Talk:Medieval Croatia

Medieval duchies and counties

(moved talk from Talk:History of Croatia)

Hi, completely disinterested party here. Saw a request for copy editing on the Pages Needing Attention screen.

To me, as a casual reader, I find this para unclear:

"Medieval Croatian kingdom reached its peak during the reign of king Petar Krešimir IV (1058-1074) when it was composed of twelve counties and was slightly larger than in Tomislav's time, also including the four southern Dalmatian duchies (Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja)."

What I find ambiguous is:

• Did the 12 counties encompass the duchies? ie are duchies a subset of county?

Thanks for listening. --bodnotbod 14:50, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the number twelve means eight plus those four. They're referred to as duchies because they were generally ruled by a local duke who acknowledged the supremacy of the king. When they became part of the larger kingdom they were "merely" counties. --Shallot 18:04, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I don't think that's at all clear as it stands. If someone were able to convey that eloquently, without getting too bogged down it would improve things, I think. Perhpas something like "composed of twelve counties (...) four of which were the southern Dalmation duchies"? --bodnotbod 21:34, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

His country did not include Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia and Duklja. As far as I recall, those lands were not a part of Croatia until the XX century (I believe 1939, right?) HolyRomanEmperor 14:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

With the exception of Pagania and Northwestern Zachlumia which passed to Hungarian Croatia and remained there until the bosnian conquest. HolyRomanEmperor 14:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Medieval Croatian state (until 1102)- It should be written Croats and Serbs or only Slavs. In that period of time nobody mentioned Croats. Serbs were mentioned by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. It is not accurate and not historically correct to mention only Croats. It is not article about Croats.

About Tomislav map: Tomislav map is disputed as it is said before by important Croatian scientiscts (Nada Klaic and Ivo Goldstein). Nada Klaic book is still used for students of history as textbook.Goldstein states that much around Tomislav is fictional and specially borders. Therefire plaese take into account disputes. We must mention it at least. I added that link so that you could see that one of the best medivial scientists in Croatia disputed Tomislav extensions.--Medule 13:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. We won't qualify general knowledge because of a couple of dissenters. --Zmaj 13:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Goldstein book on Croatian medieval history, «Hrvatski rani srednji vijek» is still a textbook on Croatian medievalistics .On page 286. Goldstein dismissed the reports of Tomislav's reign in Bosnia. That is similar to Nada Klaic book. That should be mentioned at all.

Serbian sources I have not included. Many of them think Tomislav borders are fictional .--Medule 13:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Snježana Koren from Univerzity of Zagreb in "Teaching Practice: History" (South-East Europe Textbook Network) also showed that Tomislav borders are just national myths.--Medule 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to anyone not familiar with this discussion: see Talk:History of Croatia and Talk:Croatia, where Medule is also (unsuccessfully) trying to push the same agenda. --Zmaj 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, to ask you: Is it NPOV not to mention Klaic, Goldstein and S.Koren. All 3 of them are Croats. They are not Serbs and they had enough courage to admit truth. Although I dont insist on writing that these maps are falsificates. I insist to be written that these maps are in dispute.

--Medule 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What part of "we won't qualify general knowledge because of a couple of dissenters" is unclear to you? --Zmaj 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But nearly all Serbian and more than third of Croatian historians belive that Tomislav had not the borders you show on map.I mentioned to you 3 serious Croatian historians. Nada Klaic was even the best Croatian medivielist. I dont intend to write that Tomislav borders are not true. I insist of writing that they are in dispue( in big dispute) what is true)--Medule 14:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since a smaller medieval Croatia would mean a bigger medieval Serbia, it's only natural that Serbian historians would be biased in this issue. "More than third of Croatian historians"? What does it mean? That Croatia has a total of 8 historians? Come on... --Zmaj 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

More than third of authoritative professors.--Medule 14:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmaj according to you Serbian historians are liars like these 3 Croatian best historians.Please be more NPOV. I dont have intension to change map, but map is disputet by many.You could not ignore it. If you ignore it you are playing against NPOV. --Medule 15:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that Croats were not demographically present in Bosnia, a t that time a little region between rivers Rama and Drina, but the power of Croatian kings did extent there. Even from the times of Croatian dukes.

De Adminstrando imperio

The book, or work clearly says that the Croats were invited to defeat the Avars, not the Serbs. The Serbs came later and aasked for land. This is clearly stated in the book.

The Tanais stone

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it says on the Tanais stone is XOΡOAΘOΣ, Choroathos, and not "Horoathos". 89.138.96.83 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes and god knows what that means, but the croat nationalists will interpret that to their own liking. This is just like when nazis went out to find their roots in india.

Actually the Croat Nationals have it correct. Choroathos is the Roman translation for Croatia. Just do a little research before you make an uneducated statement. Also the Zoroastar holy book "Avesta", mentions Croatians about 500 BC. Serbians are the same stock as the Saxons. Again ----Do your homework.

Patterns of Settlement

Medule, thee Serbs may or may not have been invited by the Byzantine emperor along with the Croats. Either way, it is not relevant nor belongs in an article on the coming of the Croats & the medieval Croat kingdom. Hence the revert. iruka 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is known that Serbs have been invited at same time. Also they formed Pagania and other states inside border of todays Croatia.--Medule 01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But the key point is it isn't an article on modern Croatia, but on the coming of the Croats & their medieval state. As such, information on the coming of the Serbs is still irrelevant, and covered in articles such as Serbs of Croatia. iruka 11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MAP

Why is there not map? there are plenty out there...

Middle Eastern People?

"The lack of common genetic lineage markers with modern-day populations that descend from the ancient Persians makes a Persian origin unlikely."

Isn't this quote a direct contradiction to the first line? And also there's no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.60.209 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No citation? There's not a citation or a reference in the whole article, in fact. I'd never paste one of those little "citation" bumperstickers, but some footnotes to sources, particularly the ones indirectly alluded to in the text, would be an excellent improvement here. --Wetman (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Against merger Both topics too large for a merge. Dromadar (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but that's a very poor reason to be against a merge like this. 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) 05:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)