Talk:Ban (title)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 praise 2 reverted revert 3 romanian words ban and banca 4 bans in K. of Serbia 5 Ludacris 6 Moved this from the article 7 Title from Asia 8 Balkan origin of title 9 Panonian

[edit] praise

Excellent! What a pleasure to read a Balkan entry where the facts are not being jostled by nationalist vanities. Wetman 22:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Err, that's probably because the term has existed before the region was called Balkan, or at least the negative connotations of the said term did not exist... --Joy [shallot]

[edit] reverted revert

I believe my version's better, so I reverted back to it. Here's why:

• It's less bottom heavy - a good intro doesn't just introduce the sections, it summarises them.

I may be amenable to accept this, but I think it's still bloated. It is not crucially relevant to the terms themselves how they were transformed over time into something different - this does not belong to the introduction. Besides, if you put everything in the intro, there isn't anything really left for the article. --Joy [shallot]

• "Banate" is the English word for banovina, following the same pattern as khanate and margravate.

I wasn't able to find it in any dictionaries when I originally searched for it, nor is it actually popular on Google (the first ten hits of "ban banate" search are either ours or not particularly known; the results of a "banate" search largely aren't about this at all), so I'm wary of introducing the neologism. --Joy [shallot]

Banate is far from neologism, IIRC, it's what Britannica 1911 uses. I was surprised not to find it in dictionaries, since it is fairly common in historical texts, at least those I've read. The medieval glossary at [1] (looks well researched and referenced) seems to agree. Zocky 16:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that removal - Wikipedia was being extra slow so I was still submitting my previous comment for the Nth time, when yours rolled in and mine stomped over it.

A neologism doesn't have to be all that neo to be a neologism :) Although I agree that it happens, it can't be a particularly common word (i.e., not that much more common than a raw transcription like banat or banovina), you'll notice how the NetSERF glossary also mentions banovina and the reference is dated 1994, so historians also seem to still be in the process of accepting this term. --Joy [shallot] 12:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Calling the section on banovinas "20th century" is wrong, as the "medieval" position of Croatin ban existed until 1918.

The section title is because these bans were introduced in the 20th century and the previous section was named after a historical period, it breaks the flow to name this one after a country. --Joy [shallot]

Still, the section headings make it sound like there were no bans between the middle ages and the 20th century.

That's a fair concern... --Joy [shallot]

• How is additional information, especially Banja Luka as the largest town to be named after bans, unnecessary factoids?

Oh yeah, who says Banja Luka is named after this? I see no proof for such an etymology. It makes some sense, but to claim it categorically? The other unneccessary factoid was that Yugoslav banovine were named after rivers - very much impertinent here. Leave something for that article, too :) --Joy [shallot]

I didn't know this was controversial. There's plenty of sources, many of them Croatian nationalists, so I'll just cite Lovrenovic [2], who is known to be anything but an extremist. As he says, "Banja" is clearly an adjective, so "spa" etymologies can't work. I'm not aware of any other explanations of what "Banja" might be an adjective of. Zocky 13:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's controversial, but if it wasn't certain enough to get mentioned before, how certain is it...? Look at the shaky explanation in our Banja Luka article, too. --Joy [shallot]

What does look like a factoid, though, is the resemblance of "ban" to "khan". Are there any sources for those words being cognates? Zocky 02:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but it was there before me and I left it as is. --Joy [shallot]

Hmm, the Online Etymology Dictionary (an english source, but nonetheless) gives the origin as the Persian ban "prince, lord, chief, governor" and related to Sanskrit pati "guards, protects". The Sarmatian bajan seems to fit with this. So the turkish/mongolian khan does seem to be a bit of a red herring. I say remove the 'khan' until someone can point out some source claiming a relationship. --BluePlatypus 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] romanian words ban and banca

• The Wallachian bans were military governors who also coined their own money (the bani - which is nowadays the Romanian word for "money")

- very interesting... then the english word bank (were you keep your "ban"(plural bani)) must've come down from those 5500 Sarmatians displaced by Hadrian to defend Britain :) -- Criztu 21:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. English "bank" is from Italian "banca", meaning "bench". It comes from the benches of the money changers and lenders in mediaeval Florence and Venice. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bans in K. of Serbia

Which were those? I can't find any examples whatsoever in the linked article. --Joy [shallot] 20:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Because there were none. Ban was most usually a Croat or a Hungarian governing in Croatia and/or Bosnia.

[edit] Ludacris

Excuse me but thus article is ludacris, the title Ban is first used in Bosnia and then later on for a brief period in Croatia. Making the title ban purely Bosnian!. I will have to rewrite this article. Damir Mišić

Damir, the Croatian Bans existed between 1107 and 1919; and was relieved between 1939 and 1941 (see List of rulers of Croatia) How could you claim such a thing? HolyRomanEmperor 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The title was first used in croatia in the 1200th century, whereas it was used in Bosnia by native Bosnian bans from the 7th century. see List of rulers of Bosnia Article must be rewritten. Best Damir Mišić 12:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. But don't you have 500 years of Bosnian Bans and 800 years of Croatian Bans then? HolyRomanEmperor 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not true, but even if it was it does not change the fact that bans first existed in bosnia and then were "coppied" into croatian rule. Damir Mišić 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

800 years? Actually no, you are counting, on croatia's behalf, also those years of so called "banate" within hungary. This shouldn't be considered as real bans as this was more something of a romantic look back at history - compare it to when croat movements in the 19th century called croatians to be "illyrians". My point is: it is not important to the matter of how many years they had bans but rather in which way they had these bans, one cannot really call the croatian bans in the 18th century to be bans, they were perhaps bans to name but not in way of ruling. Bans existed in Bosnia all the way from 7th century to year 1463. Please you rewrite the article or I will do so. I am croatian myself and the public croatian historian view of the croatian usage of Bans is as following: croatian kings and knez's who adopted the name from local nativ ban rulers in Bosnia Damir Mišić 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

just looked at croatian rulers and bosnian rulers and it looks like you mixed up the years!, the bans where in bosnia for 800 years and in croatia for 500, by other words the other way around. Damir Mišić

Between 1102 and 1919 is... 817 years? Add to that 3 years in 1939-1941 = 870 years. And the Bosnian Bans existed from the 7th century all the way to 1377 (Kingdom) which is what... 600 - 700 years? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No the croatian "bans" are from 1107-1527, after 1527 Habsburgers ruled croatia and it was no longer a banate. Making it to be some 500 years + short periods later mainly in hungary-union, not making it more than 550 years at the most. But as said that has no meaning, did you not read what I wrote above. Damir Mišić 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dakle, Ivan Mažuranić nije bio hrvatski Ban... Jeste... a pogledaj koje su to godine. HolyRomanEmperor 22:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he was "acting ban" and was this for some few years, which is actually not changing the amount of years overall in a major way. Damir Mišić 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? If they were "acting Bans" as you say; how could they amass so much wealth; and successfully promote uniating of the (Serbian) Orthodox population? Not to mention the plan to convert all Muslims into Catholics... Not to mention the numerious edicts (like banning the use of cyrilic script in Croatia) and you say "acting"? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it says "acting" I just quoted the article. Damir Mišić 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that. Well, you can find the same thing on many articles; it litterally means that he was Ban of Croatia (and a talented writer, if may add). --HolyRomanEmperor 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, my mistake then. :) Damir Mišić 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Damir, either you are talking about Ludacris, or you misspelled the word ludicrous :-) Alexander 007 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The page http://www.hupi.hr/povijest/banovi.html notes that the term "ban" was quite often used in Croatia in the 970s with Pribina, while Google can find references to Pribina in 949. http://hr.wikisource.org/wiki/Ban_Ratimir talks of ban Ratimir in 827. The list of rulers of Bosnia doesn't name a single ban, oddly enough. I think we need a bit less grandstanding and a bit more fact in order to dismiss the idea that the title was common to the entire region (Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary - all adjacent), and replace it with a definitive notion that it must have been one single area where it originated. --Joy [shallot]

[edit] Moved this from the article

I moved this to the talk page, since the anonymous user posted that where it does not belong. Something of this could be incorporated into article. PANONIAN (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ban, as it occurs in the Croatian tradition and history, originates in the efforts of Ban Jelačic in the 19th century to make Croatia less dependent from Hungary. Croatia had been treated as a constituent part of Hungary since the 12th century, and this was a major achievement when it comes to the preservation of that Croatian identity and defining it as it is today. Croatia borders have been very much defined during that time, the borders of today’s Republic Croatia not being immune to it. The references to ban in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are linked to this tradition and do not have much in common with the titles of the medieval Bosnian rulers, which in fact predate them. However, the origin of the title ban, as in Kulin ban, may very well be indigenous to Bosnia, i.e. does not necessarily indicate a vassal position of the Bosnian rulers, as a matter of fact it would be hard to produce evidence to support that implication. It is a very bold statement at its best.

[edit] Title from Asia

Illyrian origin? Not likely. The term exists in Chinese and Iranian :-)))))) Cf. Chinese Tai-Pan, Lo-Ban, and so on. Pan and Ban mean "leader" in Chinese, unless I'm mistaken. I go for an Asiatic origin. By the way, can we please have references for the Illyrian origin theory? Sorin Paliga, a historical linguist, has also proposed a Daco-Thracian origin for the term, but I doubt it is from Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians. Alexander 007 08:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

the word ban [...] bears a similarity to khan

?? You could have fooled me, guv! -- Picapica 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balkan origin of title

The title was first used in the lands of Bosnia, there is no discussion about that. Later it was incorporated into Croatian rule, due to Croatian occupation of Bosnian areal and rulers. So I repeat; The title was not used in Croatia first, but in Bosnia. I suppose you will change this or else there will be some complications. Damir Mišić

For Damir: I do not care where the title was used first, but you just reverted to an old version of the article destroying all changes and improvements that other users made in this article. That is not quite nice behaviour, you know. If you want to change something, please change, but in the CURRENT VERSION of the article (not in the one several months old), and please DO NOT DESTROY THE WORK OF OTHER USERS. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panonian

The title entered English from Croatian not Serbo-Croat. The latter is just an older name for Central-South Slavic diasystem (still in use somewhere though), dialectal continuum not a standard language.--Factanista 13:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the word is not Croatian by origin. Since there are several theories about its origin and since it was also used in medieval Bosnia (and medieval Bosnia was not a Croatian land no matter what some Croatian historins claim), the title is connected with Serbs as much as it is connected with Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)