Talk:Karantania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ). | ||||||
|
|||||||
|
WP Former Countries - Things to do:
|
|||||||
Hey XJam -- what do you mean by "state of the Slovenes" -- this is very anachronistic language for the 7th c., and I am not sure it is close to accurate -- sources, please? JHK
- Can you, please, redefine your answer? I do not understand it quite, I must admit. "State of the Slovenes" or "Slovene state", at that time called Karantania, in the Western world known as Carantania and later Carinthia. If there is a problem strictly with the English language - you can freely correct. And if there is a problem with the meaning I'll do my best to correct that. What sources do you mean? Where have I read this or what? I gave one source, but it's a Slovene one. There are still only a few English sources about this subject. Right now I am dealing with this hard subject - a history of Slovenes before the 6th or 7th century. Occasionaly I'll report my findings and add some more accurate stuff in the related articles. But I do believe I am not writing anything that is not close to the truth. The past is still very uknown for all of us. Please reply. Recently one Canadian Slovene is having an interesting page on the net about some periods from Slovene history. I have found these days all over some very shocking facts from a history of my own small and almost vanished, but proud nation. And we must know I am not a super educated historian. I am simply a wikipedian. Best regards. --XJamRastafire
I partly agree with JHK (see Karantanians). Besides, I do not know what is difference between Reference and Further reading and why is Joško Šavli's book placed before those of academic authors. OK, you apparently want to have at your Karantania article all my Further reading too. As a complete newcomer I put it here at first instead Šavli's book but soon changed my mind and deleted it because I realized that you apparently used only it for your article. Besides it is a bad idea to duplicate the same Further reading at both articles. So I suggest to delete it out of yours. Even better solution would be to make from the Karantania article link to a new Venetian theory article and there put Šavli's book. In the new article we should tell to Wikipedia users that Šavli is an amateur - which does not necessarily mean he is wrong. Afterall we know a lot of great amateurs in science history! But one has right to know whom is he dealing with, hasn't he? Again, delete my Further reading at your Karantania article. Please. --TomS -- 23 Apr 2004
TomS, I can't see why you have put the article under the NPOV dispute. Who and what is disputing? :o) No, nobody wants to have your futher readings here. (although I prefer they stay here - because we can really use them to read from them...) Perhaps TUF-KAT just though that references/futher readings were intentionally deleted. You can remove them freely if you wish. As I've already written at you user talk page why I've put Šavli's reference here and that I know his researches are designated as 'non-academic (not my term, but anyway), so I won't repeat this here. You have correctly realized that, yes. This Šavli's book was just starting point for making the article, although I respect his work about our distant history. There is still a lot to do - not just for academicians, but also for all other, ordinary people as we Wikipedians are and so. And as you've written he is not necessarily wrong, right. And can we put a notice of NPOV dispute out as nobody dispute the article? Best regards. --XJamRastafire 00:10, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you XJam, that you haven't delete my NPOV dispute notion. And sorry for (too) long delay, but I have been bussy, then on a holiday in Istria ... :-)
- Nobody dispute the article? So far the JHK and me do. Who and what is disputing? Disputing are Slovene (a "very anachronistic language for the 7th c.", as JHK has mentioned), "state of the Slovenes", than all this stuff of Dante Alighieri, Fazio degli Uberti, Giovanni Villani, Giovanni Boccaccio, river Brenta, etc., -- why on earth could be all these people and things so important for Karantania? And the language. Who today in Slovenia would understand a sentence like, say, "Glagolite po nas redka slouesa"? Except specialists of course. Everybody would say "Govorite za nami teh nekaj besed" (English: Say after us these few words). The language from 7th to 12th c. in Karantania was by comparison to modern Slovene really very archaic. And was actually called Slavic (by the neighbors and by speakers themselves). There are other things too, say, your Karantania on the map is far too big, you used the same color for Carniola, so it seems as it was a part of Karantania, etc., etc.
- For what it's worth, this is what English looked 1000 years ago: Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú tæ'ce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelæ'rede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ. Nobody without special training could possibly read that today, but it's still considered English.
- In short, disputing is J. Šavli (just like in the article Timeline of Slovene history!). He is not necessarily wrong, but in my opinion he actually is wrong.
- But this is not the point. The point is quality of the article, the point is the question, what kind encyclopedia we want to be Wikipedia. I am sure we all want it to be as good and accurate as possible. Say, like Encyclopaedia Britanica. But in Britanica an author like he never could contribut, as a matter of fact he wouldn't get a chance at all. That is the point.
- So I've again deleted the Furter reading from your ("Šavli's") Karantania article, this time with your permission. But this is nothing more than a temporarily solution - I'm working on a new, longer, article on the basis of several main books from the Furter reading, rather than merely deleteing or rearanging yours.
- I'm a non native speaker and a bussy man so I'll need to do this at least two months. Wish me a luck.
- Best regards
- --TomS --
Contents |
[edit] 595
The first mention of this state in official documents has been dated to 595, according to present knowledge.
Actually, Paulus Diaconus doesn't mention the Karantania state. This is what he writes:
In these days Tassilo was ordained king among the Bavarians by Childepert, king of the Franks. And he presently entered with his army into the province of the Sclabi (Slavs), and when he had obtained the victory, he returned to his own land with very great booty.
That happened in 595. As you can see, Paulus Diaconus doesn't use the word Carantania, he uses the words Sclaborum provincia (the province of Sclabi). Supporters of the Veneti theory claim that Sclaborum provincia is the state of Karantania. But this is only a hypothesis. I think the quoted excerpt from the article is misleading in this respect. Kind regards. Boraczek 19:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Carantha
http://www.carantha.net/ On the provided link you may read more interesting views about this topic.
[edit] Thomas Jefferson!
This is the kind of Slavic claim that leaves the rest of us irritated or amused: The ancient ritual of installing Karantanian dukes... on the Duke's Stone... in Carinthia, Austria. This ceremony was conducted until the 15th century and it inspired Thomas Jefferson in writing the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. Oh my goodness! Wetman 11:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The only truth is that Thomas Jefferson read about installing the Caranthanian dukes in the Jean Bodin's "Six livres de la Republique". That's it. And XJamRastafire read the nonsense about inspiring Jefferson in J. ?avli's book "Slovenska dr?ava Karantanija" (the map of Caranthania is from the same source too). XJamRastafire is excellent physicist and not-so-good historian, ?avli is just an amateur historian, an awful one, few of the worst in Slovenia. One more thing. As a matter of fact this nonsense si not "the kind of Slavic claim" but the claim of some Slovenes, followers of amateurish (so call) Venetian theory. See also the talk page of Timeline of Slovene history. TomS 14:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I concur with TomS. By the way, maybe the fact that the ceremony was described by Jean Bodin is worth mentioning in the article, because for this reason the ceremony became known all around the world, as Bodin's work is a classic one. Boraczek 07:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I've written what I have read out. Do not blame my lack of knowledge in the fields of history. ?avli is proper written Šavli BTW. (I've named him incorrectly also Šorli at TomS' user talk page). TomsS I am not so excellent physicist as you say. And perhaps I am not so bad historian. The map of Karantania is not from his book also. It is from one newer Slovene history textbook for secondary schools. So, if Jefferson read about this ceremony in that book, why these facts could not have inspired him further on? I do not see nothing amusing in above sentence. Really. But you can laugh if you please. Why small nations can not inspire bigger ones..? --xJaM (t) 23:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For heaven's sake XJamRastafire, who am I to laugh at somebody who wrote so many articles for Wikipedia? I'm really far from such intention. After all everybody can make mistakes. Even me ;-) Secondly, I am curious about "one newer Slovene history textbook for secondary school". Could be more specific? What is its exact title? : TomS 15:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Duke's stone and Zollfeld
Guys, I thik the object on the picture shouldn't be labeled Duke's Stone. Two objects were involved in the ceremony, namely (sorry, I only know the German names), the Fürstenstein (Prince's stone) and the Herzogsstuhl (Duke's chair). The image clearly shows the chair, not the stone. I would also suggest adding the German geographical names for matter of clarity. The area north of Klagenfurt where the ceremony took place is now known as Zollfeld. On the procedure, see [1]. Martg76 03:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. This was my mistake, since I haven't correctly translated »Vojvodski stol« to Duke's chair. Thanks for your correction. --XJamRastafire 01:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ducal coronation
Considering that Karantania later became the Duchy of Carinthia, shouldn't we distinguish between the "coronation" ceremonies as well? The prince's of Karantania were installed on the Prince's stone, but the Duke's chair didn't play any role. After Karantania became a duchy, the dukes of Carinthia integrated the ceremony at the Prince's stone in the Ducal coronation. Gugganij 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ducal coronation (language issue)
After the incorporation of Karantania into the Holy Roman Empire the ceremonies surrounding the ducal coronation had three parts: 1. a ceremony which took place at the Prince's Stone was held in Slovenian, 2. a Mass held at the cathedral of Maria Saal, 3. a ceremony at the Duke's Chair, which was held in German. Gugganij 12:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Were Karantanians Slavic or Slovenian?
Hi! I read the discussion about this question in the beginning of this talk page, and I agree with the decision to call it simply a Slavic state, since there is very little evidence that could allow for a more specific designation. However, as far as I know, it is only the Slovenians that feel Karantanians were their ancestors. I believe this should be mentioned in the article, and early on. Regards, --Golioder 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's an accepted fact that the Karantanians were the ancestors of modern-day Slovenians. Some people claim however that they were Slovenians, which is false. Therefore Karantania cannot be designated as a Slovenian state, but there is a strong connection to Slovenian history as well, which cannot be ignored.Wikingus 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
