Talk:History of Vojvodina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Croats

Hi,

Now the article is quite good but there is one thing that get in my eye. The Croats are noted here as minotiry and they are proclamed that Bunjeci and Šokci are not Croats. Basically I do not agree with that and I think that this thing should be changed.

Also the articel is written from Serbian point of view and the thing that could be missleading. The reader would not read the fact that most of the history part of Vojvodina between Sava and Dunav belonged to Croatia and it has become part of serbia only recently.

Aditionaly. In the part of 1990 there is not mentionig of violence over Croats. Something like 50,000 of Croats were forced by serbs to leave vojvodina.

To answer you: Bunjevci and Šokci do not consider themselves Croats, so why we should write that they are Croats? Second thing: part of Vojvodina between Sava and Danube (Srem) for most of its history DID NOT belonged to Croatia. That is not "Serbian point of view" but simple historical fact: in the Middle Ages that area was county in the Kingdom of Hungary (and it did not had any connection with Croatia), during Ottoman rule it was Ottoman sanjak, during Habsburg rule it was part of the Military Frontier (which also did not had any connection with Croatia). Srem also did not "become part of Serbia only recently" because it was part of Voivodship of Serbia from 1849 to 1860 and it was also known as Serbia (Rascia) long before that. See for example this map from 1661 where Srem is mentioned under name Rascia (Serbia): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Rascia01.jpg (and not only Srem, but Slavonia too). And I never heard about violence against Croats in Vojvodina in 1990. PANONIAN (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian history

Croats have historically lived in Vojvodina. There is no reason why it should not be categorized under Croatian history. Mind you, this is not categorized under History of Croatia because Vojvodina is obviously not a part of Croatia. Such categorization is similar to the categorizing of Lika under Serbian history. --Thewanderer 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the article about history of Vojvodina and about its peoples. Vojvodina is part of Serbia. In history some of its parts were parts of Croatia. Why is wrong to write that down (it is a past tense)

--Ceha 10:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is NOT history about peoples, it is ONLY history of Vojvodina. There is separate article about history of Serbs in Vojvodina, there is also separate article about Danube Swabians, etc. If you want, you can write separate article about Croats in Vojvodina, and then put it into category "Croatian history". PANONIAN (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Part of anybody's history are its relations to its neighbours. By looking that relationsips you can beter understand its past and future. --Ceha 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Lika, it should not be categorized under "Serbian history". It should be categorized only under "Geography of Croatia", and not under history of any kind. If categorization there is wrong, that does not mean that this one should to be wrong too. PANONIAN (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting changes

--Ceha 10:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) To Pannonian. Deleting somebody articles is considered vandalism. At least validate your clames that my informations are incorrect.

-Ljudevit Posavski ruled a state which included even parts of today "uža" Serbia (Timocani were also part of his rebelion) and it lasted just 3 years. After that Franks crushed the rebellion, and more after that Bulgarians marched in (some historians claim even they send ships along river Drava).
Timočani also lived in western Srem, and that very well cohere with this map which show that only western Srem belonged to Pannonian Croatia (please provide a source for different claims):
-After the death of Vladislav II his territories very given to other vassals of Hungarian king. Some of them were probably Serb (to him there were only vassals).
Stefan Dragutin and Vladislav II are two DIFFERENT person. Vladislav II was a vassal of the Hungarian king, but Stefan Dragutin was independent ruler. PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it is not clear from the text. Vladislav is Stefan's son, and it looks like he inherited his father as independent ruler of Srem kingdom. --Ceha 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Some of historians (mostly from Croatia) note that Syrmium was part of Kingdom of Slavonia (different opinions are used that this article would be NPOV)
So? The article already claim that it was part of the Kingdom of Slavonia. What is a problem? PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But later:) Parts of Syrmia were part of Slavonia from at least 12th century (you got references at the end of discusion page) --Ceha 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-I don't see why other (non Serb population) is not mentioned when is spoken of turkish rule. Also I don't know any census which took place at that time. If you have some knowledge about it (some neutral please, I wouldn't like to ride fairy tales:) please tell me so.
It is because during Turkish rule almost entire population of Vojvodina was composed of Serbs. There were no Hungarians and Croats in Vojvodina in that time. Only Serbs and Muslims (with some Bunjevci and Šokci, who were not Croats in that time). Also, there were no censuses in the Ottoman time, but there were Ottoman defters (tax records), and the first Habsburg censuses from 1715 and 1720 confirming the data from these Ottoman defters. PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you now they were not Croats at that time? Most of them thinks of themselves as Croats (Census from ex-Yugoslavia), it should not be fair that somebody else tels them who their grandfatheres were:) And why do you think there were no Hungarians there? They existed in period before Otoman conquest. Do you have some population census from were you get your data or? --Ceha 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Also your informations about census in Slavonia. As to my knowledge Serbs didn't have more than 30 percent in it (25 if my memory is correct). Were do you get your data?
If Serbs were 30% of population in one time period, that does not mean that they always participated with that percent. My source is this book: Peter Rokai, Zoltan Djere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasas, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002. Since the book is written by Hungarian historians, not by Serbian, I do not see why you would not believe that it is true. Also, it only show data for 1790, and in that time eastern Syrmia (populated only with Serbs) was part of the Kingdom of Slavonia, thus, those Serbs are not only those from Slavonia, but also those from Srem. PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, eastern, predominatley Syrmia was counted in that census. When I found its sources I will shown it to you (probably by Monday), I should really look it up:) --Ceha 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Article about changing the borders of Vojvodina was correct. Why was it deleted?
What article? PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all. I would apritiate that you read [[1]] before you make any further changes. This article shuld be NPOV and not bias. It should be based on historical facts and not on their ignoration. As I wroted before, Vojvodina is Serbian now (and in future) which nowbody denies. It had a very long history (if you live in it) and is something you should be pride of and not ashamed. --Ceha 10:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Vojvodina is Serbian for last 500 years, because Serbs are ethnic majority here since 1526, just to be correct about this. PANONIAN (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In this article I don't see any facts about that (there are not enough censuses, statistics from which you can conclude that up), you can correct me up:) Last 500 years were very mixed in population of Vojvodina. How many percents of population had Germans had? --Ceha 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

AAAARGH!. Ceha, please take a break. I've just wasted half an hour copyediting your contributions to the Vojvodina article, and now you're repeating them here. Let me suggest the following to resolve the issue(s):

  • Please leave the Vojvodina article intact for a moment (I'll explain later).
  • Please complete editing of this article as you see fit.
  • I'll go after you and make only copyediting in this article.
  • After that, let's discuss your contribution. For the very start, I disagree with your references to Kingdom of Croatia which ceased to exist in 12th century.
  • After we (hopefully) settle the issues, Vojvodina#History section should be shortened, as it's already overlong.

OK? Peace? Duja 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry:) Flip-floping is silly and should stop. I'm always for dialogue and we can allways talk about my contribution to the article. It is in interest of everybody to make this a splendid article. History pages should be shortened, but it will be difficult as this is a region very rich in history. Article was very POV when I started making changes and it seems to me that that have changed:)

  • Kingdom of Croatia did not ceased in 12th century, it only got a new king (it changed of course as new king was also king of Hungary, and with introduction of feudalism). Every king of the state which embraced today Croatia (minus Otoman empire) till 1918 had in its title king of Croatia One could argue that Croatian kingdom existed only in name (which were true in numerous short occasions, Bachs apsolutism etc.) but in most of that time Croatia had some form of autonomy.

And I don't see why this should be hidden. Parts of today Vojvodina have in past been part of Croatia. In one point in time Croatia could have become part of Mongolian Empire ('Tatarian raid'). It is all in past, and I don't see why it should not be mentioned, as it had an great impact on the region. It would be as we say that history of United states was made only from persons of English origin. There is no war between us:) Ceha 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course every king had "king of Croatia" among his titles (it's quite usual that a monarch has the title containing "the emperor of Bar, the king of Foo, the duke of Baz and the prince of Boo"), but that doesn't make then-Hungary "a Croatian kingdom". Croats had some forms of autonomy under Austro-Hungarian rule but it still was de facto an Austro-Hungarian rule. To overemphasize, since (probably) Hungarian king was a "something of Galicia" among other things, should we mention that Vojvodina was part of Galicia at the time?Duja 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't start working on spelling, as I saw Pannonian is back, and I'm waiting for his comments (possibly, his axe as well :-) ). Duja 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Main difference is that some parts of Vojvodina (not whole) were part of Croatia at that time (Syrmian border). If you have some atlas from ex-Yu you can check it up:) So my statment is true in that sence:)

--Ceha 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Croatia did not ceased in 12th century, it only got a new king (it changed of course as new king was also king of Hungary"

What have Croatia to do with this article? In that time you speaking about Croatia was where is now Dalmatia, and the region where is now Zagreb was Slavonia, not Croatia.

"And I don't see why this should be hidden. Parts of today Vojvodina have in past been part of Croatia."

All these time periods are already mentioned in the article. What is a problem? PANONIAN (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, Ceha, your changes one by one:

  • You want to write name Croatia in the list of INDEPENDENT countries to which Vojvodina belonged in history, and as far as I know, it never belonged to independent Croatia.
  • As for Ljudevit, if you provide some source which claim that ENTIRE Srem belonged to his state, I would agree to write that here.
  • I wrote now in the article that Stefan Dragutin was both, vassal of the Hungarian king and the facto independent ruler. The Vladislav II was another story, but it is already written in the article about him.
  • Refference that king of Hungary was also a king of Croatia is IRRELEVANT. This article is not about titles of the king of Hungary, and since he had many titles, we cannot write only this one, and not to write all other.
  • There were no Hungarians and Croats in Vojvodina during Ottoman rule.
  • The 1790 population figure for the kingdom of Slavonia is a correct one, thus, no reason to delete it. These Serbs are not only those from Slavonia, but from both, Slavonia and Srem.
  • As for the borders of Vojvodina in 1918, that edit is ok, I will return that to the article with some changes.
  • Šid belonged to Danube Banovina in 1929, thus, there were no such border changes in 1945. PANONIAN (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian history

Either the Serbian category should be removed; or Croatian and other national categories added.

Note that several articles, including

See Ljudevit Posavski. It's my article. As far as I know, he rulled only a bit of Srijem, the majority was only vassalaged to him.

Note that Srijem was Croatian up to the conquests of Bulgarian Czar Simeon that took entire Srijem from the Kingdom of Croatia.

Note that also, bits of Vojvodina were a part of the Croatian Banate 1939-1941 and the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1945.

Croats are, anyway, one of the constitutional peoples of Vojvodina for a while (Croatian language), so it is sufficient to put the category. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbian category is a "History of Serbia", not "History of the Serbs". There is now separate category for the history of the Serbs, and this article is not there:

As for the "constitutional peoples", Vojvodina (and Serbia) have no constitutional peoples. Serbia is a state of the citizens. Vojvodina have only official languages, but languages and peoples are not same thing. I just sorted these categories dealing with the history of Croats and history of Serbs. Only the articles which are really about history of Croats or Serbs or about important historical regions or provinces with Serb and Croat population should be there. The history of present day regions like Vojvodina, Lika or Herzegovina do not belong there.

As for claim that Srem belonged to Croatia before the Bulgarian conquest, where you read that? As far as I know, Croatia in that time was where is now Dalmatia. See this:

I do not see on these maps (or on other which I have in my computer) that entire Srem belonged to Croatia in the Medieval Ages. Do you have some other map or source, which show different? PANONIAN (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you mention of other peoples on territory of Serbia offends you? Celts also lived in territory of Vojvodina. So what? Why do you delete them, when is obvious that thay have lived in that territory and contributed to its hostory. As for Srijem I answered you on the Syrmia page. Times History of the world. And Croatia was not were now is Dalmatia:) There were two kingdoms (northern and southern). As I said there it only lasted for 3 years, after that Bulgarians conqured Srijem. In Banac's book he says that Bulgarians even invaded Drava whith ships and tried to conquer whole of Panonnian Croatia (but they were repoulsed and forced to return by Franks). But I didn't see that he used confirmed sorces for that. Anyhow, after the crush of Ljudevit's rebelion, Panonnian Croatia was prety much a battlefield. Ceha 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) --For status of central and eastern Syrmia it is possible that it was just a vassalage of Ljudevit as Timocani were his allies. In Times Atlas of the world history it is marked as part of "state of Ljudevit" Ceha 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Ok, I reverted some minior changes. I puted Croatia in the list of the countries above, because as Hungarian king was also and Croatian one (ethniclly great period of the time was not hungarian, but french, so this is not important:) and as Croatia see itself as one of the states which grow from that union of kingdoms... Ceha 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"I don't see why you mention of other peoples on territory of Serbia offends you?"

Who say that this offends me? What offends me is if somebody want to post WRONG information into article, no matter about what that information is.

My changes are not wrong, evrything I puted in has its background.

"Celts also lived in territory of Vojvodina. So what? Why do you delete them, when is obvious that thay have lived in that territory and contributed to its history."

Who deleted Celts? Read article better, they are there.

Didn't mean about deletation of celts:) I mentioned them in context that you delete unncesery from articles some facts that Croats lived in Vojvodina (or just minorizing their contribution to its history)

"As for Srijem I answered you on the Syrmia page. Times History of the world."

All right, the explanation for the state of Ljudevit is ok, but I will rewrite that part in more scientific manner.

"I puted Croatia in the list of the countries above, because as Hungarian king was also and Croatian one"

Can you understand that it is a list of the INDEPENDENT states, and can you understand that Hungarian king was also a king of SERBIA, and many other countries? And finally, can you understand that this is not history of Croatia? PANONIAN (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is history of Vojvodina. Shouldn't it been important that you see evrything what happened on that territory? I don't see why you are makeing differences betwen Croat and Serbian histories? If that territory were at some time part of France you should put it there because it happend that way. Why can't you understand that? Ceha

  • I simply asked you to provide sources for your claims, nothing more. PANONIAN (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian king was "de jure" king of Croatia & Slavonia (which encluded large parts of Syrmia) and "de jure" king of Rascia, but there is a deference betwen this two titles, as Rascia was his title of king of Rascia was highly contested (for most of the time he didn't have any rights there, and this was only a pretension to that kingdom) and in Slavonia he had at least some power- State union between Croatia and Hungaria could be also interpretated as union of two independent countries with same kings. Look at your arguments in the case of "Srem" kingdom. What is indepence to you then? Ceha 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that you worked part of Ljudevit ok. My arguments for mentioning Croatian kingdom stil stands, and you should put in that part (and somethimes whole) Srijem was part of Slavonian Kingdom (look for Povijesni atlas from ex Jugoslavia, you could see in it that in 14th century Sremska Mitrovica was part of Croatia), and not part of Kingdom of Hungary (we are speaking of "de jure" kingdoms again). Ceha 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen: In the Kingdom of Hungary, Srem was seen as integral part of the Kingdom, not part of vassal Croatia. Please see this historical map of Hungary from the 13th century and then stop this discussion about the title of the Hungarian king. You see here where is Srem, where is Slavonia, and where is Croatia:

As for Stefan Dragutin, I wrote both, that he vas a vassal, and later independent ruler, so you do not have to repeat this (vassal and "governor of the province" are same things. As for indepence, I think that the level of independence was similar in the cases of Ljudevit and Stefan Dragutin, thus if you claim that the state of Ljudevit was a state, then it was also a state of Stefan Dragutin. And spare me the medieval "legality" here, please. PANONIAN (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See more maps:

See where is Hungary and where is Croatia in the 11th century:

Now see where they were in the 15th century:

Now see the map of de facto independent states at the beginning of the 14th century when the central power in Hungary collapsed:

PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Stefan Dragutin, his state was made from both, the lands that formerly belonged to Hungary and the lands that formerly belonged to Serbia. Hungarian king simply could not to make him a "governor of province" in the lands that belonged to Serbia and not to Hungary before this. PANONIAN (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If I were mean I'd just sad that Hungarian king was also and Serbian king:) He maid him gouvernor of territories outside of Serbia. It was common practise. Bela IV has given territories(Gradišće) to govern to Habsubrg emperor when he was fleeing the Mongols. Later he took them back. I've seen all of this images. Had you seen large maps of Europe every hundred years (Caucaus included)? Their borders are a bit different:) Ok, but you should write when the central autority in Hungary was reestablished and what was its consequences for Vojvodina. In ths way you have left gaps in its history --Ceha 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are many gaps in the article, not only this one, I agree, but my sources are mainly about history of serbs in Vojvodina, thus I do not have much information about other non-Serb local rulers of the region to write about them (I found information about Ugrin Čak, and I wrote this). Also, the situation about Ugrin Čak and stefan Dragutin is not quite clear. Seems that only Ugrin Čak ruled over present day Vojvodina, while one source claim that Ugrin Čak was a vassal of Stefan Dragutin, thus the rule of Stefan Dragutin over Vojvodina was only nominal. Also, Stefan Dragutin certainly was not governor, but rather "ban" (if he really got that lands only to govern them), but he in fact got these lands as a "possesion". As for the maps of Europe you refering to, are that maps from Euratlas? Which of them is different in the case of Srem? PANONIAN (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was not certanly not governor:), but that word was first thing I could think of, and I think that at that moment it served it purpuse. As I remember (unfortunutly I can not quote you the source, it was a long time ago I read this:) that in statment ('povelja' is original name I can't think of apropriate translation now) those lands (Usora, Soli and Mačva) are given to him as lands of Hungary (now goes the full title of the king, names including Croatia:) for gouvernship ('na upravu' was stated in original I read) unfortunatley I didn't cheked it up for their trutfullnes, but book was of some prestigious historian, so there was no need at that moment for that (I'll try this weekend to dig something up, and if I am sucksesfull in it I'll let you know:).

I remembered commentary that in that statment it is clearly shown that those lands are not given to any other king, but rather that Hungarian king still views them as part of its kingdom(s) And for the maps, it could be from EuroAtlas, I still have them at my comp(unfortunetly this doesn't have Caucaus in it, I lost that map:) but on this the region of Vojvodina is clearlly visible(it is showing area in the year of 1300) . Sirmia is shown as vassal kingdom of Hungaria(upper Sirmia,not lower), together with Soli, Macva, and Usora (for Usora there were not enough place, so from its name you can see just Oz:) It is (in your words:) "de facto" and not "de jure" map. If you wont I can put it on the wiki. It is big, it has 285 kb, but I could shorten it a bit:) Ceha 2:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have that map in my computer too. This map is a good example about difference between "de facto", and "de jure", and a clear proof that map based on the "de jure" concept does not show the correct information. Another example is that Hungarians claimed that a lands which Ottomans took in 1526 were still "de jure" property of Hungary. "De jure" concept depends of who claim what and who recognize this claim, and if the "de jure" concept is not in accordance with the "de facto" situation, then it is only one POV, and not historical fact. I will give you one example: to whom "de jure" belong Kashmir, since India, Pakistan and China claim the region or its parts. The most accurate geographical atlases show only the "de facto" line of control in Kashmir, not the line of any "de jure" claims. PANONIAN (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir is disputed territory. It was "de jure" part of India as it was given to her at the time of making Indo-Pakistani border(shah of Kashmir decided for India when Pakistanis attacked), but India had obligation to conduct a referendum in that territory (UN-resolution) which it did not held. In most of the atlases borders lines in Kashmir are marked with difrent color (or in some other way) to show that this is not internationally recognised border, but just "de facto" state. Maybe good example would be Somalia, or Columbia (I don't mean to offend anybody, it is just a analogy, maybe wrong one) in which we have parts of that state which are clearly "de facto" independent, due to lack of central gouverment, but not "de jure". Or interwar China in 20th century in which due to the war with Japan and Chinese civil war (nationalists against comunsts) we had a bunch of warlords which did not respond to anybody.

Medieval is similar to that state. It is time of many small vassals (warlords, but this is maybe a bad word:) which had somebody bigger behind them, so some bad neighbour wouldn't take to much of the kingdoms lands. It must be some level in which we say than somebody has a indipendent state (if looking by the vassalage we can argue that every local ruler of castle was independent, which would be foolish:) In my opinion (but this is POV) independence is acheaved in the way of Bosnia's king Tvrtko. Before that Bosnia was vasal state (to Hungaria, and many other before that), but after him any other ruler of that kingdom used title of King, no matter about his vassalage. This was not the case with Dragan's state:( Maybe you should put that that lands were given to him as banate, and at the time of dinastic troubles he ruled his realm as independent kingdom, but after new king consolidated his power, his decendants were forced to give up that title (I'll try to find that charter in which his title were shown). But that only speaks of the lands on which Hungarian kings looked as his own (if I'm not mistaken parts of Dragans state were nominally parts of Rascia, and Dragans ancestors ruled them long before him?) "De jure" concept depends of whom recognases that condition. Without it every castle would be a state. "De jure" concept has in it some higher meaning that european states at the time were not just blood-thirsty (which they partially were:) but also had some civilisation in it. Your neighbours had to recognise "de facto" state for state independence. In other words "de jure" indepence meant that your state was recognized by neighbouring big-powers and that was guaranty for state survival. As for 1526. Ottoman emperor did not take souverenty from Hungarian. He only tried to make him his vassal (I don't now about territory of Vojvodina, and it's southern borders), as was shown in Zapolja-Habsburg war for Hungarian thrown? If Ottomans took Vojvodina, then hungarian nobles would not be able to return to it. To my knowledge (I could be mistaken, I have not enough certifide data about that), only after Ottomans established Sanjak of Buda did the Hungarians lost large parts of land(correct me if I'm mistaken). In most time of that period large peaces of Hungarian kingdom(s) where no mans land, as civil war raged. Form hungarian POV Ottoman goverment was just 200 years old ocupation, and most of the non hungarian population who lived in that territory just colaborators which should be forced out(offcourse that included and all aboriginal population which they labeled as not coopertional). Habsburg king ruled that territory as Hungarian king(ok, now you can speak about all of its titles:), but practise of that time was that you can not just attack somebody, without (even) falsifaing some claimes to it (which would mean you had weak neighbours:) or rather cooperational ones:) If I'm not mistaken nobles from that territory went to Hungarian parlament? History parts of that period in Hungary and Croatia are characterized as ressistance to Vienas-centralism, and politics of the cort to that area was divide and conquer, so you should probablly put in article that Emperor played them against each other (Hungarians who wanted to take that area and Serbs who were relative majority). Also I'm suprised that you didn't mention Jelacic anywhere in this article (see history of Croatia). He was from Petrovaradin, he is responsable for transfer of Syrmia from kingdom of Slavonia to Vojvodina, and he was proclaimed ban by serbian patriach (I'dont know if he was from Sremski Karlovci or somwhere else) in abstance of catholic archbishop. There were plans that whole of Vojvodina unites with Croatia and makes some kind of anti-Hungaric bloc, but they stayed just plans. I notted your adition of Radovan Čelnik in the article. Perhaps it would be better to just make another article about transition of Vojvodina in Otoman hands, and in this briefly mentioned that Vojvodina had two local rulers which tried to assert it independence. Also your map of "Serbian empire" is wrong. Turks conquered Osijek and most of Syrmia before Mohač (Sultan's great bridge in Osijek). You should also put some proofs about Radniks kingdom (1929 and 1990 aren't neutral years, year of dictatorship and year of war?) so it would be nice that you try to find some independent sorce before puting such thing on wikipedia. Ceha 22:06 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one thing at the time:

  • Yes, I added Radoslav Čelnik, and my basic idea is that all important local rulers who ruled over the region, no matter if they were independent or vassals, and no matter if they were Serbs, Hungarians, Croats or anything else, should be added here. There were more rulers, but I do not have much information about them to write this (or I have information in Serbian, and I do not have time to translate that). PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Sounds right. But I thought, as this page is too long to break it in few smaller articles.

Ceha 20:25 4 February 2006 (UTC) Mentioning of local rulers and nobles sounds great.

The page is still not too long. When the page is too long, and when you edit it, you receive a message that it is too long (there is still not that message here). PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The main problem with the "de jure" character of the state of Stefan Dragutin was that he created his state from both, lands that belonged to Hungary, and the lands that belonged to Serbia. One Medieval French author call the state of Stefan Dragutin the "Kingdom of Serbia", while the state of his brother Milutin he call the "Kingdom of Rascia". Thus, it is questionable what was "de jure" status of his state. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps his state could be best described something like dukedom of Burgundy? It had lands from both sides of Franco-German border, some towns and provencies which it rent (sounds fanny,but it was like that:), some local rulers put some towns in their hands as garanty they would pay off their debts etc. That part of his state would be and "de jure" independent. Medieval confusion:)))

Ceha 20:25 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is confusion, and therefor I would rather not change that part. By the way, in the Medieval ages borders very often changed and "de jure" statuses of many lands were rather POV than fact. Stefan Dragutin was recognized king, thus he was "de jure" recognized as a ruler. The question remains what were statuses of the lands which he gained from the Hungarian king, but both capital cities of his kingdom (Debrc and Belgrade) were in that former Hungarian lands. Second, the later rulers of Serbia claimed that they have right to these lands that formerly belonged to Stefan Dragutin. One "de jure" claim was sometimes opposite to another, not only in the Medieval ages, but even today. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As for map of "Serbian empire", I just saw the Times historical atlas of Europe in the bookshop, and I saw the borders of the state of Ljudevit (you was right about that), and I also saw the borders between Hungary and Ottomans in Srem before Mohač (you check that atlas for this too). There is only little difference between my map and the map from Times atlas, and the difference is that I gave too much of Srem to the Ottomans. According to Times atlas, Osijek was not captured by Ottomans before Mohač. Where you get that information? PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Croatian historical maps:) It is possible that they ment by this just that the city (or it's ruins were not under cro-hung control)

Ceha 20:26 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just read about that little more, and my map is completelly wrong. Ottomans held only estarn part of Syrmia and Transylvania even was not formed in that time (I based my map on the one which claimed to show borders from 1526, but it does not show correct information). I will change that map in the next few days. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • And what is "Radniks kingdom" you refering to. I do not understand. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See this, by the way:

"The city was sacked and destroyed by the Ottoman Empire on August 8, 1526."

So, Ottomans did sacked the city before Jovan Nenad created his state, but that does not mean that they included this city into their empire in this year. According to Times historical atlas, it happened later. PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The city was important for Ottomans as it stands in a way to Hungarian capital. They built a bridge through witch they traveled to Mohač and returned back (at least to my knowledge:) In Croatian historical maps ('Hrvatski povijesni zemljovidi') border line goes by the Vuka river and then some ten kilometers west of Osijek. It seems to me very doubftull that Turks would just live that bridge behind?:)

Ceha 21:00 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just read about battle of Mohač. Turks did conquered much of Hungary in the time of the battle (including Buda), but after this they returned to their country, and the only land which they kept was eastern Syrmia. However, Hungarian king became Ottoman vassal, but Hungary did not became integral part of the Ottoman Empire before 1541. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Ceha, I saw that your maps were deleted from Wikipedia. You should make them more different than their model (change their size, the thickness of the lines, colour, and write names of the cities with your own letters). That would make them to be 100% your work. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm new in wiki, so I don't yet fully know how does it works:)

For maps I used bosnian municipality grid from [[2]] (I though their borders were public property:) and made rest myself. Your suggestion isn't that bed:))

Ceha 20:06 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last edits

Regarding last edits, there are 3 problems here:

  • 1. Vojvodina have 6 official languages, so if we write alternative names only in Hungarian and not in Slovak, Rusyn, Romanian, and Croatian, then it would not be fair towards these four ethnic groups because officialy, all languages of the region are EQUAL.
  • 2. "Rascia" (a land of the Serbs) was a name used for the entire territory between Budapest in the north and Sava and Danube in the south.
  • 3. Regarding the 1944 events, I do not object to mention that too, but it should be written in a more NPOV manner. For example, the current version of the article mention that fascists killed PEOPLE in Vojvodina. No matter that most of the killed people were Serbs and Jews, it is not mentioned because people that belonged to other ethnic groups were also killed. Same was after the war. I can agree that reason for the expulsion of Germans was partially ethnic, but certainly with dominant political background (for example, 95% of ethnic German population were members of the fascist organization "Culturbund", and that was main reason why communist authorities decided to expel them, not just because of their ethnic origin). The last POV changes within article imply that reasons for the killings were mainly ethnic, which was not the case. PANONIAN (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. As I see this Article, you didn't make too much effort to add something about the 1000 years of Hungarian, German and Croatian history of the region. To add the historical names of the cities and regions is a minimum. If you write about the History of Voivodina between 896 and 1918, you must at least mention the Hungarian names of the cities here. (However Mohács is still in Hungary or am I wrong?)
First of all, there are no 1000 years of Hungarian, German and Croatian history of the region. Time periods of the history of Vojvodina connected with these 3 ethnic groups are much smaller. Regarding the Hungarian names, the official language of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary was LATIN, not Hungarian, thus, I do not object that you write Latin names for that time period. Also, during Ottoman rule, the official was Turkish, and during Habsburg rule was German. Regarding Mohač, no problem to write Hungarian name for that. PANONIAN (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, another thing is that Wikipedia articles should not be a lists of various names. All alternative names of these cities and regions (including Hungarian names) are already mentioned within articles about these cities and regions. There is absolutely no reason to mention these names here too. PANONIAN (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. There are probably some Historians, who think whole Hungary is Serbian territory, but in the before 1918 Hungary the most of the Serbs lived only along the South border of the country.
No, they do not think that whole present-day Hungary IS Serbian territory, but that much of it WAS Serbian territory in the first half of the 18th century (Serbs were majority even in the Hungarian capital Buda according to the 1715 data). PANONIAN (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 3. I agree that we have to write more detailed about the 1944 events. I added the two sentences, because you MENTION the Jewish an Serbian victims, but forget about the Hungarian and German ones. I'm ready to write more detailed what the partizans did against the Hungarian civilians in the Bácska region, but i'm also ready to write about the Újvidék razzia by the Hungarian Army in 1942. Please don't revert it then.

kelenbp 19:28 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not mentioned Jewish and Serbian victims. I mentioned all victims (no matter of their ethnic origin) who were killed by fascists. Whether I will revert your changes or not depend of your edits. Regarding your edits so far, you seems to be POV pusher, and if you continue with that, I will revert. PANONIAN (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I did not said that we should write more detailed about WW2 events, but what ever we write should be NPOV. It is well known that story about partisan crimes after the war is often used to justify fascist crimes from the war and to create a balance between the two. I do not deny that partisans made crimes after the war, but these crimes certainly were not larger than those of the fascists. PANONIAN (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't want edit war, because it's so pathetic. You are right that the official language in the Kingdom of Hungary was latin until 1844. Still, geographic names of Hungary were often used in Hungarian, where no latin name existed. For example I don't see the reason for using Serbian names in an English text for medieval Hungarian county names, like you do. (Bács, Bodrog, Keve). However between 1844 and 1918 (except 1849-1867) Hungarian was the official language also in the today's Voivodina. I would like only mention these names in this history article (without deleting the Serbian names).

Well, the reason for using Serbian names for the places mentioned here is that these places are today known under these names, thus the readers of Wikipedia can to see what place or region the article speak about. If we use different names for each time period that will make a confusion and people who read the article will not know about which places article speak. Regarding the medieval Hungarian counties they were named after Bač and Kovin towns for example, thus the mention of present names of these towns is important that the reader can see what these places are. Of course, we can mention here both, Serbian and Latin names for these counties, however, since I do not know exact Latin names of these places, somebody else should write Latin names for them. I also agree that we can mention Hungarian names for counties after 1867. PANONIAN (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Lot of Serbs have lived (see Vojvodina) and are still living (Szentendre, Budapest, Baja) in Hungary. However i don't think they made a vast majority in any region (of course with the exception of the Southern parts of the Vojvodina). With your terms could be also Belgrade Hungarian as János Hunyadi conquered it from the Turks in 1456 (and was called Nándorfehérvár in Hungarian). On the other hand you mention not too much about the history of the Hungarians in the Northern Vojvodina, where they were always in majority (with the exception of the 150 years time of Turkish occupation.)

Regarding the Serbs, in the first half of the 18th century Serbs were majority in the entire present-day Vojvodina, in most of Slavonia, in much of present-day Romanian Banat (including Timisoara), in much of present-day southern Hungary (including Baja, Mohacs, and Pecs), as well as in parts of central Hungary (including Buda and Sent Andreja). Although, there is a record thet Serbs were majority in the entire area south of Budapest, the northern border of Serb ethnic territory was somewhere between Meček mountain and the northern bank of the river Mures. The entire territory in the south of that line was named Rascia in various historical sources. What I say here is where Serbs lived as a majority in the 18TH CENTURY. I do not claim that any of these territories which are outside of present-day Serbia "is" Serbian or that it should be Serbian in the future. I only claim that it WAS Serbian in the 18th century and I do not see why somebody would have problem with that piece of information. Regarding Belgrade, I do not know what was its population in the time you mentioned. If Serbs were majority in the city, it was Serbian, if Hungarians were majority, it was Hungarian. Regarding history of Hungarians in northern Vojvodina, please suggest what I should to mention about them. If you say that I should mention "something", I suppose that you should also say what that "something" is. Also claims that something was "always" like that or that somebody "always" was a majority somewhere are not exactly correct when we speak about any part of the land on the planet Earth. Nothing was "always" in this World. PANONIAN (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

3. The only reason i mentioned WWII, because you didn't write a word about the fate of the non-Serbian population of the Voivodina after the withdrawal of the Hung. and German army. I don't know too much about the Banat Germans, what they did or not did. I just know, that the Hungarian inhabitants of the Bacska region were no war criminals and were treated like war criminals by the partisans. This fact is at least one sentence worth.

kelenbp 20:20 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is mention what happened with German and Hungarian populations after WW2, but in few other articles which speak about history of the region. Maybe you do not know, but there is article named Hungarians in Vojvodina, and it is best place for you to write that including everything else you want to write about Hungarians in Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Vojvodina_63a9.html"