commenting. Er-vet-en (say) 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Croatia_(925–1102)/Archive_1&oldid=1078398160"