Talk:Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić

Prominent member of the Bosnian Church

If Hrvoje Vukcic was indeed a prominent member of the Bosnian Church, could someone explain me why the most beautiful Catholic Glagolitic Missal is named after him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.64.83 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Bani Croatorum" or "Croatieque regius viceregens"

• Croatian ban's titles in charters in Latin: "Paulus banus Crovatorum et dominus Bosnae", "Pauli bani Croatorum nec non Georgii et Maldini fratrum, comitum civitatum Dalmatiæ".
• Hrvoje Vukčić's title in Latin: "Dux Spaleti, Dalmatie Croatieque regius viceregens ac Bosne supremus vojvoda" (this one used on money minted and charters issued in Split, after being appointed by Ladislaus - when quoting Gordan Ravančić of "Croatian Institute of History" than: "Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Donji Kraji, Duke of Split")--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

John V.A. Fine's "When ethnicity..."

From Fine's seminal book "A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods", starting with the "Index":

Hrvatinić, Hrvoje Vukčić (Bosnian nobleman), 127–28, 288, 302

-- pp.636

Further evidence that the term “Croat” was not used as commonly as is sometimes thought, even in parts of the northern coastal area, comes from documents regarding Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić. In the 1390s, after involving himself in a civil war over the Hungarian throne, this great Bosnian nobleman and lord of the Donji kraji took for himself a great chunk of Dalmatia stretching from Omiš and Split up to Zadar. His subjects were referred to by their individual city names and as “Dalmatians.” Out of the thirtytwo documents issued by or to Hrvoje that Stojanović published, if we exclude a reference to the Hungarian Ban of Croatia and another to some Croatians serving under the ban - which, of course, did not pertain to Hrvoje’s extensive Dalmatian holdings - we have only one reference to anything Croatian regarding Hrvoje’s lands and subjects. That reference comes in a letter to Hrvoje from Dubrovnik of 22 October 1406 and simply refers to “your [Hrvoje’s] Croatian towns.” In this case, the term “Croatian” is clearly referring to a territory or geographical region, separating these towns from those lying in his Bosnian (or Donji kraji) lands. Ladislav of Naples, who in the first years of the fifteenth century laid claim to the Hungarian throne, made Hrvoje his deputy for this Dalmatian territory, calling him his Vicar General for the regions of Slavonia (in partibus Sclavonie). Thus, like Venice, the Neapolitans still considered the region simply “Slavonia,” and Hrvoje seems to have had no objections to the nomenclature.

-- pp. 127

In “Danica,” Palmotić refers to Hrvoje as Ban of the Croats (Od Hrvata ban Hrvoje) and to him ruling the Croatian lands; the real Hrvoje Vukčić was never Ban of Croatia. ...

Palmotić, it may be noted, chose Bosnian (a variant of the Štokavian spoken in his native Dubrovnik) as the purest Slavic dialect. ...

Also considering Bosnian as the purest Slavic dialect was Palmotić’s contemporary, the Italian Jesuit from Apulia (almost certainly from a family of refugees from Dalmatia) and linguist Jacob Mikalja (Micalia, Micaglia, ca.1600–1654). Having spent much time as a missionary in and around Dubrovnik, he called Bosnian the most beautiful of all the Illyrian dialects. He was one of the first to state explicitly that the languages (dialects) of Bosnia and Dubrovnik were for all practical purposes the same language.

-- pp. 302

Being serious scholar of international reputation, not a charlatan, Fine refers to Vukčić in this manner in all of his books and research, starting with his two-volume magnum opus, The Early Medieval Balkans and The Late Medieval Balkans. These couple of passages from this seminal work on ethnicity are really illustrative of misuse of historical sciences in the Balkans, which reflects in wikipedia to unbearable degree, unfortunately.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

User:Santasa99, in the Hrvoje's Missal there's only original red-white CoA, in the Illyrian armorial is red-gold CoA, while the blue-silver CoA is reconstruction by A. Sulejmanagić in his 2015 work (only in text, which you interpreted and made the CoA, but as such being of dubious accuracy). Per the NPOV there's no point of excluding the Illyrian armorial from the articles - as is the most well-known and used CoA - while highlighting own work based on your interpretation of modern textual interpretation. If we're going to be most accurate, then primarily should be used CoA from the Missal, while others as secondary because are newer and merely interpretations of the actual vexillological rules. Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No it does not, please leave it be as it is explained in the sources that we have refed in article. Read a sources and you will find an explanations and illustrations from the primary source which is Misal. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not proper substantiation and reasoning per editing policy. I've read the source, this is nowhere near NPOV representation of coat of arms. We need all of three of them in the sub-section and textual explanation what each of them includes in the CoA, which one is older and younger, and why is the Illyrian armorial wrong in its representation of the colors. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to include everyone's opinion unless we can ref that opinion in proper academic research (WP:Secondary). We have enough secondary sources (including Lovrenović), we have even entire article on Illyrian Armorial (for "why" it's not relevant I suggest you check 1) the article and 2) WP:Primary), so, we know for certain that Illyrian armorial is 1) a mere primary source and 2) academic research have debunked it as a piece of fiction, a hoax from 16th century. By the way I am not against inclusion of "red coa" somewhere in gallery or some such place, I am against the way it is presented to a reader, without the above context. (As an additional piece of info: almost all prominent nobility's arms in Illyrian armorial are painted red as an association and in connection to Nemanjić's dynasty and Dušan's great empire (so, red in Hrvoje's and Hrvatinić's CoA is not in association to either Croatian or Hungarian red color!)

Hrvoje had two personal CoA, first dukal/vojvoda's and later herceg's/herceški - this later CoA given by King of Naples has precedence over his dukal because it is the last and, much more importantly, it signifies his elevated status as a Herceg. In his life, at least as far as we know, he always and only used herceg's coa, whether on his charters, on his seal, on his money, and at the end of his life he used it on his grave in Jajce (after his death his succeeding family members used this herceg's coa for a few decades before they disappeared from history). To question its silver/blue/gold coloration is to contest research done by the expert, who took its colors directly from Misal and produced very comprehensive research on the subject (I can tell you that you will not be able to find proper academic source to contest what we already have, you will just waste your time and energy). If we are to include herceg's coa in red/silver/gold, well, then we need to give a reader a clear context and explanation why it exists as such, and certainly not misrepresent it by saying it is an actual coa or whatever. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I will try to clarify. You as an editor can't use WP:Primary as a reference, and this include DAI, Misal, Illyrian armorial, and so on. You can use only WP:Secondary, which is academic research, academic book, paper, etc., which author based (his research), in part or in whole, on - for example on DAI, or in our case on Misal and Illyrian armorial. On top of all this, academic research found that Illyrian armorial is a hoax. Meanwhile, Misal is historical document which is used as a primary source in academic research of Hrvoje's money, seals, arms, and even as a CoA used on his tomb. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic of the discussion and not basic's of editing policy. We need in the sub-section all three CoA arms of the subject, and clarify to the readers the historical and armorial appearance, and context of such appearance, as is done in academic sources (probably most prominently by Sulejmanagić's 2012 and 2015). The way your approach and explain the topic is in contradiction with the source(s), and see now that you already had such disputes with other editors who noticed the same thing in the past (Talk:Hrvatinić noble family#Inclusion of unsourced content and files with dubious nature).

Sulejmanagić's 2015 source says on pg. 54-55 Obilje numizmatičkih izvora kojima raspolažemo izvrsno definiraju brojne inačice, ali nam ne mogu, kao ni ostali reljefni materijal, dati predodžbu o bojama Hrvojevih grbova. Odgovor na to pitanje daje nam njegov Misal. Drugi grb je na fol. 244. dan u bojama. Štit je srebrn, a na njemu su sve figure crvene boje: dvije vodoravne pruge, ruka s mačem (sam je mač u naravnoj boji) i lav. U ukrasu je kaciga (naravne boje), crveni plašt, crveno–srebrna točenica i crvena ruka s mačem naravne boje. Na konjaničkome prikazu hercega Hrvoja (fol. 243. verso) svi heraldički elementi (štit i prikaz na njemu te točenica) istovjetni su onima na foliji 244. pa je time drugi grb u potpunosti definiran. Iz inicijala u Hrvojevu misalu može se zaključiti da su iz Napulja preuzeti i metali i boje na štitu prvoga grba, to jest da su ljiljani i križevi bili zlatni, a ne crveni i srebrni kako su predstavljeni u takozvanome Ilirskom grbovniku. Kosa greda bila je plava, a ne zlatna, dok je štit bio srebrn, a ne crven.56 Ovakva kombinacija: metal na metal (zlato – križ na srebro – štit) nije u skladu s heraldičkim pravilima, ali ju nalazimo upravo na grbu Jeruzalema u složenome grbu Hrvojeva seniora Ladislava Napuljskoga.57 Usporedimo li grb iz bilo koje od inačica Ohmućevićeva grbovnika s grbovima – zastavama danim u inicijalima Hrvojeva misala (fol. 4; fol. 191. i drugo), naći ćemo da su boje elemenata na štitu neusklađene. U ukrasu grba boja kacige i plašta odgovara istima danima na Hrvojevu grbu u Misalu (fol. 244), dok je izvorna točenica u slikama iz Misala (fol. 243’ i fol. 244) zamijenjena krunom.

So the red color, as claimed by you, wouldn't have anything to do with the supposed fact that "almost all prominent nobility's arms in Illyrian armorial are painted red as an association and in connection to Nemanjić's dynasty and Dušan's great empire" (pg. 58). The red color in Hrvoje's herceg's CoA was used because his dukal's CoA was already prominently in red color. Also, where's stated that the Hrvoje's mantling was in blue color?

Sulejmanagić's 2012 source about coins, and the two coat arms, on pg. 64–67 gives contradicting information which of the coat of arms should be considered as coat of arms of the family and which since held the title of herceg. There's also information that the rampant lion was gifted by the Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (then King of Hungary). On pg. 77-78 about coins shows as "Hrvoje's groschen with herceg's coat of arms" as using his supposed ducal coat of arms (as seen in Missal).

So the contrary to your claim, that "in his life, at least as far as we know, he always and only used herceg's coa, whether on his charters, on his seal, on his money, and at the end of his life he used it on his grave in Jajce", as far as we know (and strangely you don't when relying of Sulejmanagić's sources) he used both so-called ducal and herceg's CoA on his money (in other words, there's no "ducal" and "herceg" CoA as both coat of arms were created and used when held the title of herceg (2012, pg. 68), and changed merely due his change of alliance from the house of Anjou to Luxembourg).

Sulejmanagić's 2015 source on pg. 55-63 shows which CoAs were used by Katarina Vukčić Hrvatinić and Juraj Vojsalić Hrvatinić. Contrary to your claim that "after his death his succeeding family members used this herceg's coa for a few decades before they disappeared from history", seemingly they did not or mostly did not use the herceg's CoAs?

As all sources show (Sulejmanagić's 2012, 2015 and else in literature), the family's first coat of arms, and main symbol of it and its noble family, was an arm brandishing a sword. As different noble members of the family used such a symbol on their coat of arms, the infobox of Hrvatinić noble family shouldn't use temporary Hrvoje's CoA during his alliance with the Anjou (or with the Luxembourg), but their actual family's coat of arms (later usually associated, or influenced the emergence, of the coat of arms of Bosnia with an arm brandishing a sabre).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, why wall of text and misinterpreting the point author makes - he said that colors in Armorial are "not aligned" with Misal's, and not that he can't say which is right and which is wrong. (Shokatz was blocked for his disruptive (and nationalistic) editing and TP involvements, so please, if you want proper discussion don't bring his worn off arguments here.) Further, if one cherry pick information from the research paper, where author draws obvious bottom line conclusions, even though he speculates and discusses all possibilities and circumstances, and you seize upon those bits of text, you will come into tp discussion with a personal opinion on his work and declare author is contradictory, or unreliable, and so on. And for this the infobox of Hrvatinić noble family shouldn't use temporary Hrvoje's CoA during his alliance with the Anjou (or with the Luxembourg), but their actual family's coat of arms (later usually associated, or influenced the emergence, of the coat of arms of Bosnia with an arm brandishing a sabre you will have to show those sources pointing to that direction.౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Your introductory statement is not helpful Please stick to the topic of the discussion and not basic's of editing policy. - yes, those guidelines for primary and secondary sources are bottom line, since you showed inclination to interpret them yourself. You can't interpret primary sources, you can bring a proper secondary source, and I will be ready to listen, or change my mind - I am not a fool, and in face of the facts (in our case good academic sources) and good arguments I will change my mind. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this categorical enough for you, and what the author thinks of colors and Illyrian armorials, on pg.58: Ostaci crvenoga emajla unutar udubljenja na Katarininom štitu nisu dokaz da se tu radi o Sandaljevu grbu imamo li na umu da takozvani Ilirski grbovnici svojom ideološko–propagandnom porukom sugeriraju nemanjićku kvazitradiciju i 71% grbova dominantno boje crvenom bojom. Uostalom, zamjena boja u takozvanome Ilirskom grbovniku u slučaju grba obitelji Pavlović već je dokazana u mome radu „Grb Pavlovića,“ a kod Hrvoja u ovome radu. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but am not interested in continuing this discussion if someone's showing lack of commitment to comment on the content instead of editors or else (WP:GOODFAITH), going in circles repeating the same unrelated stuff with which is avoided to address the content issue and questions, acting to know about the topic because of supposed familiarity with secondary source(s) yet is being contradicted by the same secondary source(s) which were used in editing of the article (and making further confusion in other editors believing that the same claimed and presented information is correct, but such information failed verification and accuracy when checked).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The very first thing you did is to replace the sourced CoA (silver/blue/gold) with same only with different color palette (red/silver/gold) which is unsourced, then you claim that Sulejmanagić work is unreliable and contradictory, then, you pulled out some bits of speculative discussion from that work, something every academic research has, and seized upon those bits because they, sort of, fit your narrative that author is contradictory, that I am contradictory, and so on. There is no value in Illyrian armorials, as shown in above quote, and as for the family CoA you can refer to same author Novac pg.65. What else do you want to prove. I moved the CoA from the Infobx so that we can, hopefully, end this discussion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)