Talk:Duklja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Montenegro Portal
Duklja is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments

Contents

[edit] place whose name was Dioclea

Shallot stop being so pigheaded, half the time you don't even know the basics of what you are writing on.

The ruins of Duklja are outside of Podgorica, not Bar. --Igor, 23:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All the sources I read said that the archbishopric of Dioclea was in fact Bar. What are the ruins near Podgorica of? --Shallot 11:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
(Also the other name for the chronicle is Barski rodoslov. --Shallot 11:57, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC))
You are driving me crazy. The archbishopric of Bar has nothing to with Dioclea. Stop obsessing about cryptic Catholic-Croat connotations. Please refrain from contributing to articles if you are unaware of such elementary facts. The ruins of the Roman Town of Dioclea, are near Podgorica. Take out a map which includes Montenegro and look around Podgorica you will find a little symbol that has steps on it. That my dear confused neighbour is the symbol for ruins under that you will find 'Duklja/Dioclea'. End of story. Barski rodoslov is Letopis Popa Dukljanina who was believed to be from Bar, then part of Dioclea. Sheesh, why must everything be so difficult? --Igor
Again, all the sources I read said that the town that is today Bar was the source of the name in the Middle Ages, not the Roman settlement a bit more inland. --Joy [shallot]

I've read over those changes, and they scream Igor's Serbdom³ agenda. In any event, I'd like for someone from Montenegro to redact the article according to the standard over there and not what a Croatian and a Canadian (sic) think. --Joy [shallot] 20:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Serbhood

The De Administrando Imperio NEVER mentions Duklja as part of Serb lands. I urge that part of the page to be changed immediatly . I would like to see a quote from the DAI showing where this is mentioned as a Serb land . Reality is folks that Duklja is hardly mentioned in the DAI . Information about Duklja should be derived from other sources . Duklja was never incorperated into Caslav's princedom . Serbs first had interaction with Duklja ( Montenegro) when Stefan Nemanja forcefully conquered it .--Average Joe 11:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've copied the quote now, you're correct as far as that is concerned, indeed. --Joy [shallot] 16:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The southern Dalmatian dutchies were united under a Croatian name , Red Croatia. Red Croatia is mentioned in the De Regno Sclavorum which is the first 24 chapters of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja which is directly taken from the 7th century text Methodus ( De Regno Sclavorum). Medieval Chronicles written by Byzantine John Scylzia and Italian Andrea Dandolo also bear witness to Red Croatia. Further more the DAI illustrates that the Croats inhabited Pannonia , Dalmatia , and Illyricum ( before it mentions LATER Serb settlements) . The Croats in Pannonia and Illyricum maintained envoys only with the Croatian prince of Dalmatia as shown in Chapter 30 of the DAI . Futhermore Chapter 30 of the DAI describes in detail that the Croats ( not Serbs) were the people who defeated the Avars and afterwords established lordship over all the previous occupied Avar territories . Chapter 30 of the DAI also shows a taxation system set up by the Croats particularly over the southern Dalmatian dutchies and a Croatian merchant marine presence in Pagania. The DAI treats the Serbs as a social class rather than an ethnicity as seen in Chapter 32 when Constantine ( or whoever) suggests that the Serbs aquired their name from the Romans due to their status as slaves and servents to the Empire. Futhermore most historians agree that Chap 32 is a rip off of Chap 31 which is an alleged carbon copy of Croat settlements but now with the term " Serb." The later chapters of the DAI , particularly 33,34 were written in the 10th century by Constatine himself when the Serbs managed to set up a small state under Caslav Klonimirovic who was loyal to the Byzantine Empire . The Byzantines designated those lands as " Serb" because they wanted to exert their own rulership on paper . Interestingly enough about a century later Byzantine historian John Scylzia sugggest that mostly Croats live in particularly Duklja under King Mihailo . He writes "King Mihailo rules over those who call themselves Croats" Other chronicles and the evidence of the " Hrvat" name fanning out of Duklja/Zeta after the Turkish conquest all point to dubious Serb claims on King Mihailo's kingdom . Even Stefan Nemanja himself wrote in 1198 that he forcefully conquered Duklja and named it Zeta . This is the birth of Serb Orthodox Montenegro . --Average Joe 18:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that DAI is unreliable, but can we really give that much more credibility to later works? It's all "on paper only", really. It's okay to have a discussion of these historical terms but we shouldn't give any of them too much weight. --Joy [shallot] 22:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


The DAI still is an existing historical document , we cannot totally dismiss it just as we can't dismiss the Priest's chronicles and other few pieces of documentation we have reguarding Croat-Serb-Bosniak history . The problem with the DAI is that it gives two completly contradictory stories especially reguarding the Serbs and Croats . Given the magnitude of Croat and Serb nationalism today it because almost a warzone of scholars trying to prove one view without taking into consideration the other . Since the DAI gives contradicting pictures , it makes sense to try to find other documentation covering that period of time which might shed a little more light on what parts of the DAI are accurate and which are not . We can also likewise use the DAI to scrutinize other documents . History is history though , much of the Balkan's medieval history cannot be used to justify modern day expansionism . The demographics and the geography of the Balkans today is much different than it was 1000 years ago . Croats cannot go and claim most of Bosnia , western Vojvodina , and Montenegro , samething with the Serbs , they cannot claim all the territories under their rule during Czar Dusan's reign . The three major players in the western Balkans , Croats , Serbs , and Bosniaks all need to come to an understanding and instead of looking always backwards , try to look forward for a change . --Average Joe 10:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

this is just for Igor =) and all the other Greater Serb Ideologist --Average Joe 00:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
this is just for Igor =) and all the other Greater Serb Ideologist --Average Joe 00:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Serbian

The three southern Dalmatian Principalities - Zachlumia, Travunia & Doclea - indeed are disputable through historical accords - but not mentioned Duklja as Serbian is simply irridentist, just as would be mentioning Lika being Slavic, rather then Croatian - just because one meager toponimic mention of Serbs in the City of Srb. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe your argument of Doclea being "Serbian" is verifiable. Perhaps towards the end of its history, Doclea became part of Byzantine Serbia; but this is a small part of its history, toward the end. Doclea exists since 1 AD -- Serbians did not come to Balkans until the 6th or 7th century. This is confirmed by the following, which none of which refer to Doclea as Serbian. http://www.heritage.cg.yu/spomenici/duklja_e.htm http://www.podgorica.cg.yu/kultura/duklja.htm http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Duklja Duklja is the later Slavic version of the work. See last link -- further, even then Doclea wasn't a part of Rascia, which is the cradle Serbian state. It was Red Croatia under Dalmatian Croatia, before being subjected to Rascia. So if you want to add that Doclea is Serbian, you should really add "Serbian/Croatian" -- since Doclea was under Dalmatian Croatia just as long as Serbia/Rascia. ( All this info is lower down in the article!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.138.171 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 June 2006

Not really - Zeta's role in Serbian statehood was altogether always much more important than Rascia's. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Here we go - but please do not apply your changes before we finish the discussion here. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - firstly, here's a 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica on the History of Montenegro:

History.The history of Montenegro as an independent state begins with the battle of Kossovo (1389), but the country had enjoyed periods of independence or semi-independence at various epochs before that event. It formed a portion of the district of Praevalitana in the Roman province of Illyria, and, lying on the borderland of the empires of the West and East, it alternately shared the fortunes of either till the close of the 5th century. It was then conquered by the Ostrogoths (A.D. 493), but half a century later definitely passed under Byzantine rule, having already acknowledged the ecclesiastical authority of Constantinople, a circumstance which determined the course of its subsequent history. Illyria and Dalmatia succumbed to the great Serbo-Croat Slavic invasion of the 6th and 7th centuries; the Serb race by which Montenegro is now inhabited occupied the country about the middle of the 7th century. A confederacy of Serb states was formed under thu pans, or feudal princes, dependent on the grand zhupan, who was nominally the vassal of the Greek emperor. The Serb principality of the Zeta, or Zenta, originally included the Herzegovina, Cattaro and Scutari, as well as the Montenegro of to-day, and was ruled by a zhupan resident at Doclea.

And now from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

A kingdom in the Balkan Peninsula, on the east coast of the Adriatic Sea; 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. From Zeta sprang the Nemanjiden family, under whose autocracy the Servian Empire attained its greatest power. Stefan I Nemanja was recognized as Chief Zupan by Emperor Manuel I, in 1165; having reduced into submission the stubborn lesser Zupans, he embraced the Orthodox Faith, and then began to organize the Servian Church. His youngest son, Sawa, or Sabas, after being appointed first Orthodox Archbishop of Servia in 1221, founded a see for Zeta in the monastery of St. Michael near Cattaro. In the Empire of the Serbs, each heir apparent to the throne was first appointed administrator of the Province of Zeta. However, under King Stefan Dusan (1331-55) a member of the Balscicz family was named Governor of Zeta. From 1360 to 1421 this family ruled in Zeta, notwithstanding the constant opposition of the Cernojevic family, settled in Upper Zeta. On the destruction of the Great Servian Empire by the Turks after the battle of Amsfeld in 1389 Zeta became the refuge of the most valiant of the Serbs, who refused to submit to the Turkish yoke.

The modern version of Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't negate it, either. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The General Encyclopedia refers to the residents after the Serbian Empire strictly as Serbs (the decendents of Doclea) - thus, so was Duklja's population.

Now - for the most - the Serbian medieval dynasty - the famous House of Nemanjić, are Docleans themselves: descendent from the Doclean rulling house, originate from Montenegro, etc. I think that this is the greatest proof that you can ever have. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And here's from the book History of Montenegro - published in/by Montenegro itself:

The first traces of human settlement in the present-day territory of Montenegro date from the middle Palaeolithic period. Archaeological finds from the Crvena stijena (Red Rock) cave contain artefacts from different epochs held to be between 60 and 35 millennia old. These were mostly tools, hunting weapons, jewellery and items used for religious purposes. Objects close to the Starcevo culture have been discovered throughout present-day Montenegro, thus traces of human settlement bespeak of a continuity of living in these spaces before any document emerged.

Human detriments were first mentioned in Psuedo-Skilis' work dating from the 4th century BC. The Illyrian tribes Ardijeji and Enheleji lived in the territory of present-day Boka. The Romans fought during the First Illyrian War (229-228 BC) and the Second Illyrian War (219) against the Ardijejis. The Romans drove them from the littoral into the interior, where they died out eventually. To the south, around Lake Skadar, lived the Leojejis who had the fortified towns of Scutari and Meteon. The Doklejis lived nearby. Roman conquest ended with the Third Illyrian War (107-108) BC. The Romans encompassed all the territories but failed to consolidate their authority. In AD 6, Baton fomented an uprising which lasted for three years. Only after suppressing the uprising did the Romans strengthen their rule and gradually begin Romanizing these regions. When the Roman Empire split into the Eastern and Western empires, the territory of present-day Montenegro belonged to the province of Previlis or Prevalis. The province was centred in present-day Scutari, and the population lived chiefly by farming and livestock breeding. The earliest Slavic settlers arrived in the 6th century, bur soon moved on. Their arrival resembled plundering raids rather than actual habitation. Actual Slavic colonization took place in the 7th century; first the Slavs launched attacks with the Avars, and then continued on their own, settling down and establishing larger settlements. Mingling with the indigenous population, they adopted many of their customs and took up farming.

Information about the first Serbian state in Zeta is quite unreliable until the 11th century. What can be stated positively is that he first Serbian state in Zeta encompassed a region subsequently called Brda and a small part of the Montenegrin coast. Its northern border stretched from Risan up to the source of the Piva river, and the southern border descended to Kotor and Scutari. In the 11th century, the Byzantine towns of Kotor and Scutari became part of the state of Zeta though most of the population was Roman and would remain so until the 17th century.

The first ruler of Zeta about whom some information has been preserved was Jovan Vladimir. He ruled from 970-1016 and his capital was in Scutari. When unrest broke in the state of Tsar Samuel of Macedonia, Vladimir refused to recognize Samuel's suzerainty and tried to become independent. The war lasted for several years, and Vladimir was defeated. Samuel took Zeta, captured Vladimir and imprisoned in Struga. Soon after, however, Vladimir and Samuel reconciled. Samuel gave Vladimir the hand of his daughter in marriage and invested him with governance of Zeta.

Aside to this historical story runs a legend which subsequently served as the basis for many medieval novels about Vladimir and Kosara, and attained literary actualization during the period of national romanticism. History and legend concur up to the point when Samuel captured Vladimir. Legend has it that Princess Kosara saw the prisoner, took pity on him and then fell in love. She prevailed upon her father and Vladimir became the Tsar's son-in-law. After the death of Samuel, his nephew Vladislav invited Vladimir to Struga to confer with him and had him killed while the latter was leaving church. According to the legend, Kosara endeavoured to convince Vladimir not to trust Vladislav, but failed. After Vladimir's death strife was created in Zeta over the throne in which Vladislav attempted to become involved, though without much success. The grave of Vladimir and Kosara lies in Scutari, and the Orthodox Church has made him a saint.

In the struggles for power, Vojislav (1034-1050) gained dominion over Zeta and Trebinje by relying on Byzantium and recognizing the suzerainty of the Byzantine emperor. After the death of Basil II when unrest broke out in Byzantium, Vojislav stirred up an uprising in an attempt to take advantage of the situation. The uprising was quickly crushed, Vojislav was captured and taken to Constantinople. Breaking out of prison, he returned to Zeta, fomented another uprising and after defeating the Byzantine near Bar (1042), Vojislav retrieved Zeta and Trebinje and annexed Raska and Hum to his state.

Mihajlo Vojislavljevic (1051-1081), the son of Vojislav, hastened to reconcile with Byzantium and recognize its suzerainty in order to consolidate his rule. After a considerable period of time, when an uprising of Macedonian Slavs broke out under Djordje Vojteh (1072) in Byzantium, Mihajlo assessed he should take part in it, sending troops commanded by his son Bodin to aid the insurgents. Bodin defeated the Byzantine army near Prizren but suffered heavy losses at Paun in Kosovo, falling captive to Byzantium. As the unrest in Byzantium failed to quiet, Mihajlo took advantage of a Norman meditation to release his son Bodin and obtain independence. He appealed to Pope Gregory VII who recognized him as king, separated Zeta from the archbishopric in Split and established a bishopric in Bar (1077).

The last of the more significant rulers of Zeta prior to the period of the Nemanjic house was Bodin (1081-1101). Bodin pursued the policy of his father, relying on the Curia and the Norman’s rather than waging a direct war with Byzantium, the occupied Bosnia and Raska. When Byzantium checked the Norman’s, Bodin reconciled with it, losing Raska in return. To compensate, the Pope raised the bishopric to the rank of archbishopric and granted the archbishop of Bar the title of primate of Serbia. After the death of Bodin, struggles for the throne broke out again, lasting for several decades. Bodin's first heir was a certain Vukan from Raska who should not be confused with Nemanja's son Vukan who governed Zeta after Nemanja's abdication. Finally, the grand zupan of Raska Stefan Nemanja became involved in the struggles, and with aid from Byzantium from 1183-1196 extended his rule on to Zeta.

-- The Dukljans were not Serbs, Stefan Nemanja was born in Duklja but his parents came from Travunia or somewhere else outside of Duklja, and then he forcibly annexed Duklja, if they were all just serbs he wouldnt have to forcibly annex them and forcibly convert everyone and kill so many, this is called Conquering, the same thing the Ottoman Turks did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critika1 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 April 2007

Actually, Stefan Nemanja's parents were of Doclean royalty/nobility - the dynasty that ruled Doclea. It is impossible to compare with that which the Ottoman Turks did in the end of the 15th century, because Stefan Nemanja himself presents this as a liberation from Byzantine rule. The cities suffered terrible destructions - but only the Latin cities of the coastline, which were populated by Latins and not Slavs (even there there were exceptions - Kotor). Stefan Nemanja took over Doclea by not simply invading it - he entered with a tiny army - but by routing the people of Doclea to fight the pro-Byzantines (under old Prince Mihailo of the Vojislavljevic house). Eventually the pro-Greeks were defeated and many of them expelled from Doclea (think of them like the Greens, while the pro-Nemanja side which was considerable larger and more popular, the Whites). --PaxEquilibrium 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
wrong, its made very clear Nemanja's parents are not from Doclea and he was born there because his father left serbia, Dukljans were conquered and converted, i dont care how much propaganda you preach —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
His mother is from Doclea - a noble princess. However, how do you explain - that from his father's side, he is a member of the Doclean ruling family? Stefan Nemanja has nothing to do with conversion (aside the fact that he converted himself, ;). --PaxEquilibrium 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Then...

From Chapter VIII from the book by Harold W. V. Temperley, History of Serbia, Bell & Sons, London, 1917, pp. 134-161, we see the part Montenegro and her share in Serbian national development that soundly calls the Serbian state of Duklja as the leader of Serbian statehood. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I could also present to you Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, "The Serbs and Serbia, Vojvodina, and Montenegro", Yugoslavia: A Country Study (ed. Glenn E. Curtis), Washington 1990 if you would like... --HolyRomanEmperor 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Vladika Vasilije Petrović Njegoš - the first of his house since 1697 Metropolitan of Cetinje - wrote History about Montenegro refering to their great Serb ancestors (from old Zeta/Doclea). --HolyRomanEmperor 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A similiar situation is with the History of Montenegro of Prince-Bishop Petar I Petrović Njegoš (Saint Peter of Cetinje). --HolyRomanEmperor 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

...and let me quote Montenegro's Prince Nikola I Petrović Njegoš's declaration regarding the proclaimation of the Kingdom of Montenegro on 15-28 VIII 1910: Deep are the foundations of this Kingdom of ours. They reach to the old Zetan Kings Vojislav, Michael and Bodin, also signifying that Zeta gave Serbdom a mighty and recognized Realm. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You may know that according to John Skylitzes - a Byzantine historian that lived in Duklja's time - the residents of Doclea were named by two names: Serbs or Tribals. Skylitzes mentions the emissaries of Prince Jovan Vladimir of Duklja as being Serbian (those that went to the Bulgarian court in 993 for negotiations). Skylitzes also calls the 11th century rebel of Duklja, Stefan Vojislav as the archont of Serbs - calling Doclea simply "Serbia" instead of its domestic name and calls the soldiers from Duklja Serbs. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read a great Byzantine medieval source "Strategicon" - you would've noticed that Stefan Vojislav was called "'Travunian the Serb" - and the recently mentione Skylitza calls Vojislav's son Michael ruler of Serbs. You probably heard of the Byzantine Princess Anna Comnenus that also signifies Duklja's population as Serbs. She calls Mihailo Vojislav and Constantine Bodin Exarchs of Serbs and their subjects as Serbs. As the tale tells, Stefan Vojislav returned to Duklja in 1037 and raised a rebellion in 1038 "...taking the land of the Serbs...". John S. also says that he ...took the Illyrian mountains and Tribals and Serbs and the neigbouring tribes.... The soldiers that defeated the Byzantine forces tragicly near Bar in 1042 the Greeks call "Serbs". Skylitzes' student continues his chronicle, describing the 300 troops under Duke Petrislav and Prince Konstantin Bodin that Mihailo Vojislav sent to Macedonia in 1072 as "the people of Serbs that came to completly conquer Bulgaria". Emperor Alexius I Comnenus appearently "...negotiatied with the Serbs.." during the negotiations with the King of Dalmatia & Doclea.

Now, this is what Stefan the first crowned wrote about his father, Stefan Nemanja: Иако ме тада није било нити памтим шта је било о рођењу његову, ипак сам слушао да је био велики метеж у овој страни српске земље, и Диоклитије и Далмације и Травуније, и да су родитељу његову браћа му завишћу одузели земљу. А он изиђе из буна њихових у мјесто рођења својега, по имену Диоклитија. И вољом Божјом и пречисте његове матере, роди и ово, свето дијете, које ће Божјим промислом бити сакупилац пропалих земаља отачаства свога, пастир и учитељ, па, штавише, и обновилац онога што је било пропало, у мјесту по имену Рибница. and поврати Диоклитију и Далмацију, отачаство и рођење своје, праву дједовину своју, коју је насиљем држао грчки народ... истријеби грчко име, да се никако не помиње име њихово у тој области, народ свој у њима неповређен остави... --HolyRomanEmperor 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor. You aren't following your own rules. Please don't add the Serbian reference back until the discussion is finished -- for now, the page is back to where it was (for a long time) prior to your change. I suppose it would be nice if we could get more views on the matter, from experts of history, of various ethinic backgrounds, not only a Serb with the desire to make everything Serbian. Serbia/Rascia is/was a great country, but that doesn't mean everything has to be Serbian.

As far as your "arguments", I see a lot of words, a lot of things cited, but no real argument supporting your change. If you want to win the debate, you need to address the main points against your changes:

  • Dioclea/Duklja dates to cca. 100 AD, much earlier than the 6th/7th century arrival of the Serbs, and the establishment of the 1st Serb State. You can see this in wikipedia article about the serbs. All the references you cite deal with the tail end, and a small portion, of Dioclea's histoty.
  • Dioclea, which that name, was "Red Croatia" under Dalmatian Croatian, longer than it was under Serbia/Rascia. You can't just say Dioclea is "Serbian" You could say that it was a "medieval state, orginally Illyrian, conquered by Slavic tribes, then being under Dalmatian Croatian rule, and lastly, under Serbian rule."
  • It is questoinable whether or not it should even be referred to a "Slavic" state, since slavic tribes arrived in the 5th/6th century. So, it wasn't really even "Slavic" for the majority of its history.
  • You yourself, cite in your points that "Information about the first Serbian state in Zeta is quite unreliable until the 11th century." Dioclea exists since cca. 100 AD. You calling it Serbian is irresponsible -- it ignores almost a millenium of history.

BTW, I'm looking into how to resolve this, Wikipedia style. If you add "Serbian" back again, you'll be in violation of the three edit rule. So I'd suggest you address the points directly, and that we follow the Wikipedia protocol on disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.138.171 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2006

I agree - let me continue here.

[edit] Point counterpoint

1. OK - firstly, you refer to Dioclea - which is not the subject of this article. It's a City that existed since 100 AD - and quitte possibly the largest continental city of Doclea. Doclea was named after the City. It was founded by the Slavic migrants in the first half of the 7th century under Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. Some sources mention the arrivalists as Serbs - but others tend "Slavs" because the Slavic pagans were quickly subjected to the superior culture of the Romanized coastal cities. Ever since, Duklja received constant migrations of neighbouring Serbs - as it took a far more important position than Rascia.

2. OK - note please that Duklja was "Serbian" in the Nemanjic period of rule: 1185-1361. After that, semi-independently and as Zeta (it's successor), it also remained Serbian up to the Turkish conquest in 1496. Before that - Duklja was the key element as it united the Serbs during the age of the Kingdom (yet again, Serbian) up to 1189 (and God knows since when - 1077, or even earlier, since the rebellion in 1034, perhaps?). Before that - so is the 990-1016 (or, continually, 1034) period of Jovan Vladimir's rule Serbian. Then before him, you have this rather unclear period in 971-990 of Petrislav's rule. The dynasty that gave Doclea is originating from Travunia, as this Terbounia conquered Diocleia and divided it - a branch of it's dynasty sprang through there. And as you know, Travunia is the one of the coastal southern Dalmatian Principalities that is strictly defined as Serbian (thus, its dynasty too). Before that, Doclea's rulers weren't noted and it was mostly under the influence of Serbia - as over 70% of Doclea was under control by Prince Ceslav Klonimirovic in 927-960. Before that, Doclea was under the centralist regime of Prince Zaharije Pribislavljevic at the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th. Appearently, Doclea became subjected to Rascia (according to Croatian historians - and the most biased ones) and attained a strict Serbian character in the early 800s - with the fall of Dalmatian Croatia to Frankish hands (thus, Doclea had to seek protection in Rascia). So, even if this was true (and there is very little historical evidence to back it up - 200 years looks lame towards 600 years... And if we count the strict Serbian character of the Montenegrins that fought against the Turks, you would have to add 500 years to it - thus exceeding 1,000 years. ;D --HolyRomanEmperor 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Now - the factual existence of a Red Croatia is heavily disputable. The main reason is because it is only mention on one occasion in one source - the source appeared in 1171-1196 during the greatest rift when Rascia was taking over Doclea. Now - there are two versions of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja - one Croatian (Slavic) and the other Ragusian (Latin). They contain 27 chapters - and none bears mention of a Red Croatia. However, a certain Latin version that appeared afterwards - and it contains 47 chapters (with the mention of a Red Croatia). However, all versions have the first 23 chapters slightly different from each others' - while the other Chapters are totally different. One other fact is that the mention of Red Croatia is only present through a source within the Chronicle - appearently from the year of 753 (over 400 years in the past), written by an annonimous man - Regnum Sclavorum or Libelus Gothum - a word that no one has ever heard of. Additionally, the work was discovered (or according to some, made up) in the 16th century. Aside from that, the Priest seperates his Chronicle in two parts: the first, which his notes as being mythical & full of legends (that's the one that bears the mention of Red Croatia); and the second, mostly a compilation of his personal experience in the life of Duklja (not Red Croats here whatsoever). Additionally - what gives the work "out" definately - is the fact that it calls Archbishops of Bar Primates of Serbia - althouch they asserted that title in the 16th century. Ironicly, the timing overlaps with the discovery of the work (or better - its deep altering). All in all, we can safelly say that a LPD was indeed written - but vastly (if not wholesomly) different from the version that we now preserve.

All this folds down to the fact that it's somewhat irrelevant. For instance, it's demanded that it be put that in the first half of the 7th century Slavs came to Lika - and not Croats. Why? Because of one meager mention of a Serb toponyme in the region (the City of Srb on the river of Una) and the fact that a Croatian-Pannonian Prince fled to the City and tricked the local Serbian ruler, killing him and taking his land for himself. This story is present only in one work: the Frankish Chronicle. The same source mentions the Serbs as being the dominant nation of Dalmatia in 822 - almost 3 decades before the first mention of Croats. This latter is being enforced to the article Dalmatia. Just as it cannot be said that Croatian Dalmatia wasn't Croatian - so cannot it be said that Doclea wasn't Serbian. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just read up Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea yourself. It's mostly a retelling of Serbian and neighbouring folk tales - just as if we would now use the Mountain Wreathe, or Na Drini Cuprija or any epic national work as a source. In the same likehood, Vuk Branković was always presented as a traitor at the Battle of Kosovo (wrongly). Also, all Serbian rulers were refered to as Emperors (instead of their regular titles). This, in the same manner, traditionally calls the rulers of Duklja Kings - although it received the Crown for the first time in 1077. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

3. It was constructed by Slavs under the Byzantine Imperial Throne in the first half of the 7th century - as spoken before --HolyRomanEmperor 13:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And essentially, you must understand that the Priest's chronicle is a POV source - not really reliable; and essentially, not neutral. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor:

Your absolutely right HRE. Its not about being nationalistic or POV. ANy western historian states that the Chronicle of the Preist of Duklja is a very poor source. Hxseek (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You've violated the three edit rule, even though you were warned. You're not acting in good faith, you're not waiting for the discussion to be completed before imposing your Serb-centric, nationalist views on the article. As there is no way to have a productive discussion and make this article accurate and objective. Don't you all forget up to Tokyo is Serbian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.138.171 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 June 2006

Very funny - there is nothing nationalistic as long as its sourced. Wikipedia is here not for the truth, but to state what has already been written (and not invent new WP:NOR). And I most certainly did not violate 3RR. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic Spelling

What is this spelling: Дукля? It looks Russian, and a Russian spelling is not very relevant to an ancient Balkan kingdom. The Serbian Cyrillic spelling is Дукља, although this spelling is also modern - the letter љ didn't exist in the 10th century. Still, Serbian would be still better than Russian. Or maybe it is supposed to be Old Slavonic? --Amir E. Aharoni 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Old Serbian - before Vuk's reforms... --HolyRomanEmperor 10:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor article

This article need to be re-written, using non-Serbian/Croatian/montenegrin sources. At the moment , it reads to much like a folk narrative . The extensive listing of Kings, and their sons , dogs and horses names just makes it hard to read.

I will be happy to propose something. Soon. Hxseek (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Do it as soon as you can. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)