Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)

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.

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)