Talk:Narentines/Archive 2

message: For God's sake, Pax Equillibrium. "But Croatian identity appeared in Dubrovnik in the 20th century, or only a further later"? 
Following writers, beside others from 16th - 19th century (before the Age of Romantic National Awakenings) were explicit in declaring themselves as Croats and theirs language as Croatian : Vladislav Menčetić, Dominko (Dinko) Zlatarić, Bernardin Pavlović, Mavro Vetranović, Nikola Nalješković, Junije Palmotić, Jakov Mikalja, Joakim Stulli, Marko Bruerović, Peter Ignaz Sorgo, Michael Anton Sorgo, Giovanni Francesco Sorgo. No writer declared its language as Serb language. 
If you want sources, here's this:
Accroding to Graubard "during the Renaissance era, Venetian-ruled Dalmatia and Ragusa gave birth to influential intellectuals - mostly minor aristocrats and clergymen, Jesuits especially - who kept alive the memory of Croatia and the Croatian language when they composed or translated plays and books from Italian and Latin into the vernecular. No matter that the dialects of Dalmatia and Dubrovnik were different from each other [...] and both these dialects were somewhat different from the dialect of Zagreb, capital of the Hapsburg-ruled north. They still thought of it as Croatian. [...] The Dubrovnik poet Dominko Zalatarić (1555-1610) explained on the frontispiece of his 1597 translation of Sophocles' tragedy Elektra and Tasso's Aminta that it had been "iz veće tudieh jezika u Hrvacki izlozene," "translated from the great foreign languages in Croatian  (from Stephen R. Graubard (1998). A New Europe for the Old?, Transaction Publishers, ISBN 07658). 
More to follow. Kubura 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes; ofcourse. The Republic of Ragusa has been the centre of the Barroque Croatian linguistical corpus - no doubt of that. I meant "a little earlier", not later. I was refering to the national awakening. I think we all agree that the cosmopolistical Ragusians were free of that for a very long time. --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one said that they declared their language Serbian, you did. ;) However, a number of second-class writers and other linguists maintained their language Serbian. Among them is the most prominent man of the 19th century Dubrovnik (in the Age of National Awakening, Serbian nationality was strongest in Dubrovnik's area) is Medo Pucic (or better Orsatto di Pazza), a very good writer and a fierce Serb nationalist; then there are writers brothers Ivo and Lujo Vojinovic; then there's the owner of the Press Antun Fabris, then Pero Budmani, Ivo Kazancic, Luko Zore, Niko Pucic, Mato Vodopic, etc... --PaxEquilibrium 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about a period when a small number of people...mainly the elite agreed with the enforced policy within Serbian dominated 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' that all shtokavian speaking people are Serbs and that 'chakavians' were Croats. By that logic of course people of Dubrovnik were Serbs...there was only one small problem....none ever declared Dubrovnik in any important and valid historical document as Serbian or their language as Serbian. There are only mentions of Illyrian, Croatian, Latin/Roman. Afrika Paprika 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nearly all prominent individuals from that certain period, yeah. Amd tjat jas nothing to with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which was a century later. And the policy was not like that - it was Catholic=Croat and Orthodox=Serb. And we just spoke, of course they did (throughout the 19th and early 20th century and semi-through 16th, 17th and especially 18th). --PaxEquilibrium 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The movement grasping majority of the city's intelligence was hardly a small group of persons. 150 years isn't quite short-lived either. Same as the movement of Croats, except that it became a permanent fragment of the Croatian national being. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity of Dubrovnik

message: On this talk page vote is around 10:1 that population of Pagania are Slavs or Croats (not Serbs). In line with this consensus I will today change article. If words from Constantine need to be in article, then we will add information about Treaty of Aachen and how population of Byzantine Dalmatia has called this population of Pagania between VII and XI century.--Rjecina (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you count 10:1? Btw, a consensus derives from active discussion. Of course, I'd be glad into include into the article as much info as possible. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: P.S. What Treaty of Aachen are you referring to? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Peace treaty with which war between Byzantium and Franks has ended in 812. I will be surprised if you will question this source  ? --Rjecina (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just didn't know about it. Anyway, of what relevance is it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The fight is over. :) The Narentines of today are more than half a millennium after the Paganians were extinct. Compromise has been made. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As true as it may be (only that one source), historiography (global, not just Serbian and even in some cases Croatian) has accepted that for the past few hundreds of years. It is actually most probable that he called the Serbs because of Serbian statehood. After all, being a Serb or a Croat back then (beyond the very centers of the two peoples) is plainly categorized by which state do the Slavs in question belong. It makes no sense though that the Emperor made that because he just wanted something. Yes they fell to Croatian influence, or better said became a part of Croatia, in the second half of the 11th century, staying that way until the Serbs conquered it a century later. Back to mother state of Croatia is impossible, but in the end they were assimilated into Croats, mostly seen through their Chakavian dialect. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No, Zenanarh, Zenanarh, I am not defending any POV, I am just stating that all Serbian, Croatian and international historians used, and mostly use DAI, as a source. There is no such thing as a quantity of reliability, only interpretations of works as themselves. It was compiled by Constantine the himself and several of his co-workers (specifically employed by him to study the Byzantine Secret Archives and get information from the Slavic lands themselves). A major basis for the part on the Serbo-Croats comes from the early 9th century Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor (in precise some put it at 814), a Byzantine ecclesiastical chronicler. The pieces about Slavic settlement are but a minor set of the DAI and I am not aware that the rest of the work is inaccurate. There are some inaccuracies, in the linguistic messing and that around toponyms, but most things that are disputed are the various interpretations of the Tractate. The 11th, 12th and 13th centuries famous Byzantine chroniclers begin with the creation of the world more than six thousand years before, and even make various interpretations trying to (on the basis of the skill of linguistics) connect it to contemporary sites and peoples - after, the very same thing historians do still today. For some time, for example, it was thought that De Administrando Imperio was written by just the Emperor himself, then 50% of the things supposedly compiled by John Scylitzes - turned out to not be true after all. Should we discredit everything the legendary Ferdo Sisic found, just because he was oh-so-much wrong about one of those Adriatic forgeries/edicts? Time tells. Perhaps one day we shall reveal that the Croats indeed did receive their name as a derivation from "large People"... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbs/Slavs/Croats

message: For christ's sake, we have been going round and round in circles since 2006.
I have been doing quite a bit of research about the early slavic balkan states- our knowledge of which is the poorest.
Just to clarify my position :
We cannot say that Paganians are either Serbs or Croats, there is just not enough mentioning of Pagans. THeir importance declined after 1000 when the venetians finally defeated them, and their pirateering declined. THen the area became known as the frontier region
We cannot ascribe our modern understanding of ethno-national orientation to a people 1500 years ago ! THey were quite independent, so they were probably neither 100% croat nor 100% serb. The thing is, serbs and croats back then were too similar to have had distinguishable material culture that we can look back at and interpret as characteristically Serbian or Croatian.
AS for DAI, which clearly states that Pagans were Serbs. One interpretation offered by  Florin Curta is that COnstantine says that they are Serbs because when he wrote the book (ie 900s), the Pagans were allied with / under the authority of the Serb princes (Peter, then Caslav).
AS for the chronicle of the priest of DUklja, most western scholars dismiss it as a reliable source. It reads like a mythologic account of DUklja's rulers.
What we have to realise is that the western south slavs (in the 700s onwards) were virtually the same people divided into different tribes/ zhupanias/ 'states'. Croat and Serb was a clan or tribal label of just two of these many groups. THey tended to be more powerful, that's why at times, they ruled over others, like Pagania or BOsnia, etc. But, i re-iterate, we cannot say that Pagans identified as Serbs or Croats because:
1) They were their own tribe/ territory that only sometimes formed alliances with the Serb archonts or Croat dukes
2) THey were all ethnically the same (or very similar) so debating whether they were Serbs or Croats is a mute point
3) Serb and Croat only came to refer to a distinct ethnos much later.
A fair (and correct) way of depicting Pagania and other slavic duchies in the early 9th century is as the map i have
constructed
Hxseek (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hxseek 

message: Hey, what's this? Someone speaks about my "outright deleting", but on the other hand, calmly deletes the sections I created, together with my references  (Ivan Mužić: Hrvatska povijest 9. stoljeća, Naklada Bošković, Split, 2006   and Mate Suić, Nekoliko spojnica i razdjelnica između Nina i Knina. Iz starije hrvatske povijesti. In: Starohrvatska spomenička baština. Rađanje prvog hrvatskog pejsaža. Zagreb, 1996., p. 165-167). 
We cannot work this way. Kubura (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting of section and sources 

message: I am interested to see other historical sources which are telling that population of Pagania are Serbs if this is true. Reason for that is that I can without problem show sources which are calling them Slavs. For example I will write here statement from Vita Hludowici which are speaking about events in AD 817:
"Legatio autem, excoepta amicitia et sotietate, erat de finibus Dalmatorum, Romanorum et Sclavorum"
This is from section which are speaking about Byzantine delegation which has visited Aachen to reach agreement with Frankish Empire about problems between different nations which are living in old Roman province of Dalmatia.--Rjecina (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are none at all, and DAI is the very sole one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Herceg-bosna isn't very a nice source to pull to, but still - that still doesn't change the fact that its the sole one. Just as its the sole source for a lot of Serbo-Croat early history (rulers, etc). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: What does this quote mean??
Some story about "United states of Serbia" again from Arkan??? --Anto (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: krajina???

message: I've reverted this edit . Duchy of Croatia was the neighbour of Pagania, and you cannot neglect that. Kubura (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of revert 

message: Made some changes. What do you think? Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello Mr Stambuk!