Talk:Lastovo

NPOV problems on History section (Regarding Serbian claims)

Definite POV problems in the history section. It seems HolyRomanEmperor is reaching for anything serbian to connect it to the island as well as anything in southern croatia, hercegovina. Looking at user HolyRomanEmperor it seems this is his specialty. Could I ask HolyRomanEmperor to quote his sources and prove his edits? I would also like to add appropriate evidence contra this. If anything this island was never outright Croat, but enjoyed loose autonomy within the Croatian sphere with never a direct Serbian settlelment or control ever! Using the river Neretva or Cetina is propaganda firstly, however secondly is also not applicable to the island. I think the history needs to be discussed. Uvouvo 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you characterised my edits like Serbian propaganda; but please view this: De Administrando Imperio. Also refer to Pagania. The Neretvian Slavs are referred to as Serbs quitte a number of times. It is known, that Prince Ceslav Klonimirovic Vlastimirovic ruled the lands (including the island). See his article. That's the full story... --HolyRomanEmperor 13:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Roman emperor. I'm sorry to categorise you that way, as that term can be misused. I still hold firm in this case though. I know the DAI very well and also how it can be manipulated. The DAI is not the only source however. Here is a list of all the objections I have with the article. There are more to come though...

From the article HRE (HolyRomanEmpire) writes "Around 950, the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos mentions Lastovo in his De Administrando Imperio by its Slavic name Lastobon, which proves that it was already inhabited by the Serbian tribe Neretvians."

It does NOT prove this at all. Such proof is for your benefit only. If you want to prove that Neretljani are exclusively Serbian, then do this in the Neretljani wiki pages, such assertions dont need to be made here on the Lastovo page. All non biased historians agree that the southern dalmatian duchies were inhabited by both Croats and Serbs. Serbs tended toward the mountainous hinterland while Croats inhabited the coastal regions. This is affirmed by Professor John V A Fine in his book "The early medieval balkans". If you read Mandic, Jurica, Lucijanovic these would also argue that Croats also inhabited the neretva regions. It is absurd to say it was exclusively Serbian, even the DAI in the different chapters suggest otherwise.

Again from the article HRE writes "The island would soon fall to the Croats, but during the Croatian Civil War after the death of King Krešimir around 945 Lastovo is returned by the Neretvians and incorporated into the Serbian Realm of Prince Časlav of Klonimir of the House of Vlastimir."

Firstly how do you know it "fell" to the Croatians? This is leading the reader and is biased making it sound that it was otherwise Serbian when it wasnt "occupied" by the Croatians. If at 945 Lastovo is under the Neretvan political spehere under Prince Caslav Klonimirovic, how does this suggest the inhabitants are Serbs, and where did you find out that Caslav Klonimirovic ruled Lastovo or that Lastovo was even within Neretva district at that time. Let me quote chapter 36 of the DAI which exclusively excludes Lastovo from Netreva / Pagania. Remember Porphyrogenitus wrote this around 950 which means at the height of Caslavs rule... "Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they posses these islands: the large island of Kourkra (Korcula) or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island Meleta (Mljet) ... another large island, Bratzis (Brac). There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara (Susac), the island of Ies (Vis), the island of Lastobon (Lastovo)"

Again from the article "HRE writes After the fall of the Serb Realm in the second half of 960, the Byzantines made it their own theme of Serbia. Lastovo would be contested for control but the resurgent Duklja in the 11th century and other medieval factions until its direct incorporation into the Serbian Grand Principality of Rascia in the second half of the 12th century"

What does this have to do with Lastovo. Make another article on the Serb realm falling in 960. Where was it written that Lastovo was contested for control? Duklja in the 11th / 12th Century was hardly Serbian at all until Nemanja conquered Duklja / Zeta. I use the word conquered because he himself writes this. In Stefan Nemanja's declaration in 1198 he writes how he forcefully expanded the Serbian state to include Duklja. He writes: "i priobretoh' od' Mor'ske zemle Zetu i s' gradovi, a od ' Arbanas ' Pilot', a od' Gr'c'ske zemle Lab' s' L'planem...". Also Duklja under Mihajlo had Croatian inhabitants. The DAI doesnt specifically allocate the Serbian ethnicity to Duklja. Furthermore John Skylitzes in his chronicle mentions the following... "Dukljan King Michael rules over those who call themselves Croats" The notion of Croats in Duklja is supported with the testimony from Byzantine Chronicler John Scylitza. Lastly Lastovo was never part of Duklja and we can see by this map in 1073 the Dukljanska Drzava which included the southern dalmatian duchies including Raska. http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/1073.jpg This didnt include Lastovo. However even if it did this does not mean it would be Serbian as I pointed out there are sources saying that Croats were present in the area as well. Here is another map from 1102 (when Croatia entered the Pacta Conventa) http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/1102.jpg . The other thing is Serbia at the height of its power under Uros never included anything west of Dubrovnik. See this map http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/1358.jpg . Serbia waged war on Dubrovnik many times and never won. Had they won then fair enough Dubrovnik and surrounding areas may have turned out to be Serb like Duklja. These maps show Lastovo part of "white croatia" in the year 800 as well as during King Tomislav's time in the year 925.

Again HRE writes in the article "The Dubrovnik Republic aqcuired Lastovo from the Serbian Kingdom of Rascia of King Stefan Uroš I in 1252 after it promised that Lastovo would keep its internal autonomy."

Wrong again. 1252 is the date Lastovo voluntarily joined the Dubrovnik republic. This is codified in the Dubrovnik Statute written in 1272 only 20 years after Lastovo joined. Its accuracy is accepted by all serious historians. XV. glavi I. Knjige Dubrovackog Statua "Notandum est quod, quando homines de Lasta dederunt se et insulam Lasta comuni civitatis Ragusii, hoc pacto dederunt se et insulum suam, videlicet: quod comune Ragussii iuravit manutenere eis omnes antiquas suas consuetudines, quas ipsi inter se habent, et secundum hoc pactum comune Ragussi dedit eam de sua voluntate comiti suo, qui per tempora erit in Ragusio" The translation to this basically says that the island community Lastovo voluntarily joins the Dubrovnik / Ragusan republic which agree's to honour the islands internal autonomy. The Lastovo Statute written or codified in 1310 also supports this assertion.

I have more to add and will do so in the future. Regards Uvouvo 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My answer

The Neretvians are exclusivly Serbian would be nationalistic propaganda. However, of the four southern Dalmatian Principalities (Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia, Duklja), the Narentines were the ones with the highest Serbian determination. I suggest also that you read the Pagania article. Currently, it puts the Narentines as a Serbian tribe. I agree that claiming that the Neretvians are exclusivly Serbian, is essentially absurd. All of the three (or better five) southern Dalmatian Slavic peoples are distinct groups, at times expressing Serbian and at times Croatian affilation. AFAIC, most non-biased historians consider that the population is either(not stating percisely which-is-which) Serbian or Croatian. Or, even better, as distinct Slavic nations of different (varying at times) Serbian or Croatian affilation. The Narentines to the most west have had the strongest link with the Serbs, while the Dukljans to the most east barely had Serbian affilation.

The subject on the fall to the Croatians... is very disputive and should probably be left out. The main problem is this:

• The Neretvians inhabited the island of Lastovo since they came to the region in the first half of the 7th century
• The Neretvians took the isand of Lastovo from the Kingdom of Croatia as soon as the Civil War broke out after Kreshimir's death in 945

So how to explain how did the Neretvians conquer something that was originally theirs? The only reasonable explaination - is that the Croats conquered it from them before. Isn't it?

Ofcourse Ceslav had ruled Neretvia (with Lastovo) directly. It is actually a well-known historical fact. However, there can be brought no conclusion on the island's population based on that. The island's population could've been Chinese, but that is not the subject. The subject is that it was ruled by the Serbian Prince back then.

DAI does not exclude Lastovo from Pagania. You mentioned it yourself - Lastobon.

Here is the main problem about the 1073 year's map: Around 1050, King Stjepan I of Croatia invited the Neretvians to join his realm. I suppose that they did. Duklja made serious military attempts against Croatia in the second half of the 11th century, raiding all the way to Knin. Since then, the Croatian Kingdom never restored control back over the river of Cetina. I've got the original of this map from the 12th century, showing Lastovo as Serbia's: Map of the Balkans and Asia Minor in the 13th century.

You should also see Duklja, to see that you're a little wrong on its lack of connection with the Serbs. The main title of the Ecclesiastical head in Bar was Primate of Serbia - and the ruler's title was Ruler of Serbs and Tribals. Additionally, it is reffered to as the Servian Kingdom (since 1077). Also, that priobretoh' is translated as annexed. Essentially, what does it even matter? Stefan Nemanja was a Roman Catholic Christian born in Duklja, by origin from Travunia. So, it should be said that he conquered the Serbs, according to your view on the matter. :) You made a mistake in a year. Please differ Emperor Uroš (reigning 1355 - 1371) and King Uroš I (reigning 1243 - 1276).

I took the info on the giving away from Urosh to Dubrovnik from a very biased source. I just realised that now. I will repair the problem immediatly.

Sorry for the confusion. I forgot that Mljet was the center of Serbian mercantilism :D. (and Korčula and Vis slightly). --HolyRomanEmperor 18:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There! Better now? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the differences between the two Uros's, I just used the example that at the height of Emperor Uros's reign he included many non-Sebrian lands all the way to and including parts of Greece, but nothing west of Dubrovnik - this would be weird if Zahumlje and Neretlja were really exclusively Serbian tribes. Anyway thats not the point, the point is that you failed to address the points I made and still failed to produce any evidence / valid sources without opinion. Your maps also do not convey anything, mine were specific and from Croatian text books based on the evidence / sources I quoted. Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

HRE you said that "I took the info on the giving away from Urosh to Dubrovnik from a very biased source. I just realised that now. I will repair the problem immediatly".

This is mentioned, but as you stated it is a biased source and the account in the dubrovnik archives which directly contradicts this is the more accurate one. I provided the latin original from the statute of 1272. I will tidy up your edits so that it reads better and conveys the above we now agree on Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

HRE you also said this... "DAI does not exclude Lastovo from Pagania. You mentioned it yourself - Lastobon".

I even provided you the text from the DAI, i'll do it again and bold it this time so you can see ...

"Chapter 36 - Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they posses these islands: the large island of Kourkra (Korcula) or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island Meleta (Mljet) ... another large island, Bratzis (Brac). There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara (Susac), the island of Ies (Vis), the island of Lastobon (Lastovo)". How can Klonimorovic control it if he was at his height in the 950's and all this when the DAI was written at the same time and excludes Lastovo from the Pagani suggesting a loose autonomy elsewhere? Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

HRE you also mentioned this... "I agree that claiming that the Neretvians are exclusivly Serbian, is essentially absurd. All of the three (or better five) southern Dalmatian Slavic peoples are distinct groups, at times expressing Serbian and at times Croatian affilation. AFAIC, most non-biased historians consider that the population is either(not stating percisely which-is-which) Serbian or Croatian. Or, even better, as distinct Slavic nations of different (varying at times) Serbian or Croatian affilation.".

You are basicallyu agreeing with me. The wording on the history of Lastovo is carefully chosen. There are no hard facts as I mentioned since there are only a few written sources and many of these contradict each other. We know that both Croats and Serbs settled in the four southern duchies. This is the reason why the wording is chosen carefully to describe the history of Lastovo. Your wording is chosen to push another agenda. It is important to honestly portray the islands history, or be vague rather thn make bold assertions such as the ones you have made Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lastly and this should apply to both Luka Jacov and HolyRomanEmperor - The article should be brought back to the most common ground, and any claims such as croatian or serbian ethnicity need to be proved. I think this is the best approach??? Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it weird if they're Serbian lands, but not in the boundries of Serbia. After all, Zahumlje was invaded for four times by the Croats, and twice by the Bosnians. I think that that explains everything sufficiently :). By the way, Mljet is slightly west from Dubrovnik.

OK, we're through with the Urosh bit.

That last bit explains a lot. The Narentines didn't retrieve the island from the Croats after Krešimir's death, they conquered it. OK, I will change that bit.

Yes, but I do not agree that you left out the Narentines' identity - entirely - as it says in De Administrando Imperio.

I also noticed that you erased Ceslav's Realm... Why?

I don't understand your POV pushes that are nearly vandalims on the Duklja article. What were you trying to do? --HolyRomanEmperor 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I havent edited the Duklja article. That user is not me. I noticed that user as well making edits on Lastovo and he seems to be agreeing with my POV. I however made a reference to him in my talk page for him to join Wikipedia. I was asked by someone on my chat forums to have a look at this article which is why i got involved. Anyway, The Narentines identity should only be discussed in the Narentine wiki page. It cannot directly be included here because this is not an agreed fact pertaining to Lastovo. Caslav's realm may have included Pagania, but I showed you at the height of Caslav's rule the DAI specifically says that Lastovo was not a part of Pagania, therefore Caslav has nothing to do with Lastovo. These were written at the same time. Where is your proof otherwise, as I already mentioned all claims need to be substantiated.

I'm glad were through with the Urosh bit :)

HRE writes "Why is it weird if they're Serbian lands, but not in the boundries of Serbia. After all, Zahumlje was invaded for four times by the Croats, and twice by the Bosnians. I think that that explains everything sufficiently :). By the way, Mljet is slightly west from Dubrovnik." This is reaching and once again unsubstantiated. There is more to suggest Croatian since there was nothing written apart from the DAI, Ivan Dakon, Lastovo joining the Hvar diocese in 1185, and the dubrovnik statute in 1272 saying they voluntarily joined. I still havent seen your sources yet? You are trying very hard to say it was populated by serbians, or was once serbian. I havent even tried to say it was Croatian, even though more suggest that it was. We still need to talk about the customs, language, names of the inhabitants, religion, architecture and many other things, none of which confirm or suggest Serbian traditions or culture ever being there Uvouvo

I just noticed you re-included this .... HRE writes "The island would soon fall to the Croats, but during the Croatian Civil War after the death of King Krešimir around 945, Lastovo is returned by the Neretvians and incorporated into the Serbian Realm of Prince Časlav of Klonimir of the House of Vlastimir." and "After the fall of the Serbian Realm in the second half of the 9th century, the Byzantines made it their own theme of Serbia. Lastovo would be contested for control but the resurgent Duklja in the 11th century and other medieval factions until its direct incorporation into the Serbian Grand Principality of Rascia in the second half of the 12th century" I gave you plenty of reason why it shouldnt be included, yet you have given no specific piece of evidence linking this to Lastovo to suggest why it should even be discussed here? I dont want to have an edit war with you which is why i asked the article be reverted back to a common base and that any claims such as serbian or croatian rule / ethnicity need to be proved. It seems that this cannot be achieved, so we may need to seek arbitration in the matter. Can we agree that claims need to be substantiated before they are included? Uvouvo 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Luka Jacov, can I ask that the above mentioned parts be excluded from the article until HolyRomanEmpire proves with primary sources explicitly, reliably showing that Lastovo was indeed under Caslav realm. I dont think Jurica even mentions this. He makes many other points, but these would be too detailed to include in this article. I think the removal of the above with a gneral tidy up of the history would make this article fair for all concerned (Pretty much a carbon copy of Jurica's historical summary provided on many other websites). I didnt want to change it until I heard from you so I will wait a little while? PS user 220.237.20.25 is not me and I have asked him to join to also discuss rather than edit without discussion. I think he was the one that asked me to look at this article in the first place - Cheers :) Uvouvo 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am really not attempting to push anything. See the Pagania article by the way.

According to the Ilustrovana Istorija Srba of Vladimir Ćorović, he draws from Chronicum Venetum that Lastovo was conquered by the Narentines after the death of Krešimir. And, Pagania was ruled by Prince Časlav.

However, the Byzantine theme is elusive and slightly disambigutive, so it should be dropped. --HolyRomanEmperor 01:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Evo ako treba i dokaz da su osvojili Lastovo oko 945. : [1] --HolyRomanEmperor 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, i'll have a proper read later. Although quickly looking through it I cant find any reference to reliable sources, I need to see the part from Chronicum Venetum to give substance to your claims as even the Rastko links provided by you contradict what you said earlier. Your link say's it was conquered by the nerentines, but earlier you mention 'returned' and that in fact it was the Croats that conquered it (meaning if the Nerentines conquered Vis and Lastovo it probably was Croatian by your own logic) - this is all in complete discord with the DAI at the time which says Lastovo and Vis were not part of Pagania and this was written in ca 950 at the same time Caslav ruled his realm. Your sources also seem to be mainly opinion from the Rasko site unless you can show me primary sources, and these have to be weighed against other reliable sources. I agree this whole thing should be dropped from the article as I have always suggested because of ambiguity and subjectiveness. I will wait till tonight to see Luka's opinions before I edit the article. I will take it back to a common base. This can be built upon by providing proof and reliable accounts / sources, but first we need something we all agree on Uvouvo 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pokladar's part

There is no point quoting simply one greater serbian all encompasing biased source. I could quote also "Povijest Hrvata" by Dr Mladen Lorkovic a greater Croatian proponent whereby he states and takes literally that the Vojislavljevic line was in fact descended from the earlier Croatian Trpimirovic line whereby he mentions that Predimir is the brother of Kresimir. That is taking the LPD literally -- quoted below:

Afterwards, King Predimir sired four sons, who bore the following names: The first born was called Chlavimir, the second Boleslav, the third Dragislav, and the fourth Svevlad. He divided his kingdom between them in this way: to Chlavimir he gave the region of Zenta with its cities and these zupanias: Lusca, Podlugiae, Gorsca, Cupelnich, Obliquus, Prapratna, Cermenica, Budva with Cuceva and Gripuli; to Boleslav he gave these zupanias: Libomir, Vetanica, Rudina, Crusceviza, Vrmo, Rissena, Draceviza, Canali, Gernoviza; [327] to Dragislav he gave the region of Chelmania and these zupanias: Stantania, Papava, Yabsko, Luca, Vellica, Gorimita, Vecenike, Dubrava and Debre; to Svevlad he gave the region which the Slavs call Podgoria, in Latin "Submontana", and these zupanias: Onogost, Moratia, Comerniza, Piva, Gerico, Netusini, Guisemo, Com, Debreca, Neretva and Rama. He called these four territories Tetrarchies.

King Predimir lived for many years and saw his sons' sons before he died at a ripe old age. He was entombed with great honour, reverence and glory in church of St. Peter in the episcopate of Rassa.

The interesting point here is that Predimir is able to endow to his son distinctly Croat districts of Piva & Rama. Only a Croat noble could pass this on; not take it by force which would denote an invader, that is like Nemanja in Duklja.

XXXI. His brother Cresimir [Crescimir] had a son named Stephen. After his father's death he ruled White Croatia and Bosna, and after him they [his descendants ?] always reigned in Croatia. Cresimir's son had a son by his concubine who had two crippled legs, and for a long time was unable to walk. He was called Leghec. After the death of his father, Leghec was taken to Tribunia [328] to his cousin Boleslav. He [Leghec] was served by a girl named Lovizza, who delighted him so much that they married, and she bore him seven sons who grew up to be bellicose youths who were formidable with arms.

This would make him the progenitor of all the kings of Duklja, which as you know went on to defeat Raska. However, as an intelligent enlightened human being even possessing a first hand account (LPD) I can make the distinction between what would seem real & unreal or probable & improbable. This would relegate Serbia as part of Croatia. HRE would say in this position that all the southern duchies would have a homogeneously Serbian population, Lorkovic would say they would be all Croatian. A reasonable person like most historians claim that the population of the southern duchies was infact mixed.

Common sense would say that when the Croats, and not the Serbs defeated the Avars (DAI) and cleared also the areas of the southern duchies which were made desolate as a result would have populated some areas, most likely coastal areas. The Byzantine emperor later imported Serbs to settle (DAI), those same areas and these Serbs occupied the hinterland (Hum). This pretty much corresponds to the current ethnic distribution whereby Croats inhabit the coastal strip of these duchies and serbs the hinterland (eastern hercegovina & montenegro).

Uvouvo has provided clear and concise quotes from the time and shown impartially that the island of Lastovo enjoyed virtually complete autonomy which was in a large part due to its remote geographical characteristic. If one was to take the generally accepted and impartial view it is quite clear that Lastovo gravitited between the known state boundaries at the time, this even the DAI asserts when it explicitly excludes the island from the Chapter of Pagania and its boundaries. He has also furnished quotes from John Skylitzes & Ivan Dakon.

One must remember that like the LPD the DAI also had a political bias insofar that during the time of the great schism which was in this area visible earlier, portrays Byzantine posturing for these sparsely populated areas and bring them under the Eastern sphere of influence; whereby the Catholic priest of Bar attempts to achieve the opposite and the aggrandisement of his own bisphoric. The most important point and information on this point is not what external sources say, but what the islanders themselves do and say. In the Statute of 1310 they affirm a previous agreement to joint the republic of their own free will, meaning that they saw themseves independent of and different to peoples around them; this is confirmed in DAI. "They tied themselves to the bisphoric of Hvar voluntarily in 1185" meaning the saw themselves not of the Eastern persuasion.

Marin Lucijanovic - Lastovo u Sklopu Dubrovacke Republike 1954 p 257; this is supported by: Dr G Cremosnik - Srpska akedemija Beograd - 1939 str.6

I have provided a reasonable Croat & Serb source to make my claim can you do the same?

In summation I have shown that there was a distinct Croat presence in the southern duchies, HRE attested to this earlier when he cited the presence of Red Croats in the southern duchies. DAI excludes Lastovo from Pagania. Lastovo sees itself autonomous and ties itself to the bisphoric of Hvar in 1185 (which was tied to the Croato-Hungarian kings)and to Dubrovnik in 1272 later codifying it in law in 1310. What could one deduce from these facts logically could be best summed up in

Lastovo -- Logos 1985 str 93

"the events in the middle ages are trustworthy signs that a great autonomy for Lastovo in this period, it most likely recognised Croatian kings as its nominal rulers" Pokladar 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pokladar, thanks for finally registering. I dont have time to monitor the edits tonight, but will look into it tomorrow. HLE, Luka i will follow up in the morning :) Uvouvo 11:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To User:Uvouvo: Yes, I already clarified that statement. The Neretvians conquered the island from the Croatians, obviously. Didn't you notice when I agreed with you on that matter?

To User:Pokladar: Your clarification makes six daring errors:

• It mentions this fictionous "King" Predimir; note that Duklja was never a Kingdom before 1077
• It again mentions Predimir as a King
• I find strange how could only a Croatian noble pass on Piva and Rama. Why is that considered?
• Your statements also include that this King Predimir (that was never King) was the brother of the Croatian King Krešimir. You might find it interesting that Kresimir ruled Croatia (look at List_of_rulers_of_Croatia) in 935-945. King Predimir (that was never King) ruled Duklja in the 9th century. How can this be correct?
• Krešimir had two sons: Miroslav and Mihajlo Krešimir, as can be seen on Krešimir I of Croatia. Where is this fictinous "Stephen"?
• You mentioned Stefan Nemanja as an invader

These statements show that the info from that book is, essentially, incorrect. Doesn't it?

However, nothing mentioned here is of the subject. :O) The subject is whether Serbia ruled Lastovo ever. Like I said here can be seen that the Narentines conquered after 945 the island of Lastovo from the Kingdom of Croatia, while Prince Časlav Klonimirović of Vlastimir, who ruled Pagania from before 931 to 960, advanced into Bosnia annexing those territories.

Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not my clarification that is the LPD's point, and my point of taking everything literally.

Mihaljo Kresimir 949-970 did have a son who wasStjepan Drzislav 970-995; his younger brother was knez Predimir who was 19 when the throne was assumed

I agree with you that King Predimir was in fact a knez,and not a king. This would make sense as he was the kings brother (knez), or prince. Also, when sent to rule the southern duchies - a prince /duke rules a duchy and not a king. An interesting note is that later when Mihaljo was crowned together with Zvonomir 1075 - he was crowned by the papal legate as the "king of the slavs" John Skylitzes says "rules over those who call themselves Croats".. My point is which you fail to realise is that these duchies were in fact mixed as can be seen by its ruling class. http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cousin/html/p278.htm See also wiki LPD article.

Note who he married.

This would also mean Mihaljo did in fact have both croatian & serbian blood, whilst ruling a mixed population. This is enforced by the fact that he is crowned as the king of the slavs so as to appeal to all his subjects.

Also you cannot really assert that Nemanja was welcomed in catholic slavic Duklja as a saviour. He by force converted it to orthodoxy.

This shows that the information is correct doesn't it ?

You have missed my whole point. My point is that these southern duchies prior to the advent of Nemanja by force were a mix of both Croat & Serbian. You are saying that because Caslav ruled Bosna & Pagania, of which Lastovo was not a part (DAI) for only a brief period from 930-960, you seem to think that it warrants six lines of text in Lastovo's history, as opposed to generally accepted version of its centuries of Croatian history either side of this date which is not mentioned at all.

Show me a source apart from a serbian site that he in fact conquers Pagania. Lastovo is anyway excluded in DAI from Pagania. My point which you seem to have chosen to ignore was at this time these duchies were in fact acting as a buffer between east & west during the time of the great schism. They are not exclusively Serbian which you try to claim with Caslav. Serbianization came to Duklja later with Nemanja and the process of conversion to orthodoxy took centuries thereafter.

Does not Vuk Karadzic exclude as non-serbs speakers of the cakavian dialect; this is spoken on Lastovo. Why since antiquity is there an uvala Hrvaska on the southern part of the island; it has been known this since antiquity. There are no visible, archeological or cultural signs of serbs ever on the island.

Quite clearly this island due to its geographic characteristics was remote and gravitated between the periphery of these southern duchies; both you (HRE) and I are relying on a broad text loaded with political bias (DAI & LPD) to try and explain the unique & specific history of these people.

So the most important point and information on this point is not what external sources say, but what the islanders themselves do and say. In the Statute of 1310 they affirm a previous agreement to joint the republic of their own free will, meaning that they saw themseves independent of and different to peoples around them; this is confirmed in DAI. "They tied themselves to the bisphoric of Hvar voluntarily in 1185" meaning the saw themselves not of the Eastern persuasion.

So in summation as previously

Lastovo -- Logos 1985 str 93

"the events in the middle ages are trustworthy signs that a great autonomy for Lastovo in this period, it most likely recognised Croatian kings as its nominal rulers"Pokladar 13:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pokladar, I see the points you are making and I essentially agree with your overall point. HRE is missing this on purpose. However maybe you should be pursuing this on the Duklja article - go for it. I am not well versed on the LPD as I am on the DAI (anyone know where to get a complete source of the LPD?)

HRE - you said: "Yes, I already clarified that statement. The Neretvians conquered the island from the Croatians, obviously. Didn't you notice when I agreed with you on that matter?". My point precisely. You dont care about whether it was conquered or returned. Your only interested in the serbian realm of caslav being mentioned. I still havent seen your source (I need something better than Rastko). Also you havent countered why the DAI specifically leaves Lastobon out of Pagania?

Pokladar, I also agree about the Chakavian dialect as well. This was exclusively used by Croats and by the Croatian nobility. The bascanska ploca and most early medieval croat documents were written in the cakavski dialect. This suggests Lastovo must have been populated by slavs of the same stock, since there is no recorded migration of chakavski speakers to the island. (Sto / Jekavski yes because of Dubrovnik influence since 1252).

I've made it very clear already that i think Caslavs realm should be removed. I will wait until i get all my arguments ready before I edit. Maybe by the weekend. I have also many other parts of the article to contribute to as well.

Lastly, i really like the wording from your logos source Pokladar. I have that book I need to give it a quick read. Uvouvo 14:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To Poklada: I'm sorry, but I have to correct you again. King Zvonimir was crowned King of Croatia in 1076, while King Mihailo got the crown in 1077. How could they be crowned together then?

Please note of which religion was Stefan Nemanja. Stefan Nemanja was a Catholic Christian. And please, point to me where was this forceful conversion?

I agree with you on the third matter, but it's wikipedia's policy to add things, not remove them. Do you know what I mean?

Conquers? What do you mean by conquers? You cannot conquer something that is already yours. :D You may notice that Prince Caslav had ruled Serbia, and Pagania and Travunia with it, as stated in De Administrando Imperio. He also managed to tackle in the affairs of Duklja.

The cultural heritage of Serbs on the island is not the subject. Owning the island is (the island's population could've been Bedouins, but it would not change its rulers).

To User:Uvouvo: Don't be so harsh. If you fail to notice, I have been agreeing with everything that you said by now!. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To HRE, I am growing tired in schooling you as to the finer points of both the DAI & LPD. How well do you know these sources DIRECTLY?

Firstly, I think I cleared that Predimir issue up for you don't you think? Secondly, Zvonomir & Mihaljo were crowned by the same papal legate I did not say on the same day and in the same place. Thirdly, The DAI SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES LASTOVO & VIS FROM PAGANIA & HENCE FROM YOUR ARGUMENT. Fourthly, Nemanja conquering Duklja is not me saying it but his own description of its acquisition see uvouvo's point on this subject THAT SHOULD POINT YOU TO IT.

Other points

I ASK YOU AGAIN PROVIDE A NON-RASTKO.ORG SOURCE FOR YOUR DELUSIONAL ASSERTION THAT SOMEHOW LASTOVO FELL INTO CASLAV'S REALM. YOU ARE AVOIDING DIRECT QUESTIONS.

EVEN NJEGOS.ORG EXCLUDES LASTOVO & VIS FROM THIS "REALM".

PUT UP OR SHUT UP. I AM GROWING TIRED OF THIS REPETITION.Pokladar 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ljetopis Popa Dukljanin

Afterwards, '''King Predimir sired four sons, who bore the following names: The first born was called Chlavimir, the second Boleslav, the third Dragislav, and the fourth Svevlad'''. He divided his kingdom between them in this way: to Chlavimir he gave the region of Zenta with its cities and these zupanias: Lusca, Podlugiae, Gorsca, Cupelnich, Obliquus, Prapratna, Cermenica, Budva with Cuceva and Gripuli; to Boleslav he gave these zupanias: Libomir, Vetanica, Rudina, Crusceviza, Vrmo, Rissena, Draceviza, Canali, Gernoviza; [327] to Dragislav he gave the region of Chelmania and these zupanias: Stantania, Papava, Yabsko, Luca, Vellica, Gorimita, Vecenike, Dubrava and Debre; to Svevlad he gave the region which the Slavs call Podgoria, in Latin "Submontana", and these zupanias: Onogost, Moratia, Comerniza, Piva, Gerico, Netusini, Guisemo, Com, Debreca, Neretva and Rama. He called these four territories Tetrarchies.

King Predimir lived for many years and saw his sons' sons before he died at a ripe old age. He was entombed with great honour, reverence and glory in church of St. Peter in the episcopate of Rassa.

The interesting point here is that Predimir is able to endow to his son distinctly Croat districts of Piva & Rama. Only a Croat noble could pass this on; not take it by force which would denote an invader, that is like Nemanja in Duklja.

XXXI. [[His brother Cresimir [Crescimir] had a son named Stephen. After his father's death he ruled White Croatia and Bosna, and after him they [his descendants ?] always reigned in Croatia]]. Cresimir's son had a son by his concubine who had two crippled legs, and for a long time was unable to walk. He was called Leghec. [[After the death of his father, Leghec was taken to Tribunia [328] to his cousin Boleslav]]. He [Leghec] was served by a girl named Lovizza, who delighted him so much that they married, and she bore him seven sons who grew up to be bellicose youths who were formidable with arms.

1 DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT SAY THAT PREDIMIR IS BROTHER TO THE CROATIAN KING?

2 DOES IT SAY THAT THE KRESMIR'S SON IS COUSIN TO PREDMIR'S SON BOLESLAV AND THAT HE WAS TAKEN TO TRIBUNIA?

3 DID NOT KING MIHALJO KRESIMIR HAVE A SON STJEPAN?

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cousin/html/p278.htm PREDIMIR WAS BORN CIRCA 930 WHICH MADE HIM 19 WHEN MIHALJO KRESIMIR (WHO HAS A SON STEPHEN) ASSUMED THE THRONE

4 IS NOT MIHALJO & BODIN DESCENDED FROM PREDIMIR? (AGAIN CHECK GENEALOGY)

5 WAS NOT MIHALJO CROWNED KING OF THE SLAVS (WHY NOT SERBS EXCLUSIVELY?)

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS 1-5 DIRECTLY. YES OR NO ANSWERS WILL DO CUTTING & PASTING PREVIOUS ARTICLES IS NOT NECESSARY.

LETS TALK ABOUT THE SOUCE DIRECTLY PLEASE HRE & PLEASE DO ME THE RESPECT OF ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY.

KIND REGARDS Pokladar 12:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Uble or Ubli

State department of statistics and Lexicon of settlements of Croatia call the village Uble. Thats offical. Luka Jačov 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here Luka? The locals definately have been calling it Ubli for hundreds of years Uvouvo 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont doubt that but this is offical. I dont know why they changed it. Luka Jačov 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but i think that Ubli should remain. What does Jurica say? I know the locals refer to it as Ubli. Legend has it that it refers to 'ubili' or kill in English because this is where the major fighting between the venetians occured, hence it recevied that name. No proof of that of course :) Uvouvo 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we should use offical name here and when u, me or somebody else deceides to start Uble article it shpuld be explained there. Luka Jačov 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Official name is Ubli. Thats what it is on the street signs ;) I think the other way around is more appropriate, mentioning Ubli then Uble? Why does this bother you so much? Uvouvo 23:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) I'll however ask why there is a difference. See here however...

• http://www.fallingrain.com/world/HR/0/Ubli.html
• google search for Uble Lastovo returns 150 results, but for "Ubli Lastovo" returns 47,000 suggesting Ubli is the far more common name. I'll try find out the difference though.

It is not like it bothers me a lot but just think we should use offical version:). Nothin' personal Luka Jačov 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry :) Didnt mean it like that. I guess it is personal though since it is my heritage :) Anyway why are you so interested in Lastovo to go to all this effort and create this nice article? Have you been there? Uvouvo 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Checked with my family and and Antun Jurica's book. Luka, look at the map right at the beginning. Both the bay and the town are called Ubli. Ubli is also known as Sveti Petar (Saint Peter). I'm not sure where Uble came from, but I am certain the correct term should be Ubli. I need to read up further on this. I agree with your Hom change though. Pozdrav Uvouvo 14:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's policy is to use offical names. Luka Jačov 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

HRE, i have moved your reply to poklada to the correct part - I dont think I have been harsh at all? Sorry if you think that. Luka, I agree with your edits, still the official Lastovo Tourist agency testifies that it is known as Ubli not Uble. Ubli is known as St Peter (Sveti Petar and Uble). I'll leave this until the meantime. Maybe you can post your source on Uble as Jurica doesnt seem to mention it? BTW: You didnt answer me regarding whether you have been to Lastovo and why you would be so interested in creating an article on this island? Pozdrav, :) (I will add some further information tonight with a major edit of the article and extra contributions. I Hope that you will enjoy them) Uvouvo 02:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo photo's

I have created this section for two reasons. Please keep all converstaion related to photo's here, otherwise talk in the correct area's

• I'm not sure who added the main photo's on the lastovo page. I can see they are identical to the ones on the lastovo tourist page, and the other map looks like it is from a copyrighted book. Has anyone verified the copyright on these?
• I will upload some photo's i have personally taken sometime tonight / tomorrow, and then we will see if any merit inclusion Uvouvo 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Poklada and others:

I have read a great portion of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, and just say if you want a brief summary; I could give you a good explaination of most of the book. As about De Administrando Imperio - I can't brag that I know a lot about it - save for the chapters regarding the migrations of Goths and Slavs to the Balkan peninsular and the recommendations on the planned defences of the Eastern Roman Empire's eastern (Asian) borders.

Secondly, nope, you haven't cleared the matter on Predimir up. In fact, you made it even more confusing. You claim that Predimir was Mihajlo's brother. That makes, regretebly, no sence. You state that Mihajlo Krešimir's brother was Predimir, right? How? Mihajlo Krešimir's younger brother was named Miroslav; and he was King of Croatia before Mihajlo Krešimir. I find it very amusing that Mihajlo Krešimir had ruled betwee 949 and 969, and not to 970 as you stated. Now, Predimir was Archont of Duklja (and your sources claim that he was King) in the 9th century. According to all documents, Predimir died before 900. I find it very strange how could their deaths vary in 50 - 100 years :O).

Poklada, note this image; it's Predimir's making - and the image dates from the early 9th century

Then you said ...Mihaljo was crowned together with Zvonomir 1075... and yet Zvonimir was crowned in 1076 and Mihailo in 1077.

Now, about the DAI matter. It describes the coming of Slavs to the land. It means that the Neretvians inhabited four islands since their arrival! It explains the Slavic migrations to the region that occured in the first half of the 7th century.

Stefan Nemanja

I think that you do not understand several bits on Stefan Nemanja. I maintain that the southern Slavic peoples were distinct or highly influenced at some periods by the Serbian and Croatian nationalities, but during the reign of Stefan Nemanja, the population of Zeta (with Travunia) and Zahumlje (with Pagania) was - indisputably Serbian, as it adopted that nationality over the centuries. During the disorders in the struggles regarding who will be the next supreme ruler - Grand Prince of Rascia, Prince Zavida of Zahumlje had fled from Rascia to Duklja's capital - Ribnica. There, in 1114, he had his last son - Stefan Nemanja. Stefan Nemanja was baptised by the local priest in Ribnica as a Catholic Christian. After the Byzantines restored order in the Rascian lands, they split the among the four sons of Zavida:

• Miroslav
• Tihomir
• Nemanja, who ruled a portion of Duklja from Ribnica, but had other fiefdoms in central-to-eastern Rascia
• Stracimir, who had numerious lands in Rascia, and the coast of Duklja

So, the coastal part of Duklja became Stracimir's and the inner - Nemanja's. Both were subjected to their brother, Grand Prince Tihomir of Rascia, who in turn was subjected to the Byzantine Emperor. (for more indormation, see the article about the list of Serbian monarchs). Stracimir opposed Nemanja's wished to depose their brother, Tihomir, but Tihomir was very old and was losing fighting the civil war on Kosovo (near Pantino), so Stracimir, together with his brother Miroslav, recognized Stefan Nemanja as Grand Prince of Rascia. Stracimir would bring the general downfall of his lands:

• he supported Grand Prince Tihomir of Rascia instead of Nemanja, then switching to Nemanja's side suddenly
• he started a war with the Republic of Dubrovnik and then withdrew from it
• he made very errorous raids on Korčula and Vis which cost him more than he gained, during which he lost his entire navy in 1184/1185

This all would eventually bring to the slow failing of Stracimir's influence in the Grand Principality of Rascia, his power, prestige and would soon lead to his death of old age. Stefan Nemanja, now converted to Orthodox Christianity, decided to finish the downfall of the Coastland (that is what he calls Morska zemlja in his quotation, he already ruled the inner lands). During the process, he entered Kotor, the Seaside's largest and most beautiful City, which accepted him valiently, and made it the centre of his campaign - whose goal was to end all seperatist tendencies of the now failing powerful nobility of Zeta (Duklja). He would only pass through some cities - while he would raid those that didn't accept his rule. Nemanja annexed Duklja directly into Rascia. Nemanja would then restore Zetan autonomy, but make sure that it would always be subjected to the Grand Principality of Rascia. This rule would be broken on several occasions, like with Queen Hellena of Anjou that ruled the Kingdom of Zeta, almost independently. Although, one law would remain: the successor to the Serbian throne would rule Zeta until the ruler's death, when his successor would rule Duklja, and so on (I suppose that's for learning the basics of being a ruler). Now, it is true that Stefan Nemanja greatly contributed Orthodox Christianity in the region, why is this significant?

Some more explainations & advices

For those last aggressive posts of yours - please view the WP:cool and WP:civil Wikipedia's policies and I would advice you to follow them in the future.

I am avoiding direct questions. You're not asking direct questions! :)

I presented you with a source saying that the Neretvians conquered Lastovo after 945. Note that Rastko received more awards than me or you could ever see in our entire lives: it is also accepted as an international source and it runs the branch of the Gutenberg Project for Europe! What you should do is find a source that negates that the Neretvians took Lastovo cca. 945, or simply stop resorting to accepting only sources that respond only to your claims.

Don't you think that I'm a little tired too? :) It took me quitte a bit to type all this, so read carefully.

One last, VERY interesting bit

Here User:Poklada stated a source to back his statements: Poklada's source

The mention of Jovan Vladimir in Poklada's source

Jovan Vladimir was recognized as a saint and martyr and is still celebrated by the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Quoting a part of Poklada's source:

• knez Duklje Jovan Vladimir Dukljanina was... ...Also called St. Vladimir of Serbia

The mention of Predimir (the arguement's main subject) =

Quoting a part of Poklada's source:

• Knez of Dioclea in Serbia

After his death, he was buried in the (Eastern Rite) Church of Saint Peter in Rascia's capital - Ras. He was entombed with great honour, and indeed considered a Serbian national hero for the next 1,100 years.

I already stated that it is clearly an error, as he could not have ruled in the 10th century as the source states, but the 9th century, as the insignia proves. Additionally, he was buried in the church before 900. It also states that he married the Princes of the unkown Prince of Rascia after 969. This is not possible, as after the death of the earlier-mentioned Prince Ceslav of Klonimir of the House of Vlastimir by a Hungarian blade in 960, north of the river of Danube (see History of Serbia and Caslav's article too), the Byzantines made his realm the theme of Serbia, and implaced Constantine Diogenes of Thessalonika as its first strategos. However, the was Princes Prevala of Rascia in the 9th century.

The mention of Ljutomir Velji of Srpsko Zagorje

...is missed by about a hundred years, regarding that it is Ceslav the one that ruled in that time.

The mention of Stefan Voislav

The source mentions that he is the lawful heir of the Serbian rulling dynasty and mentions that he was also the heir to the old Croatian ruling family - but it mentions everywhere who is whose father/mother and I see only Serbian rulers...

Conclusions

Note that the wife of Pavao Šubić was the daughter of King Stefan Dragutin (which makes their children mixed). And the wife of Mladen Šubić - the sister of Emperor Stefan Dušan (which makes their children mixed). Even Josip Jelačić's mother was a Serb.

Note also a certain Serbian nobleman by the name of Beloš, son of Rascia's Prince Uroš - he is the founder of a Croatian small family, as he was Ban (title) of Croatia. Does anyone call the Šubićs as partly Serbs? - no: they are a Croatian family, just as the Vojislavljevićs are a Serbian family.

You probably do not know as well, that the Vojislavljevićs ruled Serbia at times during their early stages, and gave birth to the second hereditary dynasy of Serbia.

---

I rest my case here. I think all is clear know. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Answers to Pokladar's questions

1. I am afraid that I'll insist to see the source here.

2. Here too.

3. Yes, he had.

4. That cannot be said - it is unkown - there are too many gaps in the family.

5. I'll answer with a counter-question: why did King Tomislav crown himself as King of Slavs - additionally - Tomislav's realm became remembered as the Kingdom of Croatia - so did Mihailo's realm become remembered as the Kingdom of Serbia. Mihailo's reference to himself - was Ruler of Tribals & Serbs

Pokladar, what you fail to see -> is that that can be applied the other way. For instance, if we put on the Duklja article that he was the brother of the Croatian King: the so must we add on the Cro King's article that he was the brother of the Serbian Prince... --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)