Misplaced Pages

Pacta conventa (Croatia): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:34, 15 March 2009 editSquash Racket (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers14,116 edits adding references← Previous edit Revision as of 17:25, 18 March 2009 edit undoRjecina (talk | contribs)6,187 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Pacta conventa''' (] ''agreed accords'') was an alleged agreement concluded in 1102 between King ] and the ]n nobility. According to Croatian historians at this time Croatia entered a ]<ref>Bellamy, p. 37</ref> that would last until 1918, according to Hungarian<ref name=ABC/> and Serbian historians Croatia was conquered.<ref>Bellamy, p. 37</ref> The dynastic strife that followed the ] in 1526 did not change the legal nature of the pacta after the throne was occupied by ]{{Fact|date=March 2009}} '''Pacta conventa''' (] ''agreed accords'') was an alleged agreement concluded in 1102 between King ] and the ]n nobility. According to Croatian historians at this time Croatia entered a ]<ref>Bellamy, p. 37</ref> that would last until 1918, according to Hungarian<ref name=ABC/> and Serbian historians Croatia was conquered.<ref>Bellamy, p. 37</ref> The dynastic strife that followed the ] in 1526 did not change the legal nature of the pacta after the throne was occupied by ]{{Fact|date=March 2009}}


A version from the 14th century is preserved in a ] museum.{{Fact|date=March 2009}} A version from the 14th century is preserved in a ] museum.<ref name="Herc">Eduard Hercigonja, ''Tropismena i trojezična kultura hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja'', ], Zagreb, 2006. ISBN 953-150-766-X</ref>.


The document's validity is questionable,<ref>Van Antwerp Fine, p. 71</ref><ref name=Oxford/> While some say the earliest text concerning the alleged agreement came from the second half of the 14th century<ref>Van Antwerp Fine, p. 70</ref><ref>Curta, Stephenson, p. 267</ref>, others call it a late medieval forgery, not a twelfth century source.<ref>Curta, Stephenson, p. 267</ref><ref>Bellamy, p. 37</ref> While various items of the text seem anachronistic, historian say these could be reworkings of a text of an actual agreement.<ref>Van Antwerp Fine, p. 70</ref> The document's validity is questionable,<ref>Van Antwerp Fine, p. 71</ref><ref name=Oxford/> While some say the earliest text concerning the alleged agreement came from the second half of the 14th century<ref>Van Antwerp Fine, p. 70</ref><ref>Curta, Stephenson, p. 267</ref>, others call it a late medieval forgery, not a twelfth century source.<ref>Curta, Stephenson, p. 267</ref><ref>Bellamy, p. 37</ref> While various items of the text seem anachronistic, historian say these could be reworkings of a text of an actual agreement.<ref>Van Antwerp Fine, p. 70</ref>

Revision as of 17:25, 18 March 2009

Pacta conventa (Lat. agreed accords) was an alleged agreement concluded in 1102 between King Coloman of Hungary and the Croatian nobility. According to Croatian historians at this time Croatia entered a personal union with Hungary that would last until 1918, according to Hungarian and Serbian historians Croatia was conquered. The dynastic strife that followed the Battle of Mohács in 1526 did not change the legal nature of the pacta after the throne was occupied by Ferdinand I.

A version from the 14th century is preserved in a Budapest museum..

The document's validity is questionable, While some say the earliest text concerning the alleged agreement came from the second half of the 14th century, others call it a late medieval forgery, not a twelfth century source. While various items of the text seem anachronistic, historian say these could be reworkings of a text of an actual agreement.

Nevertheless, its source of inspiration must have been the political and social developments that had taken place over a 300-year period following 1102 when the two kingdoms united under the Hungarian king, either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force. The Croatian nobility retained its laws and privileges including the restriction of military service that they owed to the king within the boundaries of Croatia.

Circumstances of the agreement

After Petar Svačić, the last Croatian king of Croat descent, was killed on the battlefield in 1097, the Croats had refused to surrender. To end the war, an agreement was made where, in 1102, the Croatian nobles allegedly concluded the Pacta conventa with King Coloman before his crowning as the Croatian king in Biograd.

The Hungarian king offered "an agreement as pleases them" to the Croatian nobles from the families of Kačić, Kukar, Šubić, Svačić, Plečić, Mogorović, Gušić, Čudomirić, Karinjanin and Lapčan, Lačničić, Jamometić and Tugomirić.

Content of Pacta conventa

The agreement determined that Croatia and Hungary would be governed by the same ruler as two separate kingdoms. When he was crowned in Biograd na Moru, Coloman promised all the public and state rights to the Kingdom of Croatia and some additional rights to the Croatian nobility. The Croats acknowledged Coloman as the king of Croatia and Dalmatia and promised they would help him in war, at their cost on the Croatian side of Drava and at his cost on the Hungarian side.

Coloman and his successors were invested with all the rights of kingship over the Kingdom of Croatia: to appoint the ban, to issue privileges and land grants, to certify the laws voted by the Croatian Parliament, to collect taxes and duties, to own the "royal land" (terra regalis) of the extinct Croat royal dynasty, to have supreme command over the Croatian army and to make foreign policy.

Validity of the document

The document titled Pacta Conventa that was supposedly signed in 1102 but not saved was claimed by leading Croatian historians to be a contract stipulating personal union of Hungary and Croatia. However, even if its authenticity were accepted the document would still not represent anything more than a contract between the Coloman King of Hungary, Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia and his Croatian nobility, so it would not be perceived as an interstate agreement in domain of public international law. In 1105 Coloman granted privileges to maritime cities in exchange for their submission. These included the election of their own bishops and prior which is later only confirmed by the king, prohibition of Hungarians settling in towns, the cities didn't pay tributes while royal agents supervised the collection of custom duties without interfering in local politics.

Since the 19th century, a number of historians have claimed that Pacta conventa was not a genuine document. Some claim that the document is a forgery found in the Zagreb diocese and published in 1960, noting that Pacta Conventa was written with an idiom used three centuries after its supposed origin, i.e. in the 14th century and that Hungarian sources do not mention any "personal union" between Hungary and Croatia. Though the validity of the document is disputed, there was at least a non-written agreement that regulated the relations between Hungary and Croatia in approximately the same way, since from 1102 until 1918 kings of Hungary were also kings of Croatia, represented by a governor (ban), but Croatia kept its own parliament (Sabor) and considerable autonomy..

According to Croatian historian Nada Klaić probably some sort of surrender occurred in 1102 by which the Croatians were given light terms. She thinks that the Trogir manuscript, the earliest text of the alleged pact is not the text of that surrender, but describes contemporary relations between King and nobility and then traced that current 14th century reality back to an initial agreement.

According to Slovenian historians the Pacta Conventa never existed, but the story about it was important to support the Croatian position in the Habsburg Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the Croats claimed their rights on the basis of the agreement. They think that although Croatia ceased to exist as an independent state, the Croatian nobility retained relatively strong powers.

Footnotes

  1. Bellamy, p. 37
  2. ^ Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar (2004). The Former Yugoslavia's Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook. ABC-CLIO. p. 16. ISBN 9781576072943.
  3. Bellamy, p. 37
  4. Eduard Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb, 2006. ISBN 953-150-766-X
  5. Van Antwerp Fine, p. 71
  6. ^ Ana S. Trbovich (2008). A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration. Oxford University Press. p. 87. ISBN 9780195333435.
  7. Van Antwerp Fine, p. 70
  8. Curta, Stephenson, p. 267
  9. Curta, Stephenson, p. 267
  10. Bellamy, p. 37
  11. Van Antwerp Fine, p. 70
  12. Curta, Stephenson, p. 267
  13. ^ "Croatia (History)". Encarta.
  14. Curta, Stephenson, p. 267
  15. Curta, Stephenson, p. 267
  16. Curta, Stephenson, p. 266
  17. ^ Van Antwerp Fine, John (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. p. 285. ISBN 9780472081493.

References

Categories: