Talk:Travunia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
WP Former Countries - Things to do:

This page, as it is now, is-complete balderdash. As pointed out in:

there is nothing to elaborate on (mis)using the sources like DAI or Chronicle of Priest of Dioclea. This article is virtually built on dismissed speculations & belongs to the fiction rather than history proper. If the article stays at all (I cant see much reason for this), then cca. 80% of it will have to go (maps, texts etc.). I call on the author(s) to reconsider the text in the light of information given at the given linx. In case nothing changes, I'll have to rework the article in such a manner that only a stub will remain. Mir Harven 18:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this page is totally false. Look at the maps on the right side. They both use the same sorce, but size of the raska (in the maps it's name is serbia) is two time bigger on the second. This page looks like just another greater-serbian propaganda page.

[edit] absolutely not. This page stays.

There are quotes and references here and all of it is valid, regrdless of the fact that some people may not agree with these facts. This page stays in its original form. See history.

[edit] Dispute

The issue: Travunia has been a part of Serbia early on, as early as the early 9th century. According to Constantine Porphyrogenitos, a 100 years later, it has been the Naval factory point of the Principality of Serbia throughout the 10th century, after a short period of Bulgarian occupation. It is described as being ruled by the Serbs since its creation (and thereby its subjects being Serbs) by even John Skylitzes or Empress Anna. After Travunia became more "independent", its joint Princes managed to conquer Doclea and unite the two realms. After the fall of the Serbian Lands to the Byzantine Empire, it became a part of the Byzantine theme "Servia". There was a short period of dispute whether Travunia belongs to Doclea or Zachlumia. Its nobleman, Stefan Voislav, a Travunian who is no doubt both by himself, Skilytzes, Anna and others described as a Serb, and his people "of Serb stock" led the rebellion in the early 11th century. In 1077 was a Slavic Serbian-Travunian "Kingdom of Doclea and Dalmatia" established. Travunia was incorporated into the unifed Serb state in the 11th/12th century, where it remained several centuries until the Bosnian conquest under Tvrtko. Travunia was and remained 100% Serbian Orthodox ever since to the most present day - as the Herzegovinian Serb tribes have survivied ever since that period. That very same people is today in East Herzegovina in the Republic Serbska in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One mention of a Red Croatia in a translated version of a propagandistic Serbian text from teh 12th century which further in-deep sources a source from 753 isn't sufficient to claim Croatdom. I was for adding the Chronicle's statements to the article - but reluctant because I feared that this might be overrestimated. And it is being overestimated - it's sufficient to buckle the entire article. This reminds me of Srb in Croatia and the fact that it was inhabited by Serbs in 822 - but that that just one statement (regardless of being before the first statement of Croats ever) is dismissed as insufficient to prove that Serbs lived as west as Una - thus, this is insufficient to prove that Croats lived as far as central Arboria to the east.

Compare that one not-sure-if-it-is-correct mention, with over 1,100 years of Serbian identity :)--HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Srb has little to do with Serbs inhabiting the area in 822. Pls consider the following information:
Srb is a small village near the spring of the river Una (north of Knin). Serbian linguists see this name as a trace of the Serbian name (Serb -> Srb?). However, according to academician Petar Simunovic the name of Srb originates from an old Croatian verb serbati, srebati = to sip, from which the noun "srb" has been derived (see his interview in Fokus, 30.09.2005). Thus "srb" denotes the spring of river Una, where the village lies. Compare with the villages of Srbani (near Pula), and Srbinjak, both in Istria, which clearly have nothing to do with the Serbian name. The Istarski razvod from 13th century mentions the name of srbar, meaning a water spring. croatian_quoll 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - however, that is disputed, as that is not the old Slavic word for "to seep" according to the Slavic dictionaries. Other than that, Liudevit TrasSavian fled southwards to a Serb city. Additionally, compare this controversy with the fact that Red Croatia is only mentioned in one Latin version (it's not even in the Croat version) that's far from being the original. For instance, do you support mentioning at the article Dalmatia that the Serbs where most of the populace in 822? That's before the first mention of Croats at these places. However, that's not mentioned at Dalmatia - and thus, I was against mentioning Red Croatia in Dcolea, Travunia and Zachlumia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy Tag

I am putting an accuracy tag. As has been pointed out by Mir Haven now almost a year and a half this article is greatly POV and is anything but neutral. --Factanista 09:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss, then. I'm all ears! --PaxEquilibrium 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You could start by explaining contradictions and controversies within Constantine's source (already pointed out in here and other related article talk pages) where he explicitly on one side shows Paganians, Travunians and Zachumlians and especially Diocleans as separate from Serbs. He also clearly states that archonts of these people were totally separate and did not answer to the Serbian archont. The reference where he says they are Serbs comes clearly from Constantine's ignorance and is based explicitly on the fact when he wrote about these people they were dependent (or at least he wished them to be) to Serbia (although as I pointed out their archonts answered to the Emperor himself not to Serbian archont). Also citing Ćorović as a source also shows how huge POV and one-sided this article is. Ćorović as Serbian historian is at least a bit biased towards Serbian claims. I came upon some earlier versions on other online encyclopedias (which seem to be earlier wikipedia versions) and also here and they seem to me far more balanced and neutral than the current one. These also go far more with the commonly accepted view that these small Dalmatian principalities were earlier Slavic principalities created most likely prior to the coming of the Serbs and Croats in the region and fused with the romanic population on the coast and in hinterland. In short it seem to me there are many answers needed to go so bold and openly claim they were Serbian. --Factanista 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well - there are no (or little, amusingly very little for a work of its age - errors and confusions were a normal thing, but never in so little quantity like in ORE) contradictions - and many of the controversies AFAIC lie in modern nationalistic ideologies. There are dubious parts of the work, but nothing to a greater extent (nothing unusual, AFAIC impressingly accurate for a work of its age, I repeat). Stick to the Terbounians, the Pagans, Zachlumians (or Docleans or Canalites) are off-topic. Constantine does not mention that they were a separate people from the Serbs, but one of the many Serb tribes. And AFAIC, he clearly draws that the Travunian archonts (by the way, there is no such thing as a one "Serbian archont", but rather many of them) were always subjected to the Grand Princes in Rassa.
The Travunians were dependent to Rascia/Serbia at various times but their archont was always separate from the Serbian ruler even when technically subjected to the same. You say Constantine does not make a distinction when in fact it is quite the opposite. Even in the very concept of "De Administrando" they are (including all other Dalmatian principalities/people) presented as separate people/entity and the distinction was very clear.
I repeat; the archonts were always subjected to the Grand Princes, as for instance, ORE says. Wait, wait, wait a minute.. separate from whom/what (you're obviously not referring to Serbs)? --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Always? Why does Constantine lists them differently from Rascia/Serbia? --Factanista 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Vojvodina a part of Serbia? The very words that they were subjected are the very same used by the Emperor in his texts. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Travunians were either independent (rarely) or subjected to the centralist Serb rulers (most of the time), and never directly to the Emperor of the Romeii. Travunia was the first coastal Dalmatian Principality to recognize the Serb Confederacies with Bosnia and Rascia, and it remained in them. Travunia was, by the way, (minus some interregnums) a component part of the Serbian state for at least over half a millennium (since the first centralist Serb confederation under Rascian Grand Prince Vlastimir in the 9th century up to its conquest by the bosnian Ban Tvrtko Kotromanic in 1371); or because of the "lawful" right given to the Rascian-Bosnian Grand Zhupan over all of the Serb lands by the Byzantine Imperial crown (as Serb historians mostly mention), 750 years.
The Travunian archont was always separate and independent ruler from the Rascian/Serbian rulers. They even fought against the increasing influence of Serbian rulers to their lands. Serb confederacies? I hear about it for the first time, could you elaborate? Don't get me wrong here...of all mentioned southern Dalmatian principalities Travunia was arguably the most influenced by Serbian rulers and culture and was most likely was the first to accept the Serbian identity later. But we are not talking about what happened later, we are discussing what was in early medieval period when these principalities were mainly independent and did not had Serbian or Croatian or any other contemporary identity.
The Travunian archonts were always subjected to the Rascian Grand Princes. There is not a single trace of fighting against Serbian rule - where is one? For example, in the 9th century, Rascia's Grand Prince Vlastimir gave his daughter to the Zhupan/Prince/Archont of Travunia - Kraina, raising his prestige in the Serb Confederacy greatly, and awarding him high titles in the Serbian early feudal hierarchy; recognizing him as the vassal-fief ruler of Travunia (which was a legitimate land of the Rascian Grand Princes). Early Serb history is definted by "Serb Confederacies" (before the real unification under Stephen Nemanya). Such states existed such as under Grand Prince Peter Goynikovic who ruled since the 9th century up to 917 and ruled Rascia, Doclea, Travunia, Zachlumia and Pagania with an iron hand, surpassing the will of the local feudal fief-lords. The most famous Serb Ceonfederacy, though, is the 927-960 Serbia of Prince Caslav Klonimirovic (Bosnia, Rascia, Doclea, Travunia with Konavli, Zachlumia and Pagania). The later Kingdom forged by the Doclean dynasty in the 11th century was the direct successor of the last Serb Confederacy. The late 11th to early 12th centuries are full of inner quabbles between the rulers of Bosnia, Rascia, Zachlumia and Doclea (with Travunia-Konavli) - whose regional dynasties all belonged to one family. These areas were at times unified, but mostly dispersed. The area atogether remained a "Serb Confederacy", just as the Serbian Empire remained even after the death of its last emperor and the arrival of a period of feudal anarchy. Also, don't confuse the Princes/Grand Princes of Rascia with the Confederate Serb rulers. Why are we talking only about early history? We're talking about Travunia, and the term should cover the whole of the Medieval Age. The period you are referring to was short and not much (or nothing) is known about it, really. --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Again if they were "always" subjected to the Serbian Grand Princes why does Constantine lists them as separate entity? And not just him. Also I find it a huge POV that you claim some fictional "Serbian confederacy". The fact Rascian/Serbian rulers ruled all those lands/principalities doesn't mean they were all Serbia and as such cannot be referred as "Serbian confederacy". I asked you to provide me some evidence of this you provided none. Again what made them Serbian? The fact they were at times ruled by Serbs? Thats not enough. --Factanista 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Emperor states that they were subjected. Is Vojvodina (or Kosovo) a part of Serbia? There is no "fictional" Serbian confederacy. It's the standard term used to denote various short-lived unified Serb states before the final unification under the Nemanjics. Ahm, "Serbian" is the same as "Serbia's" or "under Serbia". And rule isn't alone. I mentioned other reasons numerous times. Evidence for what? --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Vladimir Corovic was proclaimed (by his contemporaries, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Bulgarians alike - even Albanians and Greeks) the best Yugoslav historian ever. There was never a better historian, and of all the South Slavic historians, he is perhaps matched only by his idol - Ferdo Sisic. The only who criticized him were Muslims (modern Bosniacs), because he is the only historian on earth who fully explained all-out Bosnian history - but failed to give the Bosnian Muslims a special status like other peoples (Croats, Bulgarians or Macedonians) and under the impression of the then belief. He is the only Serbian historian that gave an almost-fully detailed Croatian history and dedicated whole works to the histories of Macedonians, Bulgarians and Albanians or even Greeks and Hungarians. I guarantee you one thing though - there was never a more neutral Yugoslav historian than him, in the History of the Serbo-Croat peoples. Anyway, I don't know why even mentioned him - because neither did I cite him as a source - nor is he mentioned at all.
I do respect Corovic and he was perhaps as you say one of the best historians however no historian is truly unbiased and so Corovic wasn't either, after all he was just human. Nevertheless even if he was it is not prudent to base your whole claim on what just one man claims. To get a bigger picture we must look at more than source and thus gain more neutral point of view. Also in the end I must express my sincere doubt that Corovic ever claimed Paganians or any other (Travunians, Zachlumians, Diocleans) were Serbs or had any other moder contemporary ethnic identity as perceive it today.
Of course. However, if you doubt - why don't you read his book(s)? For instance, the "History of the Serb People" contains a lot of info on Travunia, aside from his researches on Croatian national history (although, considering just how much we know, the information is scarce when compared to what he wrote about Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria or Albania. His book is viewable online. [This chapter] deals precisely on the Serbo-Croat peoples and the areas they settled. Read it (it's not long). --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said in my previous reply, I do not doubt that Corovic was able historian however I am not that much confident in the regional historians. It'a a professional defect you see. :)) And also he is only one man, I am more prone to see more than one source and more than one view on the matter. To claim Travunians, or any other people in these Dalmatian principalities, as Serbs based on the view of one man is POV. --Factanista 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
He is not alone. We've got Roman Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, historian Vladimir Corovic, archaeologist Marko Aleksic, Encyclopedia Britannica, Brockhaus encyclopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia, LaRousse encyclopedia... I repeat: we should state here what other encyclopedae state. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Could I see some of those earlier versions? Anyways, the Catholic Encyclopedia says this on its article on Montenegro: the territory was in ancient times a portion of the Roman province of Dalmatia. Emperor Diocletian made Southern Dalmatia a separate province, Praevalis (Dioclea, Dioclitia) with Dioclea as its capital. From the seventh century the north-western portion of the peninsula began to be invaded by Slav tribes; one of these, the Serbs, settled in the territory which they still possess, and founded there several principalities (Zupanate), the most southern of which was called Zeta, or (after the ancient Dioclea) Duklja. Now, these several can be only the 4 Dalmatian Principalities you mentioned -- right? The very same is claimed by the (best) German national Brockhaus Encyclopedia, and a similar according to Encyclopedia Britannica (especially earlier versions of it). One of the main guidelines to Wikipedia is that it should follow what other encyclopedias say.
Here is one of the earlier versions [1], to me it seems rather fair and neutral. Also I've looked upon some other earlier version here not so long ago and they as well seem more neutral to me than the current state. As for other encyclopedias, namely the Catholic encyclopedia which you quote, it is just simply wrong. This is eminent in the very fact it claims these principalities were founded with the arrival of Serbs (first half of 7th century) which is simply wrong because we know that these principalities were founded at least 100 years earlier. I am not familiar with Britannic or Brockhaus encyclopedias but honestly it doesn't even really matter, because the point here is not copy what others (who don't know much about the subject) have said but to make a more neutral and correct article contained useful and untainted information with daily politics.
One reminder - Wikipedia contains a lot of things that are simply wrong, and according to rules, it should. For instance - Slobodan Milosevic (hate to call upon the figure - but he's a good example) is considered everywhere and by every encyclopedia a Serb - however, that is wrong. But that simply doesn't matter, because - I draw - wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. If a 'fact' is considered by a majority, we adopt it as a clear fact - regardless of what is "the truth". Other encyclopedias enjoy the status of highest priority. Every nation has its own national encyclopedia - the British, the most popular one is Encyclopedia Britannica; the German one is the Brockhaus Encyclopedia - and the French is the LaRousse. They all confirm (one way or another) the Catholic Encyclopedia's claims. I will cite them and look for an online viewable version for you to see yourself. Brockhaus is the most detailed one - stating that in the first half of the 7th century "Croats inhabited the area north of the Cetina and Serb tribes the south". A "100 years earlier"? I apologize, but I'm not familiar with the fact - the most precise year for the Sclavinia's foundation is cca 626, basicly the 620s and 630s. There was nothing 100 years before (except maybe with the exception of Doclea, whose earliest history remains a mystery). I don't see how is this information on Travunia tainted by daily politics... --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of these mentioned encyclopedias are actually repeating what the official and original Yugoslavia(Kingdom of) historical encyclopedias said. These were strongly influenced by Serbian rulership at that time and have in great part been more Serbian propaganda and POV on the matter rather than neutral factual composite. Anyway some Byzantine sources mention Slavs coming down to Adriatic as early as 6th century and these were obviously the predecessors of Dioclea, Zachlumie, Travunia and Pagania. Serbs and Croats came a bit later. --Factanista 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What? Not one of the encyclopedias I mentioned were made during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-1945). And yeah, they're ancestors all right - just like they're ancestors of all of us. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It is impossible that they are older than the Serbs'/Croats' arrival to the Balkans. No one claims this - and the lands were forged by the Byzantines who gave them to the White Serbs & Croats some time in the first half of the 7th century. Besides, the ruling house of Travunia descends from the House of Vlastimirovic - and the Unknown Archont led the White Serbs only in the 630s or so southwards to the Balkans... If they weren't Serbian - what were they? --PaxEquilibrium 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if we disagree on that. Most historians agree and the historical sources confirm that the Slavs have arrived and settled in the Roman Empire (namely Dalmatia and other provinces all the way to Greece) as early as 5th century. The coming Serbs and Croats only imposed themselves later as an elite and as bounding element for the future national identities we exhibit to this day, it must be said though that with slighty different course of history and there probably wouldn't be Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins but one nation called who knows what...maybe Sklavinians. ;)
Correct - but no political entity existed in the Balkans. The most politically organized were the Macedonian and Lower Balkan Slavic tribes that had tribal organizations and some form of statehood. Aside from that, there is also the mystery of Doclea... For neither was the Slavic population sufficient enough nor organized. It is the arrival of Croats, that brought two very strong dynasties and very implemented traditions as well as whole families of nobility and the wealthy that was the key element in the construction of the Sclavinias. P. S. Not Sclavinians - but Slavs alone. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So here is the question then - how and why could they then be Serbian? --Factanista 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Inhabited by Serbs
2. In Serbia
3. Abundance of Serbian history, culture (religion mainly) present
What more do you need? --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And to conclude - Travunia/Terbounia/Area of Trebinje has been Serbian for over 1,100 years (1,300 if we follow the other way-of-view I mentioned earlier), and as such, (Eastern Herzegovina) is the most autochtonous and the oldest Serbian land in the world, with almost solely Serbs living in the region (more historically important than Kosovo - Kosovo overmatches it only because of cultural and religious importance) and with Trebinje the oldest Serbian capital on Earth. That's why objections might seem a little strange... not to me alone ;). --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said earlier I do not doubt, I am in fact convinced that Travunia was the first to accept Serbian identity but the claim they were Serbian in early medieval times, when it was independent and when "national" designations depended on the political situation and sovereignty of certain entities, is simply ridiculous.
Who said that this refers to Travunia in the Early Medieval Ages alone? This is an article on a geopolitical historical entity that had existed for around 600-700 years, or considering cultural continuation, all to the way up to the present (keeping the tribal organization of old), in east Herzegovina within the Serb Republic (and west Montenegro), over 1,350 years. --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
To what does it refers then? Travunia existed only in early medieval era. When it was incorporated in Serbia (ultimately) it was basically abolished and simply became part of Serbian kingdom thus ceasing to exist, being incorporated psychically and by identity into Serbian corpus. This article speaks that it was Serbian in sense that it was Serbian from the first moement to the last. That is POV and wrong. --Factanista 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Travunia ceased to exist in the 14th/15th century Bosnian-Herzegovinian feudal anarchy. It was not incorporated into Serbia "ultimately", since it was (for the most of it) a component part of the unified Serbian realm. It's a transitional period which lasted up to the Nemanjics (the very same as with Zachlumia). The Nemanjics were fierce centralists - and that's the reason why the "lesser" Serb states weren't mentioned - they were not prominent. Take for instance the anarchy after the death of Emperor Dusan - the very same anarchy restored as the ruler was weak again. Would it be OK not to call the Hum (Zahumlje), Moravia, Zeta, Macedonia (east and west), Kosovo, Moravian Serbia, Epirus, Serres, Thessaly, Albania not "Serbian lands"? (perhaps not only in the case of the last two) Of course it wouldn't! How does the article speak it was Serbian "from the first moment to the last"? If throughout its history, it was for the most of the time - then it would be OK to state so. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are now treading on a very dangerous ground. The fact Serbia at times controlled all those lands and territories doesn't make them "Serbian lands". Does the fact that England once ruled and held huge parts of France makes these lands "English lands"? Of course not. I do not dispute that Serbia ruled and controlled Travunia over large parts of timeline but we have more than enough evidence to show and conclude it was a separate entity with identity of it's own...especially in early medieval era when it was founded. --Factanista 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"Serbia controlled" seems like it martially occupied/usurped - no, it was the component part of the corresponding the Serbian state. If those lands were still ruled and populated by the English like they once were - yes, I would call them English lands. :) But they're not, they're a part of France. :) Serbia did not "rule/control". The way you say it seems as if it usurped an external part... There's no doubt that it had a separate identity - the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina has its own Assembly. --PaxEquilibrium 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Constantine it does seems it was martially occupied or usurped as he clearly regards it as separate entity so it means that it had "some" political autonomy (as a vassal of Byzantium). Your analogy with the English populated lands in France is unclear to me. Also the example of Vojvodina which is extremly modern example is also unapplicable. --Factanista 07:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Precisely according to the Emperor, Vlastimir (the first ruler of All Rascias, descendant of Viseslav, the Unknown Archont's descendant) gave the hand of his daughter to Prince Kraina of Travunia (this happening in the first half of the 9th century). Lord Kraina immediately became a very high-respected member of the Serbian ability. There are further down two schools that split from this moment: one, stating that that Travunia was always just a geographical part of the Serbian realm, and that real autonomy (in the manner of today's Vojvodina) was granted through this marriage; the other claims that this was official assertion of Kraina and his successors as faithful subjects of the Serbian realms, which it would stay that way (almost without interruption) up to the region's conquest by thr Bosnian ruler Tvrtko in the 1370s. Travunia was never a vassal of Byzantium, but vassal to Rascia; it was a political ladder where one can be loyal to another lord and he in turn so on - but at the top place loyal to the highest Monarch (probably without even knowing that that person exists at all). It was never martially conquered nor usurped (like that which happened to Doclea, although even that cannot be plainly tagged as such). Those areas of France you're referring to would be "English lands" if they were political entities ruled by the English crown and/or populated by the English, or culturally/linguistically/religiously related to England. But they're not. They're foreign territory gained by an aimless (oh, the marriage and court intrigue!) attempts to unite the two crowns or in worse cases simply grabbing territory. --PaxEquilibrium 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes but you are talking here about dynastic unions and marriages, this doesn't effect the ethnic character of certain political entity. As you say yourself Travunia was a vassal of Rascia(Serbia), in certain periods it was even indepedent and also if it was a vassal of Rascia who was a vassal of Byzantium so was Travunia tehcnically a vassal of Byzantium, it's pure logic. As for conquer in my previous posts I was mostly referring to Zachlumians and their resistance to Serbian conquet and attmempt to control the area. Travunia was on the other hand never strong enough to put such resistance such as Zachlumia or Doclea and Pagania was never in such danger in first place as it was more oriented to Croatia to which it ultimately became part of. --Factanista 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - but that's the point; Travunia has always been a part of another state - never independent. Pagania didn't offer any resistance at all... and as far as I understood, it "ultimately" (though not for long) became a part of a unified Serb state (as discussed on its article). --PaxEquilibrium 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh and by the way I apologize for the way I answered, it looks messy but I did not know how else to answer because to stick it all together would make a sense. --Factanista 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No apology needed; really! :) After all - we're doing what is supposed and encouraged by the spirit of Wikipedia to do. Cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the discussion's closed... --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not. Sorry for the delay. ;) --Factanista 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETravunia_c940.html"