Image talk:830.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Naming conventions 2 Travunia 3 Doclea 4 Hx Seek 5 New Map

[edit] Naming conventions

Excuse me Hxseek, you didn't notice my comment on your talk page? In Image:830 you have 3 Croatian cities: Zara, Split and Ragusa. All 3 written in different naming conventions. Zara - Venetian name of Zadar, Zara was never recorded in 9th century, it became official name of Jadera/Jadra (phonetic: Zad'ra) not earlier than in 1408 when this city fell under Venetian rule. It was official until the end of 19th century when it became Zadar, it was changed once again to Zara 1939-1943 because of fascistic occupation. There is no place for that name in your map. In 9th it was Jadera or Jadra, used by both Romance Dalmatian and Croatian speakers. Split - modern name of Split, old-Croatian was Spljet and Romance was Spalatum. Ragusa - Romance name of Dubrovnik, developed from Raughia. If you want to write modern names then: Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik. If you want original names from the end of 9th then: Jadera, Spalatum, Ragusa. Zenanarh (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean 1920-1943/5? And how could that be called fascistic occupation? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was 1920-1943. Read Italian fascism. They were practising this ideology in Zadar already in 20's. Zenanarh (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Travunia

Why is it depicted in that specific strange way? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean ? Hxseek : if you are referring to it being surrounded by a marone-coulured line- its a representation of its vassal status to Serbia at the time (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well since its the same as all the territories of Serbian lands up to Uros, what's the point in coloring it differently? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doclea

Where is Doclea here? Kubura (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no concrete evidence that it had existed back then, evidence which seems to be present for Travunia (with Konavli), Zachlumia and Pagania. But yes, I support the inclusion of its name to the southeast. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, i did not label it because, from what we know, it was not a politcal entity at the time. If anything it was a region, or province. I would be happy to include it if there is a consensus for such Hxseek (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hx Seek

My responce

1) As stated, the maps are constructed using multiple sources, with extensive research dervived from descriptions of borders of the 'sattes' at that given time. If you have any queries regarding this, please feel free to discuss further.

2) The Toponyms used are the names most commonly used. Yes, Srem, is Slavic, but as Pax clarified, it is commonly used in English-written history books. Another eg, I used Ragusa (Dalmatian) because at that time, that's what it was called- not Dubrovnik. OK. If you are SO sensitive about the names, i am happy to take your suggestions.

3) Alternative maps used: Euratlas is copy-right firstly. Secondly, as pax also pointed out, the map is good visually, but falls short of precise historical accuracy. Since all parties involved here (Pax, Zen) etc have deeper knowledge of the history, such a map would not be accurate enough for our purpose.

4) "Venetian Dalmatia". Yes in 1080, venice captured much of the Dalmatian Byzantine cities and islands from the Normans. Then it got taken by Hungary by 1105.

5) From what i have read, the word "croats" and "croat duchy" was 1st used in 850s, with Trpimir. Prior to this, it was known as Dalmatian Principality. Its a shame that you quickly start accusing people of being anti-Croat, anti-this. These are the facts as i read them. I am more than happy to hear a counter point.

6) Serbia was called "serbia" in 9th century (DAI). ""Raska"" is a later term used to denote the part of Serbia east of the Drina, inland to Duklja. The land came known as Raska sometime in the late 11th, early 12th century when the Serbs (raskans) captured the city of Ras from Byzantine; not in the 900 ! This is how it became known as Raska - the land aound the city of Ras (make sense ). Some authors use Raska to denote 9th century Serbia, but that is, stricly-speaking, historically inaccurate.

7)Duklja. Duklja did not become an independent polity until sometime after 960s. Prior to this, from my understanding, the coastal half was under direct Byzantine rule, whilst the eastern part of what-would-be Duklja was just straight part of Serbia, since the center of Vlastimirs Serbia was in the valleyes of the upper Drina, Ibar, Lim rivers. So I did not include Duklja as a recognised, independent polity (ie in bold, italicized letters), but in some maps have included it as a toponymic name.

Hxseek (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2) If you use Ragusa it's OK, it is Dalmatian name from the same age (9th century). In that case you cannot use Zara, Durazzo (Reinessance Italian names of the Venetian origin). Zadar was Dalmatian Jadra or Jadera (spoken Zadra and Zadar) according to the original documents. The oldest name of the Zadar citizens found after the faulth of the Roman Empire (6th) was Jaderani (spoken Zadrani - same as in modern Croatian) in the beginning of the 9th century. Venetian name of Zadar in 9th was Jatara (Venetian hyper-urbanism), later it was Zara, both used in Venice not in

Zadar, not before 15th century. The same about Durrës, which was Latin Dyrrachium and not Italian Durazzo. In 9th century there were no Venetians around these cities. Also Split was Spalatum in the documents, even during Croatian rule, old-Croatian Spljet was vernacular. Belgrade was Singidunum, Bulgarian name Beligrad has appeared, during the rule of the First Bulgarian Empire, around 878 (and a map is from 830?). And Srijem(Srem) was Syrmia. But if you want to use historical Slavic name for it, you should use Srijem in that case, Srem is modern Serbian. Zenanarh (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3) In my opinion, superficialty of the western historians (concerning very dynamic history of the Balkans) is ten times more dubious.

4) "Venetian Dalmatia". Yes in 1080, venice captured much of the Dalmatian Byzantine cities and islands from the Normans. Then it got taken by Hungary by 1105. ???

Ooohh, what is this? This is totally wrong misinterpretation of totally different nature of the accidents. What is the reference for this? Who wrote it? Here we can see a result of absolute ignorance of the history of Dalmatia and Croatia. For a historian who wrote it, it would be much more clever to ride a bike in the park, or play with his grandson in the sand, than to write history. From what you wrote it appears that there was some "Venetian Dalmatia" in 11th century?

From 7th to 9th century Byzantine Dalmatia were the coastal cities: Kotor, Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir and some number of the islands and its cities like Vekla (Krk), Arbe (Rab), Opsura (Cres). In 7th and 8th century this Byzantine Dalmatia was the archonty subgrade to the Byzantine Emperor, but more as periphery far from the main political accidents. In 9th century Venice was vassal to Byzanth same as Dalmatian cities.

However there was very poor political connection between Dalmatians and Byzanth, so these cities kept a lot of autonomy and by the time they tended to accomplish indenpendence from the Empire. It was especially noticed in 9th century because Byzanth couldn't protect Dalmatia from Saracen attacks. In the same time there were also problems between Croats and Venetians. New relationship between Dalmatians and Croats occured around 870, during conflicts Byzantine Emperor - King of italy and during the rule of Croatian Duke Domagoj. Byzantine Emperor Basil I had a mission: to recover weakened empire and authority in Dalmatia and south Italy. He had no problems in south Dalmatian Slavic countries to Cetina river, but further to the north he had to use political manipulations in the Croatian court. He developed new political organization: Byzantine Dalmatia became theme with Zadar as the theme centre in 867. It seems this theme organization was never finished and this Dalmatia was just a group of disconnected city autonomies. These cities were paying tribute to Croatia by order of Basil I and that was the only reason why it was not all Croatia already in that moment. Actually it was a tribute for autonomy. (Dalmatians, Croats and Slavs, so far in this story in political meaning, not ethnical!)

In 10th century connections of Dalmatian cities to Byzant were almost invisible, cities were already largely populated by Croats and Slavs. To the end of 10th century Byzantine proconsule had authority only in Zadar, but just symbolically since in reality Zadar was ruled by Croatian patrician family of Madi (Croatian queen Jelena was Madi). Madi's lost their position in 998 thanks to Venetian Duke Peter II Orseolo who gave his help to Byzantine Emperor against Narantine pirates. This was 1st political Venetian trip to Dalmatia (Byzant had no navy or army in Dalmatia at all). Venice was the most distant vassal of Byzant in the Adriatic, so Venetian historiography recorded 1st Venetian Dukes from 8th century, in 9th century Venetian navy was indenpendently fighting against the Saracens, however still in 10th century they were vassals to Byzanth (the name of the Byzantine Emperor was still written in their documents). Peter II Orseolo changed the situation in the Adriatic, his motivation was to change the direction of tribute paid by Dalmatian cities to Croatia and to bring this money to Venice. It automatically meant a lot of trouble for Dalmatian communes with Croatia. Since these cities were a lot autonomical (officially Byzantine) they were under Croatian pressure and very soon in 1.000, money flow to Venice was stopped. Madi's recovered their authority in Zadar and it was the beginning of their new politics, final Dalmatian secession from the Byzantine Empire noted through all 11th century.

In 70's of 11th century Dalmatian communes brought the Normans (Byzantine enemies) to strengthen their resistance to the Empire. Of course, it immidiately meant reaction of Byzant, Venetian duke Dominico Silvio (a vassal to Byzant) received task from Byzantine Emperor to admonish Dalmatians becuse of their alliance to the enemies of the Empire. So the priors of Split, Trogir, Biograd and Zadar had to make new pact with Venetian Duke, after what Venetian navy went back to Venice. But autonomical Dalmatian communes didn't change their politics, actually they didn't care about the Empire interests anymore, alliance with the Normans was not stopped. Claim that from 1076 to 1085 Venetian navy ruled in all Adriatic is somebody's funny imagination. In fact Venetian navy was not allowed to cruise in the northern part of the eastern Adriatic coast at all (even it was in the front of their noses!). It was ruled by Croatian king. So "Venetian Dalmatia" was not there at all. It was much much later. This is obviously just another funny idea of imperialistic Italian historiography of 19th century, unfortunatally so easily transfered to the international historiography. Actually in 1091 Zadar ruled by Drago II Madi gained total autonomy. In 1105 Koloman (Croatian and Hungarian Kingdom in union) replaced Madi in Zadar with his own people, he didn't conquer "Venetian Dalmatian" or "Byzantine Dalmatian" Zadar! This is real history for your map... Croatian Kingdom and a few autonomic Dalmatian cities! Zenanarh (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Map

I edited a new, fine-tuned map (with above suggestions adapted) Hxseek (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)