Talk:Croatia in the union with Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argument for Hungary - Croatia personal union

Pacta conventa is ulmost 100 % forgery but this is not changing historical facts which are that there have been agreement between Hungarian king and Croatian nobles which has created Union between states. Evidence of that is fact that Croatia was never been assimilated into Hungary but it has been associate kingdom administered by a ban. 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)

You have to support your claims by valid and verifiable references - as Wikipedia requests it. Also, how that 'personal union' looked in 19th century is visible here:

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary (Paperback) by A. J. P. Taylor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1976

page 27 A lesser nobility existed also in Croatia, itself dependent kingdom of Hungarian crown In 1790, at the height of the struggle against Joseph II, the Croat Diet transfered the granting of taxes to the Hungarian Diet, .. and at the same time they put Croat county authorities under the Hungarian lieutenancy at budapest, instead of Governor of Croatia, an Imperial agent.

page 65 Before placin Croatia under the Budapest government, the Emperor appointed a Croat patriot, Jelacic as a governor of Croatia. It took three months of protests for the Hungarian government to secure his dismissal.

page 110 The (Hungarian) Diet, when it met in April 1861 ... claimed to be a parliament, not a Diet, ... there was no responsible ministry and neither Croatia or Transilvania was represented

page 167 Thus, when it was first suggested that he should appeal to Croats by being crowned king of Croatia, he (Francis Joseph) replied in shocked surprise: "But I am a German prince"

So, utter subordinacy of Croatians to foreign (Hungarian) rule! Also, many of your claims 
are already defeated in the list of references I gave above, or, at least, not confirmed at all.--NovaNova 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But you have give me argument. Look page 27:A lesser nobility existed also in Croatia, itself dependent kingdom of Hungarian crown . Point is that Croatia is kingdom of Hungarian crown ! You need to learn more about what is or what are lands of Hungarian crown :)) To make you angree I will add that Croatia have been kingdom when Serbia has been province of Turkey :))--Rjecina 09:27, 23 May 2007 (CET)

Your 'kingdom' equals to the Turkish 'eyalet' or 'vilaet' 'Eyalet' Majlis is the full equivalent to the 'kingdom' Diet. Upper nobility in Croatia were Hungarians - primarily large landowners dominating the Croatian Diet. Hungarian or Vienese Court named the Kingdom of Croatia governor regularly. Taking a high post and talking nonsense - as you did - and trying to teach me something you obviously do not understand - is not a basis for discussion and, moreover, is uncivil. Also, learn a bit better English. --NovaNova 00:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You must hate Croatia very much when you do not know difference between eyalet and kingdom. Go on wikipedia page of Eyalet and maybe you will learn something. If your talking eyalet=kingdom is not nonsense I do not know what it is. Pošto ti smeta moj engleski možda raspravu možemo nastaviti na dobrom starom hrvatsko-srpskom jeziku ? .--Rjecina

You have wanted to see sources so I must say this will be 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.

• [[1]]
• [[2]]

I still wait for you to defeat my arguments from before ?

--Rjecina 11:10, 24 May 2007 (CET)

There is nothig to defeat. Claims without proofs are defeated already. One of our 'references' talks about non-existen Pacta Conventa. I quoted very respectable and world-renown historians - you - some anonimously written web pages. I do not hate anyone nor I ever hated. Please, be civil when discussing this subject!!!--NovaNova 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you say that your sources are better of 10 different Encyclopedia it is normal that we all must believe to you. Show me Encyclopedia which support your claim. Wikipedia is Encyclopedia !!--Rjecina 8:30, 26 May 2007 (CET)

I already recommended a few readings to you. This time learn a very basic thing - any encyclopaedia provides just basic knowleddge about the subject. A scholar's work never cites a encyclopaedia and all encyclopaedias cite scholars' works regularly. Your replies are further far below civilty required here. --NovaNova 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is time that we end our revert war. Give me source which I can read on internet and I will read. Your source can be writen on english, croatian, serbian, italian or russian. --Rjecina 20:21, 27 May 2007 (CET)

[edit] Hungaro-Croatian reign

In order to response some historiographer who deny existence of Kingdom of Croatia I qupted 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."

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

"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. "

So, mr. GiorgioOrsini/NovaNova/Purger (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 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)