Talk:Ljudevit (Lower Pannonia)

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

About the Serbs
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)


 * If you find any sources, place that here. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Source
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)

Clarified Croat Connection
iruka 08:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed link to Medieval state of Croatia instead of previous Pannonia b/c more relevant;
 * Changed Slav link to Croats;
 * Changed Pannonian reference to Pannonian Croats b/c better reflects actual population of the time and it's role as a forerunner to the Kingdom of Croatia;
 * Removed refernce to expanding "Croatian lands eastward" as it represents an opinion based on a certain interpretation of the annals;
 * Removed reference to controlling much of Dalmatia as it caries little meaning because the roman province of Dalmatia wcovered an extensive area.

But you also removed mentions of Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction - Removed mention of Serbs in 'introduction' b/c carries little relevance to his rule & b/c it's already covered in whole section in the main article devoted to Serbs. iruka 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Partial rv
 * returned link to Medieval state of Croatia b/c directly relevant - Ljudevit was a duke of the medieval Croat state in Pannonia. However made link to Pannonia article at the start of the main article;
 * kept reference to Serbs in introduction, but rewrote to give more context.
 * Changed Slav link to Croats - again b/c relevance. Ljudevit was the Duke of Pannonian Croats, Borna, Duke of Dalmatian Croats;
 * Changed Dlamatia link to History of Dalmatia link - b/c more relevant. Created Dalmatia link elsewhere in article.
 * Changed Pannonian reference to Pannonian Croats b/c better reflects actual population of the time and it's role as a forerunner to the Kingdom of Croatia.
 * iruka 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed refernce to expanding "Croatian lands eastward" as it represents an opinion based on an interpretation of the Frankish annals. iruka 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's better. :) However, I don't see your reformulation in the intro - while he ruled the Serbs, he did not rule the Croats - so why change that part. Also, his expansions of the Croatian state eastwards are completely logical - never did a Croatian state include Syrmia, for instance. --PaxEquilibrium 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you explain by what you mean he didn't rule the Croats. The precursor of the kingdom of Croatia was comprise of Croat Dukedoms in Pannonia and Dalmatia corresponding to Pannonian Croat and Dalmatian Croat populations. iruka 13:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He fled; abandoned his real - and never restored - rule over the Croats. This reflects that he ruled Pannonia, and then extended his territories to include Serbia - but he did no such thing. He stopped being the Croat ruler - and became the Serb ruler (of a totally different political faction). In the end he lost that throne as well, leaving him to live in further exile in the heart of his enemy - which eventually brought death upon him. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you mean now. I've rewritten to correct that ambiguity - can you pls review; also added the significance Ljudevit's in laying groundwork for unification of Pannonian & Dalmatian Croatian Duchies. iruka 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with extending lands eastward remark is that the borders between the various medieval entities were very fluid, and the question of permanancy or when it happened is highly debateable. Croatia's borders moved east and west and finally adopted a crescent shape as a result of Turkish expansion and Hasburg counter-response.  Serbia's moved east & west, south until it moved north.  These developments ebb and flow and one cannot point to a decisive moment for such historical phenomena. iruka 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, historians always (up to the 1990s - I guess the brake-up-of-Yugo-disease cough up with them) noted (read: always with no exception) that this was the first panYugoslavic attempt, unifying Slovenes, a large number of Croats and even many Serbs (speaking about futuristic nations, normally - or better "Pannonians", "Timokians", "Karantanians", etc.). His attempts were often called upon by Alexander Karadjordjevic, the Illyrists and other similar people. And I personally believe that his attempts made no relevance to the actual unification of all Croat lands - but pan-Slavic gathering. --PaxEquilibrium 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A question regarding comment
A question posed to author of this posting: What does this comment mean ? "...Southern Dalmatia Serb"?Kubura 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

a reply on Kubura's talk page:
 * 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)


 * 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)

Western Bosnia
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)

Name
Is the present title of the article based on reliable sources published in English? He is mentioned as Liudewit in at least four modern scholarly work published in English: (1) Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4. (2) Goldberg, Eric J. (2006). Struggle for Empire: Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German, 817–876. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-7529-0. (3) Bowlus, Charles R. (1994). Franks, Moravians and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3276-3. (4) McCornick, Michael (2001). Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, AD 300–900. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66102-1. In other works, also published in English, he is mentioned as Ljudevit (Tanner, Marcus (1997). Croatia: A Nation Forged in War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-16394-0 and Fine, John V. A. (2006). When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Period. The Universisty of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11414-6) or Ljudevit of Pannonia (Magaš, Branka (2007). Croatia Through History. SAQI. ISBN 978-0-86356-775-9). Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support changing "Posavski" to "of Posavina". "Liudewit" also sounds reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above cited sources suggest that "Liudewit" is his most common English name, without any adjective. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If most scholarly works indeed use Liudewit, move to "Liudewit", without byname.--Z oupan 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Ljudevit+Pannonia+819&tbm=bks&pws=0 last page says 106 results
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Liudewit+Pannonia+819&tbm=bks&pws=0 last page says 21 results
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Ljudevit+Franks+819&tbm=bks&pws=0 can't seem to get to last page, says about 286 results
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Liudewit+Franks+819&tbm=bks&pws=0 last page says 25 results
 * On the first set, in the first 20, six are Croatian-looking authors, but still in English. Looks to me that the former spelling is far more common, so I'm inclined to move it back to "Ljudevit". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I get 121, 17, 75, 23. So, yes, a move to Ljudevit, as per CN.--Z oupan 03:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that the present title can be properly pronounced even by readers who do not know Croatian alphabet (I assume that "j" is pronounced in Croatian as "y" in "yes", not as "j" in "jelousy" or "journal"). Borsoka (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We could add IPA.--Z oupan 06:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Liudewit isn't a panacea because it could still easily be pronounced 'liew-dew-it', so it gets a different vowel in the middle. Both spellings are clearly foreign and opaque to English speakers, so there's no big gain either way as far as that aspect is concerned. Heck, the word is pretty archaic even to Croatian speakers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Pannonian Croatia" is a historical myth arisen in the 19-th century.
"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)


 * I also second getting rid of the anachronistic, invented term "Pannonian Croatia". Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WATCH OUT! Bronzl revisionist edits
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)