Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary

Talk page

Unless your discussion on this talk page is about this article, and it better directly be about this article, any other sidetrack/edit war/general nonsense will result in a warning and then a long, long block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian-Croatian state

Result of personal union was Hungarian-Croatian state. [1] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.237 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a specific point? If that's a source, please cite it appropriate in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Personally I think the name is biased or at the very least confusing. A better name to Croatia in personal union with Hungary would be something like Croatian union with Hungary, but I want to get some other views first. Anyone else? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First we need to know what this article tries to cover. Is it trying to cover everything from the 11th to the 16th century? Is this a substitute for History of Croatia between 1102 and 1526? Or this article simply tries to present the debate about the nature of Historical relations between Hungary and Croatia? Squash Racket (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Croatia between 1102 and 1526--Rjecina (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or History of Croatia between 1091 and 1526. The Kingdom of Croatia article's end seems to be the succession crisis. The 1102 date would suggest the year of the alleged signature of the alleged Pacta Conventa as a reliable date, though most sources question that.
Further: I don't know whether we can use "history of Croatia". As far as I know it was a divided country (see Dalmatia, Slavonia) at the time. We'll get back to this. Squash Racket (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatian union with Hungary suggested by Ricky would probably be the best if the phrase "union" leaves space both for the real union and the personal union interpretations. Squash Racket (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we may rearrange the history of Croatia articles following Britannica's timeline:

• Croatia to the Ottoman conquests
• Ragusa and the Croat Renaissance in Dalmatia
• Croatian national revival
• Croatia in Austria-Hungary
• World War I and the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes
• Yugoslavia, 1918–41
• World War II
• Yugoslavia, 1945–91

Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really a question for History of Croatia which seems quiet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The original name of this article was Croatia in the union with Hungary--Bizso (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but that's grammatically a nightmare. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy

I don't like Bellamy book. Why ? Even about events which can't be disputed like election of Ferdinand in 1527 he is speaking about claims and not if this event has even happened. His words are "According to the Croatian narative of historical statehood the Sabor decided...." Maybe I am too simple person but for me there is no claims, according or something 3rd. Question is very simple:Ferdinand is elected for King of Croatia in 01.01.1527 or he is not elected ?

This and other simple questions are clearly too much for Bellamy...

You'll need stronger arguments to discredit Bellamy. He provided probably the deepest analysis on the issue. Squash Racket (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy is out.

Page used in this article in Bellamy words:"does not attempt to provide a "history" of Croatia, its national identity, or a discussion of its national historiography. Instead it attampts only to identify a narrative of Croatian historical statehood..." [2]

For all interested he is speaking about his pages 32-65--Rjecina (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources

Curtis, Glenn E. (1992). "A Country Study: Yugoslavia (Former) - The Croats and Their Territories". Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2009-03-16 is clearly saying that Croatia is state: "In either case, Hungarian culture permeated Croatia, the Croatian-Hungarian border shifted often, and at times Hungary treated Croatia as a vassal state"

THE SOUTHERN SLAV QUESTION AND THE HABSBURG MONARCHY by R. W. SETON -WATSON: "It was not till six years later that the recognition of Charles Robert by the Hungarians restored the personal union between the two kingdoms

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618-1815 of Charles W. Ingrao: Between the Drava river and the Adriatic lay the closely associated Croatian-speaking kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia that had been bound in personal union with Hungary.

Stephen R. Burant, ed. Hungary: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989:

"Croatia was never assimilated into Hungary; rather, it became an associate kingdom administered by a ban, or civil governor."

The Hungarians by Paul Lendvai, Ann Major:

"Coloman coronation as King of Croatia initiated union with Hungary which lasted for 800 years..."

This are all sources from all last discussions so links are not needed. From my knowledge all sources are saying that Croatia has been kingdom...--Rjecina (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking? What's the point? Squash Racket (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia existence--Rjecina (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some say it existed, some say not. You delivered Singleton 10 minutes ago, who says: Croats have always maintained that they were never legally part of Hungary. In their eyes Croatia was a separate state which happened to share a ruler with the Hungarians.
And you cited the Library of Congress quite selectively, I couldn't find that one: Croats have maintained for centuries that Croatia remained a sovereign state despite the voluntary union of the two crowns, but Hungarians claim that Hungary annexed Croatia outright in 1102.
You are trying to make a decision here? One of the POVs should win? Squash Racket (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not cited the Library of Congress !!!

Please can we have agreement between Squash Racket and Squash Racket [3]--Rjecina (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks.
The very first source you cite in this thread is the Library of Congress and you are citing it, but selectively. (Curtis, Glenn E. (1992). "A Country Study: Yugoslavia (Former) - The Croats and Their Territories". Library of Congress).
When I cited the Library of Congress, I cited all the viewpoints (as the diff shows). Squash Racket (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)