Jump to content

Talk:Tomislav, King of Croatia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srnec (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 16 November 2024 (→Survey: !vote and comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

First hand sources

What are some first hand sources about Tomislav? Nothing in D.A.I and nothing in Chronicles of the priest of Duklja as some claim? Can i just ask what evidence there are that what is written in this article is actually historic FACT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.15.7 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav was explicitly mentioned in "Chronicles of the priest of Duklja". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.58.65 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


He was in fact not mentioned in Chronicles of the priest of Duklja. Can i have the quote and pagenumber to where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.62.229 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To settle this issue: Tomislav was apparently not explicitly mentioned in the CotPoD. In the supposed description of his coronation, he is named as Svatopluk/Budimir (depending on the redaction), which may or may not have referred to Tomislav. Moreover, according to Goldstein, CotPoD is a highly unreliable source, and its description of the coronation is largely factually incorrect, distorted, or even fabricated.
I might update the text to account for the unreliability of CotPoD. The question is how to do it without making the article too polemical (while allowing that it has to be polemical to a degree, because many supposed facts about Tomislav are not fully reliable and/or disputed). GregorB (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin redaction of the Chronicle explicitly mentions Tomislav, but not in the part about the "coronation":
"Regnavitque frater eius Thomislavus pro eo, qui fortis extitit viribus, sed non fuit ut frater eius. Regnante Thomislavo Ungarinorum rex nomine Attila promovit exercitum, ut debellaret eum. Rex autem Thomislavus, fortis iuvenis et robustus bellator, plurima bella cum eo commisit et semper eum in fugam convertit. Genuitque Thomislavus rex filios et filias, et XIII anno regni sui mortuus est." (Po njemu vladaše brat njegov Tomislav, koji je bio po prirodi snažan, ali nije bio kao brat mu. Za vladanja Tomislavljeva pokrene vojsku ugarski kralj zvani Atila, da ga savlada. Ali kralj Tomislav, hrabar mladić i snažan junak, zametne s njim mnoge vojne i uvijek ga natjera u bijeg. I rodi Tomislav sinove i kćeri i u trinaestoj godini svoga vladanja umre.)
The Chronicle is not reliable, but some of it's content could be useful. In the article, the Chronicle is mentioned in the "Coronation and Croatian Kingdom" section about the assumption in older historiography that Svatopluk/Budimir was Tomislav and that his coronation was described there. The other mention is about his wars with the Hungarians, which Goldstein thought was probably correct because there were other sources that mentioned Hungarian raids at the time. Here's what Goldstein wrote in "Hrvatski rani srednji vijek", 286-287:

"U Ijetopisu Popa Dukljanina postoji priča da je za vladavine Tomislava kralj Ugra imenom Atila pokrenuo vojsku da ga svlada. Ali je kralj Tomislav, hrabar mladić i snažan ratnik, vodio s njime mnogo ratova i uvijek ga je natjerao u bijeg. I rodi Tomislav sinove i kćeri, i trinaeste godine svoga kraljevanja umre. lako se gotovo sigurno vijest odnosi na našeg Tomislava, teško se u nju pouzdati, jer se očigledno u neodredivom omjeru u njoj isprepleće povijesna realnost i elementi legende (kao, uostalom, u čitavom tekstu LJPD). Atila je drugo ime za ugarskog vođu i rodonačelnika dinastije Arpadovića - Arpada. Trinaesta godina kraljevanja je najvjerojatnije samo stajaći broj, a ne točan podatak. Ni sintagmu hrabar mladić i snažan ratnik, a pogotovu kada ona prethodi informaciji o uspješno vođenim ratovima, ne treba uzimati suviše ozbiljno. Napokon, tek bi vijest o ratovima u vrijeme Tomislava mogla biti vjerodostojna - mađarski upadi u Hrvatsku mogli su biti najintenzivniji upravo u prvim desetljećima 10. stoljeća, kada je i mađarska opasnost po Evropu bila najveća. No, postoje i podaci koji na ovu pobjedu bacaju i drugačije svjetlo. Mletački kroničar Dandolo spominje mađarske pljačke u vrijeme dužda Ursa II. Badoera (912-932) u Moravskoj i Češkoj, a zatim i njihova pustošenja Hrvatske i Štajerske. S iznimno velikim plijenom vratili su se u Panoniju, zaključuje Dandolo. I već spomenuti anonimni notar kralja Bele III. tvrdi da su oko 900. godine Mađari podložili Rašku ... krenuvši odavle dođoše do mora, te podvrgoše sve (narode) ove domovine gospodstvu Arpada ... zauzevši još grad Split predobiše cijelu Hrvatsku. Očigledno se radi o pretjerivanju, a moguće je da je kroničar madarske uspjehe 12. stoljeća prebacio u početak 10. stoljeća. Međutim, ipak u tim navodima mora biti zrnce istine - najintenzivnije mađarske pljačke padaju upravo u početak 10. stoljeća. Čini se da su Mađari uistinu pokušavali i uspijevali prijeći Dinaride, jer Hrvatska je za Dandola bila, barem u to vrijeme, zemlja u neposrednom zaleđu obale. Ni podatak da su Mađari došli do Splita i pljačkali u njegovoj blizini nije moguće baš posve odbaciti, iako ga sigurno nisu osvojili. Dakle, Tomislavove su se čete vjerojatno od vremena od vremena sukobljavale s mađarskim pljačkašima - neki bi ih put uspjeli poraziti ili potjerati, drugi put ne bi. Stoga ne valja prenaglašavati značenje vijesti o njegovim pobjedama, a ni podcjenjivati one o uspjesima mađarskih pljački: jednostavno, moglo se raditi o višekratnim pokušajima Mađara da nešto opljačkaju. Razlog eventualnog uspjeha ili neuspjeha ovisio je vjerojatno o broju hrvatskih vojnika koji bi ih dočekali, kao i opterećenosti Mađara plijenom, što bi im otežavalo borbu, te o postignutom iznenađenju (zasjeda, itd.)." Tzowu (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very useful clarification - my claim about the Chronicle not mentioning Tomislav was obviously off.
In Goldstein 1985, p. 41, it is said that Tomislav's wins over the Hungarians were not mentioned by anyone in any way, save for the Chronicle. Still, Goldstein concludes - similarly as in the above quote - that "Tomislav did defeat the Hungarians, possibly multiple times". My point about the Chronicle is not that it should be dismissed entirely, but that it should be presented with more nuance - in the same way historians who discuss it do, but preferably without extensive pro and con arguments which are typical for historiography.
A propos: Goldstein 1985 also notes that Tomislav was a marginal figure in historiography and collective consciousness until as late as the second half of the 19th century, which is fairly remarkable. I might expand the article along these lines. GregorB (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That can go under legacy and Budak and Goldstein are good enough sources for it. I thought that going into detail about what was said about him in the 19th and early 20th centuries would make the article too complicated for an average reader so I sticked to what modern historiography mostly says about Tomislav. For example, the Chronicle talks about victories against "Atila", while the article has "To the north there were often conflicts with the Principality of Hungary", as Goldstein explained, among others. Tzowu (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking to modern views is a good decision. Indeed, an average reader is not going to be interested in what historians said a century ago. However, Tomislav being virtually unknown 150 or so years ago is interesting and was surprising to me - I learned about it only days ago, while going through the exposition in Goldstein 1985 (of which a brief overview in the Legacy section might do). GregorB (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstein and Budak on the border issues

Regarding this edit: it is fairly clear that Budak did not address the border issues at least partially because the two share views on the Drava-Sava area being a wider border area outside anyone's firm rule. This is why I feel that the fact he criticized Goldstein's book is irrelevant in this context. Budak's view on Bosnia remains open; I'll take a closer look at his book. GregorB (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tomislav of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tomislav of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Surtsicna, so all articles like Levedi Zoltán of Hungary Stefan Uroš V William II of England would violate the portrait rules of Wikipedia? However so long as the portrait was from the time they were alive then it should be valid? At least that is my interpretation to the link you gave to the wiki rules. Would statues be alright or only ones again created during their era? I never knew of these regulation so forgive my ignorance on it. I’m trying to understand. I thought so long as the image is not self made but sourced and cited, that it would be valid. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The William II portrait is fine; it is commonly found in the literature about the subject. The other examples cited are good examples of what not to do. The lead image in a historical figure biography should never be the kind that would never be found in academic sources, i.e. obscure and/or heavily romanticised portrayals. See WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:PORTRAIT for further info. The discussion about the portraits of popes at WP:CATHOLICISM might also be of interest; it was found that 19th-century illustrations should not be used in the infoboxes of papal biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if I am a bit slow in understanding the differences and the regulations for the infobox images. If the examples I gave are examples of “what not to do”, why do these still remain?
And it appears there are editors in strong opposition to the Portrait and Lead rules. It seems you placed a “contemporary” image for Stefan Uros as it was created during the time he was alive, correct? This makes sense and I think I understand.It is likely to be made in his image as apposed to an artists imagined illustration. Though the two Hunagrian examples still have modern fantasy renditions. Should they also be removed or replaced with contemporary ones if such exist? I don’t see why the William II is fine given the Tomislav Portait is used in documentaries and books. It is even used by Google when googling his name and pops up in Google’s summary bio for the figure. So it is used in other places and a common depiction and identified with the figure. I noticed in the edit difs where one IP was verbally abusing another (calling them Ustashe Nazi which seems to be ultranationalist attacks between each other) that made a fair point.
What about the King Solomon article? Solomon and Saul? It seems that the fantasy images keep being placed back under the argument that Wikipedia guidelines do not go against having a fantasy image? Seems there is a lot of conflicting views on the matter when looking at the diffs for those pages. Is the portrait not also a historical rendition? The Tomislav image has been part of the article for over a decade unattested at least. So I don’t really see why it is controversial to keep the portrait as a form of visual for the article. Wikipedia guidelines don’t exactly ban the use of more modern depictions of historical figures either. I do see that it is recommended however. It doesn’t seem to be an encyclopedia breaking matter. I guess there needs to be a wider set consensus in regards to the use of later paintings and illustrations of subjects from centuries prior.
I’m still unsure about it. So it still tickles my brain unavoidably. Maybe partly my OCD. I know you are better experienced in this field than me. Don’t want to give the impression that I’m some know-it-all or something. Thinking out loud myself. So, sorry for the late response. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 November 2024

– Per WP:PRECISION, WP:SOVEREIGN, and WP:CONSISTENT, I request that the titles of the articles on these three Croatian rulers be changed. An extended rationale follows on Tomislav's talk page. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale

  1. WP:PRECISION - As they stand, all of these titles do not ...unambiguously define the topical scope of the article..., as the cited guideline advises. Anyone named Tomislav, Domagoj, or Branimir who is affiliated with Croatia (e.g. Domagoj Vida) may theoretically be referred to with the current appellations. See also my comments at another discussion venue, where I note that X of Y does not necessarily refer to a monarch even on the English Wikipedia. Moreover, even if we only consider sovereigns, there is still ambiguity with the current titles (e.g. Tomislav of Croatia is also a referent to this nominal king).
  2. WP:SOVEREIGN - As #4 of the cited guideline notes,

    Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a [kingdom or empire], the ordinal is used only when it was in official use, as with Juan Carlos I (not Juan Carlos, King of Spain). When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile or Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain are used.

    Since Tomislav is the only undisputed Croatian king with that regnal name and it does not appear that he is commonly known by a regnal number, Tomislav, King of Croatia is thus a title that better adheres to this guideline (and WP:PRECISION). In addition, as #5 of WP:SOVEREIGN notes,

    European monarchs whose rank is below that of emperor or king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, sovereign princes), and whose plain common name is ambiguous, should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Albert II, Prince of Monaco.

    Since Domagoj and Branimir were sovereign dukes, Domagoj, Duke of Croatia and Branimir, Duke of Croatia are therefore more appropriate article titles.
  3. WP:CONSISTENT - In addition to the example titles in the above quotations, there is precedent for using [Rank] of [Country] as an article title on the English Wikipedia for European monarchs whose common name is a plain given name. To illustrate, John, King of England is about a medieval English sovereign (who happens to be why the Magna Carta exists). Likewise, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick is about a 20th-century German ruler (who happens to be the son-in-law of Kaiser Wilhelm II).

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I would not care if we used parenthetical disambiguation with Croatian rulers, as suggested above. If we do, we should apply it to the ambiguous numeraled kings as well, the Trpimirs and Stephens. Srnec (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Surtsicna: Because you had mentioned the possibility of changing these article titles at another discussion venue, I am courtesy pinging you here to request that you provide any insight that I have not touched upon. Please feel free to disregard if you do not wish to comment on this matter. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tomislav,_King_of_Croatia&oldid=1257785042"