Talk:Stephen I of Croatia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Croatia High‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Personal Religious Convictions and Languages[edit]

I am interested whether, personally, he sided more with the Roman or Byzantine leadership after the 1054 schism. I know his son ended up siding with Rome, probably in part because he was also busy trying to conquer his lands away from the Byzantines, who had been losing hold of them for a while.

Also, what languages did he personally speak? Latin? Greek? A slavic language or two? All of the above? JoshNarins (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say for the last four years of his rule (After schism), since there aren't much records to rely on... However, some earlier sources indicate that he was a "close" ally of the Byzantines. The language that was used in charters was primarily Latin (no Greek). However, the court of his succesor Kresimir IV used some slavic (Early Croatian) words such as Vinotoc (Wine pourer) and Postelnicus(bed maker) etc., assuming that Stephen used it on his court as well. Er-vet-en (say) 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Inaccurate; many sources stress that niether Croatia nor Serb states were under Byzantine sway at the time the map shows. Stephen Vojislav established independent Dioclea already in 1042, while the Croatian king commited few acts himself from 1040 that show independence from the empire. So, I don't agree with the map at all. Er-vet-en (say) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but the map shows both of them in different color with thear appropriate name. So where is the problem? Kebeta (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map clearly shows that the two states were Byzantine vassals (colors within yellow area).

No it does not. If we assume their status is comparable to that of Venice, then it represents mere suzerainty. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which isn't the case here, really. The note below states that Venice, Dioclea and Croatia were all nominal Byzantine possessions, but the map renders the two latter (supposed) states as actual provinces, while Venice remains outside. Er-vet-en (say) 11:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The colors of Dioclea and Croatia are clearly different from the Byzantine Empire. The fact that map has a minor note suggesting Venice, Dioclea and Croatia were all nominal Byzantine possessions is irrelevant for getting a point of the territory under Stephen I (BTW, some historians claim that, and some don't). Either way, I think that the map should stay until a new one (better one) is created. You are welcome to create one. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dobronja Grgur, the prior of Zadar (whose blood conections to the king Stephen I Dobroslav are very doubtable, was imprisoned on his third journey to Constantinople. The nature of his mission is rather unclear. And the king Stephen is actually to be referred as king Stephen II Dobroslav. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.244.180.171 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]