This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NovaNova (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 24 June 2007 (→Dmitar Zvonimir part of article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:21, 24 June 2007 by NovaNova (talk | contribs) (→Dmitar Zvonimir part of article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Former countries Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
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)
About non-existent Kingdom of Croatia
In order to get a good understanding of the Croatian history - here are very good references showing clearly that Kingdom of Croatia existed only 16 years and namely from 1075-1091!!!
- Kings, Bishops, Nobles, and Burghers in Medieval Hungary by Erik Fugedi, Janos M. Bak, Erik Feugedi Published 1986 by Variorum Reprints
- The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 By Pal Engel Published 2005 by I.B.Tauris
- Nobility, land and service in medieval Hungary by Martyn Rady Published 2000 by Palgrave Macmillan
- A History of Hungary's Nationalities By Ernst Flachbarth Published 1944 by Society of the Hungarian Quarterly
p 708 Hungary in the late fifteenth century - a map showing Wallachia, Hungary and Turkey and Ragusa - no clue about 'Kingdom of Croatia'
- The Medieval World By Peter Linehan, Janet Laughland Nelson
p 80 Figure 5.1 Map of medieval Hungary showing areas of Cuman settlement (times of King Bela V (1235 - 1270) - no clue about 'Kingdom of Croatia'
More interesting ...
- The Early Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century by John Van Antwerp Fine - Published 1991 by University of Michigan Press
Page 248
Sources on Medieval Croatia
Early medieval Croatian history fits the concluding line to the old jingle: the more you study the less you know. When I was and undergraduate studying Balkan history I thought I knew quite a bit about Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one "facts" that I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western languages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is marred by nationalistic bias.
Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seveneenth- and eigteenth-century) narrative histories. These were written by enthusiastic people but ciontain a mixture of fact and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge wheter their information came from reliable source or not.
- The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 by Pál Engel - 2005 I.B.Tauris edition, Translated by Tamas Palosfalvi
Pages 33-34
One of Ladislaus's most significant achievements was the occupation of Hungary's southern neighbour, Croatia. ... The small kngdom, born in the tenth century, streched from the Kapela mountains to the Adriatic sea, its center being Biograd, located on the coast.
... King Demetrius Zvonimir, who, not being a member of the ruling dynasty, obtained his throne throug election, asked Pope Gregory VII fo a crown in 1075, and, in return, declared his kingdom as a papal fief. After his death, Ladislaus laid claim on his realm by the right of his sister, Zvonimir's widow, and had no difficulty in taking possession of Croatia in 1091. He bestowed the new kingdom, together with royal title, on his nephew, Almos, son of Geza I ...
I further entertained myself reading yet another great discoveries of contemporary Croatian historians (soc.culture.yugoslavia) ....
The exclusive revelation is the result of "scientific" research by Croatian historian Dragutin Pavlicevic, and found its place in history books. The Split newspaper "Feral Tribune" reveals that Pavlicevic authored a chapter entitled "Croatian Indians", included in the second grade history textbook, shedding new light on the history of native Americans and their ties with Croats, "one of the oldest nations in Europe". He affirms that in North Carolina "a tribe has been living for more than 4 centuries differing in the color of skin, hair and facial features from other tribes". According to the same historian this is not surprising because the members of these tribe "have the noble blood of ancient Croats from Dubrovnik in their veins". Mr. Pavlicevic also speaks about the Mateo Indians, named after their ancestor Mateo - a Croat named Mate. "In his work, Dragutin Pavlicevic stresses that he estimates that presently there are more than 2 million Croatian descendants throughout the United States", states the Split newspaper.
...and this one form soc.culture.europe
Croats Sailed To New World Before Columbus And Vikings
Andrija Zeljko Lovric bases his theory on recent archeological finds of Islamic coins and Glagolitic writings in Paraguay
A theory that Croatian sailors, in the service of the Moorish caliphs, probably reached the coasts of the Americas not only before Columbus, but also before the Vikings themselves, may be corroborated by exceptional findings. One of the chief adherents of this theory is Andrija Zeljko Lovric. He presented his paper on the latest finds of Islamic coins and Glagolitic writing in Paraquay on the second day of the symposium called The Islamic World in the Twentieth Century, held in the Zagreb Islamic Center, in Croatia. The paper speaks of 61 plates with inscriptions written in the Glagolitic alphabet which have been found during the past decade on the cliffs of the Amambay massif in Paraguay, dating back to pre-Columbine times, from the seventh to fourteenth century. Previous explorers did not understand the script and believed it to be Viking runes.
Lovric lists numerous data contributing to the theory that the traces lead to Croatian sailors. First of all, among all Slav peoples that used the Glagolitic alphabet, only the Croats were renowned as sailors and, technically speaking, were the only ones who could have reached America. In addition, the Glagolitic script was used the longest by Croats. Second, American anthropologists believe the writers of these plates to have participated in the construction of the first early American town of Taiwanaku, where the statues of Guarani rulers bearing Croatian coats of arms on their chests were found. --NovaNova 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The crowning of King Tomislav was notable b/c of papal recognition. The Kingdom of Croatia definitely existed from 925. Removing POV tag. iruka 08:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- In order to support your claim you are obliged to cite reliable and verifiable historic references. Writing an article like this is not a story-telling business. Many of the claims in this article are already denied or, at least, not confirmed in the list of references given above.--NovaNova 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The crowning of King Tomislav was notable b/c of papal recognition. The Kingdom of Croatia definitely existed from 925. Removing POV tag. iruka 08:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Dmitar Zvonimir part of article
Hungarian kings were crowned separatley as kings of Croatia till reign of Bela IV (1235). The kingdom was overrun by Mongols, and centrlisation was required due to obvious vulnerability of Hungarian-Croatian kingdom. Since that, there were no more separate crownings.
- Mistake. Web sources about kingdom of Croatia so that all of us can see text source and not only part of that like NovaNova is showing.
- ]
- ]
--Rjecina 11:10, 24 May 2007 (CET)
- Yeah, as I said above
- The Early Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century by John Van Antwerp Fine - Published 1991 by University of Michigan Press, Page 248
Sources on Medieval Croatia
Early medieval Croatian history fits the concluding line to the old jingle: the more you study the less you know. When I was and undergraduate studying Balkan history I thought I knew quite a bit about Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one "facts" that I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western languages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is marred by nationalistic bias.
Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seveneenth- and eigteenth-century) narrative histories. These were written by enthusiastic people but ciontain a mixture of fact and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge wheter their information came from reliable source or not.
"Academia scientarum et artium: Documenta historiae croaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia" (Agram, 1877); KUKUIJEVICH, "Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae" (Agram, 1874, 1876); LUCICH, "De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, libri sex (St. Mark's Library, Venice); THENIER, "Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium" (Rome, Agram, 1863, 1875) TKALCICH, "Monumenta historiae" (Agram, 1896); FERMENDZIN, "Acta Bosniae" (Agram, 1892); KRCELICH, "De regnis Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae" (Agram, 1770); FARLATI, "Illyricum Sacrum" (Venice, 1751, 1801); SVEAR, "Ogledalo Illiriuma" (Agram, 1839, 1842); TKALICH, "Hrvatska povjestnica" (Agram, 1861); LJUBICH, "Pregled hrvatske povjesti" (Fiume, 1864); SMICIKLAS, "Hrvarska poviest" (Agram, 1899, sq.); RACKI, "u rodovima akademije" (Agram); HORN, "La Hongrie et la Croatie" (Paris, 1907); PLIVERICH, "Beitrage" (Agram, 1886); MACAULAY, "Edinburgh Review" (April, 1842); "Statesman's Year Book" (1908).
- So, as Prof. John Van Antwerp Fine already said -"Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seveneenth- and eigteenth-century) narrative histories." This cathegory covers the quoted bibliography above. Their champion is Ivan Kukuljevic Sakcinski - who claims that the Roman emperors Iustinian and Diocletian were Slavs - respectively a Macedonian and a Croat and Mehmet Pasha Sokollu was a Croat (actually a Serb) and his brother was named the head of Bulgarian (actually the Serbian) Orthodox Church! (All from Glasoviti Hrvati proslih vjekova by Ivan Kukuljevic Sakcinski, Zagreb, Naklada "Matice Hrvatske", 1886)
--NovaNova 21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories: