Talk:Pacta conventa (Croatia)

Pacta Conventa is not a document - it's a cronicle narrative

Read here:

Što je zapravo tu istina i tko je (bio) u pravu?
Uzme li se u obzir priroda povijesnog izvora i njegov sadržaj, suvremena historiografija mora zaključiti: Pacta conventa ili Qualiter nije nikakav međunarodni ugovor, isprava ili diploma to je tek jedan kroničarski zapis – narativ, nastao vjerojatno negdje u 14. stoljeću.

Translation:

What is the truth indeed here and who is (was) right?
Taking into account the nature of the historical source and its content, contemporary historiography must conclude: The Pacta conventa or Qualiter is not an international treaty, a document or a diploma, it is only a chronicle record, a narrative, probably dating back to the 14th century.--109.92.93.23 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake

• The exact nature of the agreement, and even its existence, is impossible to determine as historians believe that a transcript of the Pacta Conventa preserved in the city of Trogir is actually a fourteenth -century fake - from: The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream by Alex J. Bellamy, Manchester University Press, 2003 p. 37
• As was to be expected, this work, published in 1844, proclaimed the Pacta Conventa document to be a forgery, and 'proved' that the sabor's claim that Croatia had never been conquered by Hungary was both false and spurious. from Croatia through history: the making of a European state byBranka Magaš, Saqi, 2007 p. 199
• The Pacta Conventa never existed, but the story about it was important for the Croatian position in the Habsburg Empire in the eighteen and nineteen centuries, when the Croats claimed their rights to the statehood on the basis on this agreement. from The Former Yugoslavia's Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook by Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar, ABC-CLIO, 2004 p 16--109.92.93.23 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read the article first because it seems to me you didn't. The modern stance of historiography is that Pacta Conventa is probably written in the 14th century, but its contents correspond to the political situation in Croatia and its position during the Middle Ages. That's what's written in the article so I don't understand what exactly are you disputing. Btw, you misunderstood the quote from Magaš because she was being sarcastic about the 1844 work and what it "proved" (see the full quotation prior to that sentence: "The Hungarian parliament for its part instructed the appropriately named Istvan Horvath (Stephen Croat), custodian of the newly established Hungarian National Museum, to examine 'objectively' the legal state relationship of Croatia with its Hungarian 'motherland'. As was to be expected, this work, published in 1844, proclaimed the Pacta Conventa document to be a forgery, and 'proved' that the sabor's claim that Croatia had never been conquered by Hungary was both false and spurious.") Tzowu (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I read the article. Did you? The article claims:

Pacta conventa (Lat. agreed accords) was an alleged agreement concluded between King Coloman of Hungary and the Croatian nobility in 1102 or afterwards, defining the status of Croatia in the union with Hungary. The earliest manuscript of the document is of the fourteenth century.

The truth is given above: it is only a chronicle record, a narrative, probably dating back to the 14th century, not a document as it stated later in the article. So, how it then be inferred: but that the contents of the Pacta Conventa still correspond to the political situation of that time in Croatia? The document(sic!) is preserved in the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest.?--109.92.93.23 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And since when is a tabloid like index a reliable source for history? Tzowu (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? Which way it disqualifies "dr. sc. Gordan Ravančić (slika dolje), stručnjak za srednjovjekovnu povijest s Hrvatskog instituta za povijest, koji je predstavio narative i suvremene znanstvene spoznaje?" The source is not a tabloid but dr. sc. Gordan Ravančić, the Croatian History Institute expert and many other historians he referred to.--109.92.93.23 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he participates in this kind of series of texts for index disqualifies him, yes, but nevermind that. From the way you started the discussion it didn't seem that the only problem you see in the article is the word "document". AFAIK, a chronicle is also a document, as is a record or a manuscript for example. I don't see the use of the word "document" here as contentious and a potential replacement of the word with something else, like "record", wouldn't change the meaning of the article. Even one of the quotes you used here calls it a document, while the word "isprava" is better translated as a "charter", not "document". Tzowu (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You should read in full and take the dr. Ravančić’s article seriously. What dr. Ravančić says is undeniable: the Thomas Archdeacon cronicle does not verify the so-called Pacta Conventa:

‘’Tomina kronika govori o tome kako je nakon Zvonimirove smrti u Hrvatskom Kraljevstvu došlo do pomutnje i borbe za vlast budući da Dmitar Zvonimir nije imao zakonita nasljednika (njegov sin Radovan ranije je preminuo, a kruna i kraljevska vlast shodno onodobnim pravilima nasljeđivanja nisu mogle prijeći na Zvonimirovu kćer Klaudiju). Tada, na poziv nekog slavonskog plemića, ugarski kralj Ladislav krene smiriti situaciju; i sve do planine Gvozd nije mu nitko pružao otpor, ali se potom – ne stigavši do mora – morao vratiti u Ugarsku. Tek je njegov nasljednik Koloman u pobjedonosnom, ali dugotrajnom, pohodu uspio prodrijeti do Jadranske obale i potom se okruniti za kralja. ‘’

The Historia Salonitana maior  cronicle is just broadened Thomas Archdeacon cronicle written by an unknown author who wrote the Pacta Conventa arbitrarily interpreting the Thomas Archdeakon cronicle. Nowhere Thomas Archdeacon mentioned any agreement made between Croatian nobility and Hungarian kings. King Ladislaus marched up to Gvozd mountain not experiencing any resistance and king Koloman, the Ladislaus successor, by force reached the Adriatic coast and subdued Croatia and Dalmatia without any agreement ever made. This fact completely disqualifies the Terms section of the Wikipedia article.--109.92.93.23 (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? The opinions of various historians are already in the article. The "terms" section contains the terms listed in the Pacta Conventa itself. Maybe "contents of the Pacta Conventa" would be a better section name, but there is again no issue there, and therefore no reason for a dispute tag. Tzowu (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The opinions are irrelevant. The fact-based claims only are relevant. Drawing conclusion from nowhere like 'but that the contents of the Pacta Conventa still correspond to the political situation of that time in Croatia' is a nonsense, not an opinion even if referenced. In the current version of article lingers suggestion that this narrative was a real and lost document. ("The earliest manuscript of the document is of the fourteenth century."). The 'twelve Croatian nobles' represents a very small part of that time Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia. The narrative was not an agreement therefore the 'Interpretations of the agreement' is another nonsense. Irrelevant and marginal opinions about validity of this narrative have here undue weight. So, a huge rewrite of the article is needed.--109.92.93.23 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)