Talk:Ljutovid of Zahumlje

Slavic versus Serbian

 * The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer, p. 42-43: "if the idea of developing a thema of Serbia existed briefly, it was swiftly abandoned and the title strategos passed to the local aristocracy. In a charter issued July 1039 the Slavic ruler of Zahumlje styled himself "Ljutovit, protospatharios epi tou Chrysotriklinou, hypatos, strategos of Serbia and Zahumlje." Ljutovid's claim to be strategos not only of Zahumlje, but all Serbia suggests that he had been courted by the emperor, and awarded nominal rights neighbouring lands, including Duklja, which was at the time at war with the empire. Moreover, if we can trust the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, our only narrative source, we must conclude that none of the Serbian lands was under direct Byzantine control in 1042. In that year, we are told, the ban of Bosnia, župan of Raška, and Slavic princeps of Zahumlje (Chelmana), Ljutovid, received Byzantine ambassadors offering piles of imperial silver and gold to support imperial efforts against the ruler of neighbouring Duklja, Stefan Vojislav. The use of Latin princeps, rather than iupanus or banus, to describe Ljutovid, supports the notion that he held the supreme authority among the Serbs at the time." Comment: Ban is a Slavic title, Zupan as well, Princeps is not, and therefore the author uses "Slavic princeps of Zahumlje" and "The use of Latin princeps, rather than iupanus or banus, to describe Ljutovid, supports the notion that he held the supreme authority among the Serbs at the time". I advice Kebeta to stop deleting facts of Zahumlje connected to Serbs.--Zoupan (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the sources used label him as Slavic ruler, that is the label we'll use. When either you or Kebeta find a source that labels him as Serb/Croat/Bosnian then the label should be changed. However, in the 11th century there wasn't much of a difference as these national identities were formed much later.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)