Talk:Ljudevit (Lower Pannonia)

message: What's wrong?
*bad italicisation
*links in headings
*seems to be too many unnecessary links
*missing capitalisation
Srnec 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: It seems that the Serbs mentioned here are people of the Srb county in Lika.
I won't edit anything concerning this for now, meaning a month or two. In the meantime, I would be grateful for any replies on this issue.Mor Vilkacis 23:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find any sources, place that here. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Serbs

message: It should be mentioned that the only surviving source for Ljudevit are Einhardt's annals, and since Einhard always glorified the Franks successes and usually didnt mention their defeats, the view on the entire event is pro-Frankish. An example is the fact that Einhard never mentions Franksih defeat, instead saying things like "they returned leaving their work mostly undone". Another is the amount of casualties Ljudevit suffers - 3000 men would be crippling casualties for a small early medieval state.
One more thing, Ljudevit didn't flee to Borna, but to Borna's uncle Ljudemisl, who at first accepted him, but then had him killed from ambush.
: Be bold, and corect it yourself. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Source 

message: A question posed to author of this posting:
What does this comment mean ? 
"...Southern Dalmatia Serb"?Kubura 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Serbs settled the southern, larger, half of the Province of Dalmatia; Croats settled the northern, slightly smaller, half of the Province (I'm not going to get into Illyricum & Praevalis complications). --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Many people use(d) double standards like User:Medule; at numerous occasions denying that these people are Croats and that Serbs lived from central Arboria to the river of Cetina at the same time... a very naughty thing to do. --PaxEquilibrium 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A question regarding comment

message: PE can you please explain what means "Western Bosnia"? I am removing the "western" because I think that is misleading. Do you talk about today Bosnia? Becuase if you do, that would be wrong since what is today "Western Bosnia" was part of Croatia in medieval times. So basically stating Ljudevit fled to western Bosnia would collide with the rest stated in the section. Western Bosnia in the terms of Ljudevit's time would be somewhere around river Bosna or Sana. That is why I also think theory about Ljudevit fleeing to Srb at Una is also 
completely wrong. Is it possible we can somehow incorporate this into the article without confusing those who don't know much about the history of the region? --Verancin 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Bosnia

message: "Pannonian Croatia" is a historical myth arisen in the 19-th century. The High medieval Lower Pannonia was a region, inhabitated by Slavic tribes whose names were lost. Later in medieval sources the region was called in latin Sclavonia (in general, a common Latin designation for various regions inhabited by Sclavoni (Slavs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclavonia), Windisches Land / Windischland by the Germans, Tótország by Hungarn and so on. A relatively later author Antun Vramec (second half of XVIth century) wrote about the Slavonian land as "Szlouenia / Szlouenzka zemla", land of the Slavs. Indeed, until the nineteenth century we have no mention of a Croatian Pannonia.
Among other things, the same term that in the Slavic languages designates Slavs in general (slovan / slaven / slavljan) is much later than the period addressed. And the Croatian term designating Slavonia is simply a linguistic cast from the Latin Sclavonia. Otherwise we would have the term Slavenija.
I would like to mention an important note in the en.wiki article Lower Pannonia (9th century): "Contemporary Latin sources referred to the polity as Pannonia inferior (Lower Pannonia).[4][8] In 19th- and 20th-century Croatian historiography, the focus was usually placed on the territories between the rivers Drava and Sava. They referred to the polity as "Pannonian Croatia" (Croatian: Panonska Hrvatska), to describe this entity in a manner that emphasized its Croatian nature mainly based on De Administrando Imperio (DAI) chapter 30.[11] While DAI claims that the Croats had moved into Pannonia in the 7th century and ruled over it, a modern analysis of sources indicates this was unlikely. ...The Croat name was not used in contemporary sources, until the late 9th century, rendering the name anachronistic before then;[11][12] While the term "Croat" was not used in sources about Pannonia, the rulers of the Trpimirović dynasty after Trpimir called themselves the rulers of the Croats and of the Slavs.[13]"
After the migrations following the arrival of the Turks the situation changed: the Croats lost all political political influence on the territory of their medieval kingdom, divided between the Venetians and the Ottomans. The political center of gravity shifted to the northern part of medieval Sclavonia, which was eventually designated "civil Croatia". With romanticism the Croatian politicians overcame every embarrassment, transforming the medieval language "szlouenzki" into the "Kajkavian dialect", the dominant language in the territory of the medieval Croatian kingdom was renamed "Chakavian dialect" while the language of refugees from the south became for them the "Shtokavian dialect "... implied dialects of the Croatian language, the language of a nation that underwent a second ethnogenesis "from above". But that's another story.
- Lower Pannonia is never mentioned under the name "Pannonian Croatia", which is an fabrication from the 19th century.
- Not even the presence of Croats in that region is confirmed. For the ninth century there is no data to confirm that the ruling class, of which Ljudevit was a member, was composed of Croats.
- In the following centuries until at least the beginning of the seventeenth century the sources in the four dominant languages ​​in that area (Latin, German, Hungarian and the local spoken language known to Anton Vramec with the name "szlouenzki iezik") refer to the Slavonia of that time with the generic terms of "Slavic country", to its people with the term "Slavs" and to the spoken with the term "Slavic language", often in contrast with the neighboring "Horvatski - croat" region, people and language.
It would be good if the English wikipedia expunged every anachronistic reference to a mythical "Croatian Pannonia". With regard to this, I also point out the controversial article Duchy of Pannonian Croatia, a pompous and historically insubstantial duplication of the already existing Lower Pannonia (9th century).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.235.155 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also second getting rid of the anachronistic, invented term "Pannonian Croatia".  Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pannonian Croatia" is a historical myth arisen in the 19-th century. 

message: I would like to express my concern with clearly historical revissionist edits by editor Bronzl in this and other articles related to the history of Slavs in the eastern alpine regions.
Most common such edits are replacing words related to Slav... with Slovene... as well as a complete disregard of history related to Croats.
We are dealing with a clear nationalist ans schauvinist editor. 
Personaly I am Slovene with phd in one of the historical disciplines so I know what I am talking about. Magpie4300 (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WATCH OUT! Bronzl revisionist edits