Talk:List of rulers of Croatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon List of rulers of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Pacta Conventa"[edit]

User:Tom Radulovic wrote:

1092 Pacta Conventa is signed by a group of Croatian nobles who formed a Sabor, or parliament, and King Ladislaus I of Hungary. The pact maintains Croatia and Hungary as separate states under a single ruler, Ladislaus. Almos rules as Ladislaus' proxy.
...
1097 Battle of Gvozd Mountain (modern Petrova Gora). King Coloman of Hungary, supported by Pannonian Croats, defeats an army of Croatian and Dalmatian nobles allied to Peter Svachich. Coloman revives the Pacta Conventa, and is affirmed as King of Croatia, which is ruled on his behalf by a Ban (viceroy) and the Sabor.

This is somewhat incorrect on several issues, at least according to what I was taught in school and what I read elsewhere.

The historians gave the name Pacta Conventa to the final treaty between the Croats and the Magyars which resulted in Koloman's coronation in Biograd na moru in 1102, not to initial Ladislav's incursions. Ever since the disappearance of Petar Krešimir IV in 1074, the statehood was in jeopardy as there was no heir to the royal dynasty. Zvonimir married Ladislav's sister Jelena (and submitted to the Holy See) exactly for the purpose of making sure that his reign would not be threatened from the outside, but after his death which happened some time between 1087 and 1089, that made king Ladislav one of the closer royalties to inherit the crown. However, he was rejected as a king by the novelty which instated the last of the Trpimirović, Krešimir's nephew Stjepan II, which only lived for two more years. Queen Jelena and her supporters again agitated for the acceptance of Ladislav, and this time there was no longer a backup solution so Ladislav's nephew Almoš started his rule.

However, due to the handling of the issue of the bishopric and the discontent with a foreign ruler, the Croatian novelty made Ladislav fight a war to secure his right to the throne, a war that he clearly never entirely won, as the lords elected a new king among themselves, Petar (hence the pseudo-surname Svačić, meaning everyone's), who ruled most of coastal Croatia for four years. Even Ladislav's successor Koloman, who ended Petar's rule in the battle of Gvozd, didn't succeed in maintaining actual control over Croatia, because he had to divert his armies to the east to fight the Rus' and the Kumans.

Coloman should be the one credited with annexing Croatia to Hungary because he was the one who realized that the right way to get the Croats to really concede the crown was a peaceful negotiation. According to a manuscript that described this process (it began with the words Qualiter et cum quo pacto dederunt se Chroates regi Hungariae, meaning "How and with what contract did the Croats surrender to the king of Hungary" and was interpreted as proof of the Pacta Conventa, but wasn't necessarily literally so), Koloman recovered from his year 1099 losses on the eastern front and in 1102 mounted an attack force near Drava. However, twelve Croatian tribes managed to organize a defence force despite the fact the country was in turmoil throughout the last decade. As Koloman found out that there was to be organized resistance, he decided to extend an offer to the leaders -- they would submit to his sovereignty but would be recognized as regional leaders by him and excluded from paying tribute. They answered his call, set up a meeting, and agreed on such a solution. Koloman was crowned in Biograd na moru as rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae and the Croatians obviously kept their promise that they would not rebel, for the next 425 years, more or less.

Also, the first sentence might give readers the false impression that the Sabor was formed at that date. The word sabor is generic, and it is uncertain when exactly the councils of Croatian leaders (later nobility) became parliamentary. It could have been as far back as 923/925/928 when Tomislav united the duchies and was crowned as a king, it could have been 1102, and it could have been as late as 1526/1527 when they were deciding on the fate of the Croatian provinces after the fall of Louis at Mohacs. --Shallot 21:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And now, an "unpatriotic blow". Looks like "Pacta conventa" is a later forgery Croatian nobles made in order to prevent Hungarians from meddling into their affairs. This is almost commonly accepted in newer authoritative history books (for instance, monumental Raukar's" Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje"). This is not historical nihilism or "deconstruction" (school of Ivo Goldstein and similar fellas), but a rather banal contention that Croats, in 1100s and 1200s simply didnt have any need for such a formal document, because balance of powers was such that nominal Hungarian overlordship wasnt such a big deal. In fact, Croatian nobles were frequently the most powerful figures in "Hungarian" kingdom, sometimes even more influential than Hungarian wannabe kings (Gorjanski episode). Anyway-"Pacta conventa" is interesting stuff, historically very important (especially in the 18th and 19th cent. legislative-national battles)-but, in all likelihood, a cunning forgery of our cunning forefathers.;^)Mir Harven 22:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said, there is no actual written treaty named that way, that's just interpolation, albeit a very entrenched one. It's probably successful because it's so plausible. --Shallot 22:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anglicization of names[edit]

I'm not sure why the native names should be modified all that much. Even with anglicized names, the surnames are still -- in a manner of speaking -- odd, so why bother. --Shallot

I think that Nicholas Zrinyi is a good example of why using the anglicized names isn't such a bad idea. Does one use the Magyar Miklos, as the original article did, or the slavic Nikola, as you prefer? Wikipedia tends to use the conventional English names of people and places (Croatia rather than Hrvatska, Yugoslavia rather than Jugoslavija, Plato rather than Platon) and using the English transliteration of common first names (Stephen, Peter, Nicholas) could eliminate some confusion, so long as the native variants are noted. --Tom Radulovich

Well, Zrinski is a good example as far as the first name goes, but a bad one considering the surname. Both mean the same thing, "of Zrin" (a name of their first estate+castle I think), but I don't think that surnames were freely modifiable any more by that historic age.
The examples you stated are all entrenched transliterations, but the names generally aren't. Except maybe for Bošković whose surname was written Boscovich (interestingly enough, the first syllable was done like Italian) because he worked in England for quite a while. People don't generally refer to me as Joseph in English, but Josip as I write it. The only recurring problem I've noticed with "Josip" is with the French speakers, who often misspell it "Jospin"...
Also, we've got redirects to fix any ambiguity anyway. --Shallot

Earliest history[edit]

That Kessler web page that seems to have been a primary resource is lacking the distinction between the Pannonian dukes and the Dalmatian ones, and gives a rather hazy opinion on how the Christianization happened, and a reference saying they were already Christianized when they arrived, which is quite unlikely and I never heard of that anywhere else. I've read elsewhere that the papal "Liber Pontificalis" includes a record of Pope John IV sending the first emmisary to the Croats, but couldn't find a real corroboration of those dates of Radoslav's reign, only that he was the duke of the Dalmatian Croats around that time. Given the existence of a Christening well (sp?) with duke Višeslav's name written as the ruler, I think the sentence about the Christianization during Radoslav's reign is too generic and imprecise. --Shallot 17:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, Frankish lord Erich is said to have reached Trsat (part of modern Rijeka) in 799, laid siege to the fortress under duke Višeslav and died while getting defeated. The Franks did occupy Croatian lands by 803, but by that time Višeslav is said to have already died. Borna of Dalmatian Croats and Ljudevit of Pannonian Croats were vassal to Charlemagne. Later, in 818, under Louis the Pious, Ljudevit rebelled against the Franks, but was defeated by 822 and died. This was apparently extracted from external sources because later popular historians among the Croats actually wrote that they defeated the Franks after seven years of war and that the next Pannonian duke was Porin, who also Christianized the people with Papal blessing... other records state that the first "believer" dukes were Mislav and Trpimir of the Dalmatian Croats, and the Pannonian Croats' history after Ljudevit is rather unclear (only two recorded rulers, Ratimir and Braslav, in a non-contiguous time period). --Shallot 18:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also :) Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote how the Croats were Christianized under duke Porga, after emperor Heraclius recommended that the Pope sends missionaries to do so. But again this duke's reign, like Porin's, doesn't seem to be exactly registered elsewhere... --Shallot 18:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shallot: Thanks for your research on the early dukes. Documentation of this period is scarce, and the earliest South Slav "histories" tend toward the murky and mythologized (which, as in most things South Slav, doesn't prevent folks from registering strong opinions:-)). I was tempted to leave out everything before Tomislav, but thought that even heavily mythologized history can be useful information if presented with the proper caveats. It seems as if your research is as solid as possible considering the subject matter, so I would encourage you to re-write these sections as you see fit. Best, Tom Radulovich 23:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed given that the page uses a short list format. Perhaps I should divide it into sections and then make the initial section more like an introduction rather than a terse list with links.
In any event, I found this information only by searching the web (but I have the advantage of knowing the native language and several resources aren't translated in English). I should probably first obtain one or two Croatian history books in order to see what is taught in schools. It may be somewhat biased given that it's given to kids only after governmental acceptance, but those books tend to include a clearer delineation between the important and confirmed data and the more tangential and conjectured data, simply because it would be a bigger embarassment if they got something wrong there... --Shallot 10:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In Einchardt Annals Borna was mentioned many times, but never as Croat. Ljudevit Posavski also was not mentioned as Croat. Einchardt mentioned Serbs in his Annals, but never Croats. Therefore we could not talk of rulers of Pannonian Croats . We could say rulers of Dalmatia. It is much more accurate.

You are conducting original research. That is not allowed on wikipedia. Please refrain from doing that. --Dijxtra 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Originally they are mentioned as rulers of Pannonia and rulers of Dalmatia. It is nonsense to say that they are rulers of Pannonian Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medule (talkcontribs)
Please, sign your comments with "~~~~". Well, if they didn't rule Croats, who did they rule? --Dijxtra 12:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

They were South Slavs. First mentioning of Croats in history is 852. Borna was duke of Guduscans and Ljudevit of Pannonians. There are no proof for statement that they were Croats.

First WRITTEN mention that we know of, yes. We know because this mention survives to present day. Lack of historical documents (particulary from the "dark ages") does not mean Croats did not exist, or didn't call themselves Croat before. Borna and Ljudevit were by all accounts Croatian nobles, and certainly not Serb or just Slav. The idea of nation did not exist before roughly the 16th century. Does this mean there were no Croats, Serbs, English, French, Chinese before that? No. Your argument isn't valid. I'm reverting to previous version. --Dr.Gonzo 21:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So you dont have proof that these rulers were Croats, but you add here what somebody believes to be truth. In only historical documents about Ljudevit and Borna we could not find that Ljudevit and Borna were Croats. They are Slavs. You could not add in Wikipedia somebody belief that Ljudevit or Borna are Croats. There are no proof. Neutral point of view is to mention these rulers as rulers not of Pannonian or Dalmatian Croats, but as rulers of pannonia or dalmatia.

It is not NPOV if we can't agree on it. However, seen as some of the others have agreed that it is at least not harmful i won't make any reverts if we can come to a compromise. Please, refrain from further edits before discussing it on talk page. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This has come to my attention - Croatian and Serbian wikipedia both list the rulers as Pannonian and Dalmatian Croats, so it seems consensus already exists. See Croatian Wikipedia "Croatian rulers article" and Serbian Wikipedia "Croatian rulers article" --Dr.Gonzo 00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Monarchs of Hungary[edit]

I'm reluctant to point to the list of Hungarian rulers more prominently because of several things:

  • that list doesn't have the same ordinal numbers: the Belas, the Stephens, the Gezas and the Andrews are shifted by -1 because Bela I, Stephen I, Geza I and Andrew I of Hungary didn't rule over Croatia. Possibly others.
  • the Transylvanian princes are impertinent
  • support for the Zapolyas probably wasn't as notable in Croatia

--Shallot 23:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Counts of Celje[edit]

The dates for the reigns of the Celje counts vary between this page and the Counts of Celje page, especially Hermann I and Hermann II. Tom Radulovich 19:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the Counts of Celje has the proper timeline, it was Frideric II and not I who ruled with Ulrik III. I corrected that. --Tone 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention[edit]

Hi!

PANONIAN suggested that we should discuss a general convention here about the usage of names like Zrinski/Zrínyi, or Lackfi/Lackovic.

I suggest that we use names accoding to the origin of the family, even if the article is related to an other country's history.

So we should use Zrinski, Frankopan, Babonic etc instead of Zrínyi, Frangepán and Babonics while Lackfi, Garai, and Újlaki instead of Lackovic, Gorjanski and Ilocki.

Opinions? 84.2.210.17 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Radich[edit]

I see no reason to list the Radich family history among the bans of Croatia. Someone can write an article about this family, but I will remove this content from here. --Koppany 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the redlinks?[edit]

Missing people should be redlinked. If you just don't have a redlink there, then it can't link when the article is created. On a list (and generally) it is better to redlink than keep silent they are missing. Why are people so scared of redlinks?

I came here to find someone, but because he is not linked I dunno if he should be a redlink or perhaps does exist, but under a different title.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The list is wrong[edit]

The list should be listing the Kings of Croatia, i.e. the people who actually were the monarchs, not their viceroys. Or at least, the actual monarchs of Croatia should be listed as well. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous[edit]

First of all NDH has little to nothing to do with this article and second-even if it did, the entire separate section wouldn't be necessary. Someone has some communist complexes again? EDIT: I merged the NDH section with the Modern times and shortened it a bit. Happy? Or I am a cannibal nazi and filthy holocaust denier now?

The reason why the section was separate was to emphasize that the NDH has no legitimacy and is not in the line of succession. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New list[edit]

Here I made the list of all RULERS of Croatia (dukes in early period and later Kings). List of Bans will bi transferred to new article. The base for the list of kings after Trpimirović dynasty is the list of Kings of Hungary. Since that list is not 100% identical (e.g. Karlo Martel, or cases when the dates of reign in Hungary and Croatia differ) this was made a separate list. Also, names of all kings are presented in Croatian transcript, how were usually referred in historical documents and history books. I only left numbering of Kings of Hungary unchanged because we usually take the same numeration in history books (e.g. Bela IV should be Bela III in Croatian) - Ro0103 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  • also - remarks for the rulers are in connection to events that refer to Croatia - Ro0103 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Both orders should be listed in the article, if the rulers were ever crowned using different ordinals. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. This is excellent work, I've been meaning to do something of the sort myself. This article should be renamed into List of Croatian monarchs (e.g. List of English monarchs, List of French monarchs etc.) and a list of bans should be added into the Ban of Croatia article (or perhaps a List of Croatian bans article). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait, that was already done :). Great. Fully agree with the current situation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
So, what would be the reason to avoid listing the Croatian order if it really existed in practice? I fail to see any reason to avoid it. Obviously the more notable name comes first, but if it's a list of Croatian monarchs, then it has its own order that should be at least mentioned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Misunderstanding, you're right Joy. Seems I do "disagree first, ask questions later" :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I would try to give my argument for this. As Croatian wiki members would know, in all school history books we learn that Golden Bull in which Zagreb is proclaimed free and royal city is issued by King Bela IV. This can be found in every book which deals with history of Zagreb, and in the memorial plaque in Upper Town in Zagreb. But, according to Croatian order, we are talking about Bela III. Same problem, different Golden Bull - Andrew II issued Golden Bull in 1222 which is mentioned in our history books, but in Croatian order, he should be ordered as Andrew I. The main problem would be ordering of Stephens, since Croatia had two (+ Stephen Držislav who is usually not counted since he took the name Stephen at his coronation, and the first Stephen of Arpad dynasty should be counted as Stephen III in Croatian ordinals and not II. Maybe, the solution would be that we use Croatian ordinals with the name in Croatian. Ro0103 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Tomislav was not "king"[edit]

That's nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Croatian historians. The ONLY evidence of his being a "king" is from a 925 letter by the pope in which he addresses him as "rex", while in every other known correspondence (and reference in general) he is titled "princeps" ("prince", as a general term for a ruler, or "duke"). There is no contemporary evidence of a "coronation at Duvno field" or any other semi-mythological event that is essentially the result of 19th century early nationalist "historians" liberally filling in the blanks. The earliest ruler of Croatia that we actually know had a crown was King Stephen Držislav - but that crown was granted to him by the Byzantine Emperor and not by the Pope, hence not very acceptable to Croatian nationalists. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please take that to Talk:Tomislav of Croatia first since that's the more specific location. Also preferably cite sources, otherwise it's just a giant flamebait... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the comment was made here, I will answer it here, and the admins can move it to discussion page on article about Tomislav if needed, but I would also want to point out that if we deny Tomislav's kingship here, than status of practically all rulers until Stjepan Držislav are to be revisioned. So my discussion is also important for this article.

At the beginning, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for solving the problems of Croatian historiography, as same as the problems which every historiography does. Most of Croatian historians and Croats in general consider Tomislav the first king, and pushing some other thesis on Wikipedia would indeed led us into flames. But these were not the arguments that I am trying to make here.

1. Use of a title in Latin In the 9th and at the beginning of 10th century standardization of titles was (in most cases) still absent. That particularly refers to states which were on lower degree of civilization in that time what Croatian state in that time surely was (e.g. Croatia as a state - in more or less meaning - in that time existed only about 100 years). Director is right here when he states that Croatian rulers used the terms princeps which was usually translated as prince. But also it was taken as general term for a ruler which also makes it impossible to take it for argument that Croatian ruler couldn’t be considered a king. Again, the term princeps derivies directly from Roman Emperors in a meaning "first in time or order; the first, chief, the most eminent, distinguished, or noble; the first man, first person." So I think that the absence of standardization of used titles cannot be the argument here. My further argument on this matter would be an inscription from stone plaque of King Stjepan Držislav for who Director claims „that he was the earliest ruler of Croatia that we actually know had a crown“– the inscription on the plaque says: (SVETO)CLV DUX HROATOR IN TE PUS D IRZISCLV DUCE MAGNU or „Svetoslav, Duke of the Croats at the time of Drzislav the Great Duke“ . In same time on other the stone plaque is refered as rex. As we can see here, even the ruler we consider a king used different title in Latin. In the end, Ivo Goldstein says about this matter (Ivo Goldstein, ‘’Hrvatska povijest’’, Zagreb, 2008.): The Croats and their rulers in early Middle Age did not take in mind how did the foreign authorities referred to them in their documents (often, they couldn't even know that), but on stone plaques they referred by the title that they thought it was the most suitable. Much more important to them was that their subjects address them with „vlast“ (power) or „gospodstvo“ (lordship) through which the ruler was addressed as indisputable ruler in special relation to God.

2. Popes letter In his letter, Pope John X addresses „dilecto filio Tomisclao, Rege Chroatorum, et Michaeli, exelentis Dux Chulminae“ . The importance of this letter is not just for addressing Tomislav as rex but for differing two titlesrex for Tomislav and dux for Mihajlo Višević. The Pope letter surely points out that Tomislav was greater lord in comparison to Mihajlo who was lesser lord and probably his vassal. Since Tomislav was addressed as rex by Pope and its supreme authority (and in Middle Age the one can gain the title of king only from Rome or from Byzantium), Tomislav could be referred as king. The absence of coronation (at least we don't have contemporary evidence of it) is not of great importance here. Ivo Goldstein states: „the fact that the pope addresses him as rex doesnt mean that he was crowned, since it was not the costume in first half of 10th century.“

3. Stjepan Držislav – first king As I have also pointed out that even Stjepan used different titles in Latin. Main source for claim that Stjepan was the first king comes from Historia Salonitana of Thomas the Archdeacon from 13th century. Again, it was not contemporary source as same as Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina from the end of 12th century which gives us a story about coronation at Duvno field that Director mentions. Thomas the Archdeacon states clearly that Tomislav was dux in 910 and we cannot not to consider that Tomislav gain (or took) the title of rex later (the Pope's letter is from 925). Thomas also states that Stjepan was first crowned king. In addition to this matter, let’s consider the documents of other Croatian rulers. Contemporary inscription on the sarcophagus of Queen Jelena says: „glorious Jelena, wife of King Mihajlo, mother of King Stephen. “ which gives us fact that even before Stjepan, his father Mihajlo Krešimir bared the title of king. Also King Peter Krešimir IV in one of his donation charts exposes the line of succession (very important for Croatian historiography) from the kings before Stjepan Držislav (again here Mihajlo Krešimir II or Krešimir Stariji).

I pointed to Director once that I'm historian an lawyer with diploma, so I would make a closing word here: Can we say beyond reasonable doubt that Tomislav was king?. Or can we say that he was not? For both questions, the answer is NO. There is to little contemporary evidence from Croatian medieval history that we could consider one or the other thesis as more accurate than other. Neven Budak states about this matter (Neven Budak, Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatska povijest srednjeg vijeka, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2006 and in Neven Budak, Prva stoljeća Hrvatske, Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada, Zagreb, 1994): Tomislav was first Croatian ruler that was adressed by Pope's Office as king. That was not to be seen as the result of formal act of coronation in which would Pope or Emperor give the royal insignia to the ruler, as it was the case with (Stjepan) Držislav or Zvonimir, but it is to be seen as further enhancing of the reputation of Croatian rulers. In despite of the lack of formal act, we can consider Croatia of that time as ‘’Kingdom’’, since Tomislav and his successors (especially from the middle of 10th century) consistently referred themselves as kings, but also the organization of government of that time corresponded to that degree of state organization.

At the end my opinion is that we should leave the Tomislav’s kingship intact but also to make some remarks in the article which take this dispute into consideration. Ro0103 (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the Pope's status during the middle ages (i.e. his right to grant the title of "king"). That however, is immeasurably far from actual scientific evidence that "Tomislav was crowned in 925". No contemporary evidence exists that even mentions any coronation, or any crown, or in fact - anything. Its that one word in the correspondence that this whole thing is based on.
Sigh... far be it from me however to insist on challenging the whole nationalist mythos. All right, lets leave him listed as King, but the nonsense about the mythical "coronation" has to be removed. Also, a verifiable source is necessary for the claim that "the Croatian state reached its largest territorial extent during Tomislav's reign." From what can be gathered it seems that this is the case with Peter Kreshimir IV the Great's reign, 150 years later. And, as far as I know, there are in fact no sources at all that describe the extent of Tomislav's reign. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Although some Croatian medievalists like N. Budak and I. Goldstein don't consider Tomislav to be first Croatian king (Budak on his lectures at FFZG teaches like that), most eminent Croatian medievalist T. Raukar (he is called "Croatian Le Goff", he wrote best book about Croatian middle ages up to date "Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje", member of HAZU, he recieved "Anton Gindely" reward in Czech Republic) considers Tomislav to be the first king. Of course, there is no space for Kukuljević's imagination for the crowning at Duvanjsko polje. But you should also note that Thomas the Archdeacon (a very reliable source) mentions Tomislav as dux (prince) in 914.

Here is what Raukar said ( http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=86129&lang=en ): "Uzmimo kao primjer pitanje je li Tomislav bio kralj ili nije. Ne valja izmišljati ništa o Tomislavu i stvarati velike konstrukcije. Ono što imamo, ono što je čvrsto i nepobitno jest pismo pape Ivana X. koje on upućuje Tomislavu „regi Crouatorum“ i Mihajlu „duci Chulmorum“. Papa, dakle, Tomislavu daje naslov rex, a Mihajlu Zahumskome naslov dux. On čini razliku između te dvije razine vlasti. Oni koji omalovažavaju tu činjenicu i koji, kao protuargument, ističu da i Gottschalk Trpimira naziva rex i da stoga titula rex ne znači nužno kraljevski naslov nego samo jednu od mogućih uglednijih vladarskih titula, mislim da nemaju pravo. Treba istaknuti da su u papinskoj kancelariji oduvijek sjedili iskusni, sposobni stručnjaci koji su vrlo oprezno upotrebljavali vladarske naslove. Kada papinska kancelarija u istome dokumentu nekoga oslovljava titulom rex, a nekoga dux, onda to ne čini slučajno, tu postoji neka razlika. Ali tu, na žalost, i historičarev posao prestaje. Mislim da smijemo, barem u obliku oprezne pretpostavke, ustvrditi da je Tomislav nosio kraljevski naslov. Sve drugo je izvan nas. Kako je Tomislav dobio taj naslov, gdje je bila krunidba i je li krunidbe uopće bilo, prema poznatoj građi ne može se utvrditi." Philosopher12 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

title (rulers, monarchs, ...)[edit]

I'm not actually terribly opposed to that other title, but it came in the middle of a huge process of cleaning up links to bans. In a bit, the database will have reshuffled a lot of template-induced linkage, and I'll do another pass. After that, I won't revert the same move if done again. Though it stands to reason that it could pass through the RM procedure, because the matching List of rulers of Hungary and List of rulers of Bohemia could follow suit, or not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

pictures (portraits)[edit]

I can see that somebody changed portrait pictures of several kings of native line to their modern, romantic depictions. Since in whole of article we have "real", contemporary depictions of rulers, my opinion is that we shoul only use these kind of portraits (contemporary and not modern, romantic). For example, if we have the plaque from the baptistery of Split for which is believed to represent Zvonimir, than we should use that image, and not modern one. Ro0103 (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms (Spanish Habsburgs)[edit]

Coat of Arms: The coat of arms shown is the one belonging to the Spanish Habsburgs, not related to Croatia. I believe shouldn't be the one in this article. (Panarobledo (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)).

Panarobledo, you are right. They are the arms of Charles V, who never reigned in Hungary or Croatia. I've replaced them with Habsburgs arms from a later date in which the arms of Croatia can also be seen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Date of Braslav's reign?[edit]

The article currently says that Braslav ruled Pannonian Croatia from 880 to 887. But the Braslav of Pannonian Croatia article says that his reign ended in 900 or 901 when the Hungarians conquered his country. So which is correct? What happened in the last few years of the Principality's independence, was Braslav still the ruler up to the time the Magyars invaded or was there another ruler in that short time? I would tend to think that the 900/901 figure makes more sense. --Hibernian (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

NDH[edit]

I adjusted some of the information in the NDH section and removed references to Aimone's son. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)