I'd like info on Medieval Croatia.

[Zioneer]

Hey all,

I'm planning on doing a TL regarding Croatia with a PoD in the 1080s (actually multiple small, individual-based PoDs and one major PoD), but I don't have much info on Croatia itself, so I'd like your help on this. So I have a set of questions that I haven't been able to get the answer for by googling.

1. How centralized was Croatia in the 1080s? My major PoD involves Croatia falling into civil war and rebellion and an outside power nobody expected swooping in and taking over, and if Croatia is too centralized, that won't work.

2. What was the Croatian army probably made up of? How many troops could a Croat king or major noble probably call up at one time?

3. Besides Croatians, what were the major ethnic groups around in Croatia at that time?

4. Croatian culture, what was it like, and could it fit with an wildly different culture? How would massively different (German or French, for instance, though they aren't invading Croatia) names fit into Croatian names?

5. Any specific Croatian terms I need to know? I know there's ban (which translates to "ruler", or at least "viceroy", right?), but apparent from that, I have no idea.

6. Are there any specific noble families around this time period that could cause trouble?

7. What were the Byzantine and Hungarian attitudes towards Croatia? The Serbian, Italian, and German attitudes? How would each react if a totally foreign conqueror managed to invade and control Croatia?

8. Was the Croat crown (aka being crowned King of Croatia) a "have to go to Rome to have the Pope give it to me" thing, or a "I am related to ruling dynasty or I successful conquered Croatia, therefore I am crowned in my own land" thing?

9. What sort of clothing and equipment did the Croats prefer?

10. Finally, I know the current capital is Zagreb, but was there a different capital in the 1080s? What did the medieval capital look like/how well defended was it?

Thanks for any answers you guys can give.

 

[Basilisk]

Well, one thing is that in the 11th century, there was still a significant population speaking Dalmatian Romance, similar to the Italian Veneto dialect.

 

[Petike]

If in doubt, you can always PM Marko.

 

[Marko]

Hi there, I will try and anwser your questions here rather than through a PM so if someone wants to add something or challenge some statement they can.

I am off to watch Croatia vs Wales in the pub and will provide anwsers once I get back home later tonight.

Prepare for a wall of text

 

[Zioneer]

Hi there, I will try and anwser your questions here rather than through a PM so if someone wants to add something or challenge some statement they can.

I am off to watch Croatia vs Wales in the pub and will provide anwsers once I get back home later tonight.

Prepare for a wall of text

Excellent! One last thing that I forgot to ask in the OP/PM; how would French and Italian (and just for kicks, Irish) names be changed into Croatian names?

Looking forward to all of your answers!

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Hmmm, the end of the heyday of an independent Croatian kingdom. Krin was the capital (modern day Kirin?). Zagreb was a royal city. No idea of sizes in this period.
In terms of cultural influences (and dress), I think the upper echelons of Croatian society would have looked both West to Venice and East towards Constantinople, given trade and political ties.
The Dalmatian coast was dominated by the Venetians. Normans are going to be big players in a TL of this time and place. It seems that royal control was loosening in parts of the kingdom. In part due to rival and sometimes allied players--Venice, the Byzantines and the Normans. And in the 1090's, the Hungarians will absorb the kingdom unless you butterfly this somehow in your TL.
A lot of your questions are going to need answering from a specialist---I bet many of the sources are going to be in Serbo-Croat and possibly German.

I look forward to what Marko might come up with.

 

[Silent Cal]

Hmmm, the end of the heyday of an independent Croatian kingdom. Krin was the capital (modern day Kirin?)

I'm pretty sure that's a typo. I think you mean Knin.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I'm pretty sure that's a typo. I think you mean Knin.

Yes. And I did it twice. Argggh!

 

[Zioneer]

Hmmm, the end of the heyday of an independent Croatian kingdom. Krin was the capital (modern day Kirin?). Zagreb was a royal city. No idea of sizes in this period.
In terms of cultural influences (and dress), I think the upper echelons of Croatian society would have looked both West to Venice and East towards Constantinople, given trade and political ties.
The Dalmatian coast was dominated by the Venetians. Normans are going to be big players in a TL of this time and place. It seems that royal control was loosening in parts of the kingdom. In part due to rival and sometimes allied players--Venice, the Byzantines and the Normans. And in the 1090's, the Hungarians will absorb the kingdom unless you butterfly this somehow in your TL.
A lot of your questions are going to need answering from a specialist---I bet many of the sources are going to be in Serbo-Croat and possibly German.

I look forward to what Marko might come up with.

Oh, thanks! That helps me while waiting for Marko. I've got a few ideas about where to go with my TL, but your info is good.

So why were the Hungarians able to absorb the kingdom, just dynastic absorption or something more?

 

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

number 7

I doubt that any of the states (feudal entities) existed in the form you ask of? For example; Italy - it was never a nation indivisible under one leader - even now! Germany - You must mean the Holy Roman Empire, even at the time you write about, it was an "alignment of interests" not a nation. (even now there is a north south divide stratified by religion)
I'm not getting at you personally, but just wish that such "what if" questions were based on at least a little research by the person positing that question. That minor research would then give interested bystanders (such as myself) that know bugger all about the period, a hook on which to hang there interested further reading about the subject (research), and (possibly) contribute further to your thread in a structured and positive way.
Sorry - I have had a sniff of the fire water in my library, and I tend to resent (no - not resent) I tend to enjoy those questions that send me to my books with a renewed vigour to do the research to contribute to a thread.
So how can I contribute after the above diatribe? (I now feel I have to!!!)
1, look at the family tree of the principle contributors to the period/region. I find that all sorts of possibilities come from reading the (potted) history of the characters involved.
2, post your question in the framework of the period - know your subject in at least a small degree (I admit I do not know what you know about this "question" - maybe you have framed you post to "draw" comments from others in the know)
3, Find a point of divergence (personally, I hate acronyms) that made you interested enough to post your question, and frame your statements to garner either criticism or comment that will contribute to your needs. I have found that if you know your subject too well,you leave little room for criticism! I would love to have my posts picked apart, but perhaps I bore people with my postings? So my advise is to leave room for others to contribute! (Maybe that's what you did!)

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Oh, thanks! That helps me while waiting for Marko. I've got a few ideas about where to go with my TL, but your info is good.

So why were the Hungarians able to absorb the kingdom, just dynastic absorption or something more?

Infighting among the Croat nobility. It was a group of N. Croatian nobles that offered the Croat throne to the Hungarian king.
Incidentally, apparently the Croat royal capital shifted between several different cities during the kingdom's existence. None of them were Zagreb.

 

[Zioneer]

I doubt that any of the states (feudal entities) existed in the form you ask of? For example; Italy - it was never a nation indivisible under one leader - even now! Germany - You must mean the Holy Roman Empire, even at the time you write about, it was an "alignment of interests" not a nation. (even now there is a north south divide stratified by religion)
I'm not getting at you personally, but just wish that such "what if" questions were based on at least a little research by the person positing that question. That minor research would then give interested bystanders (such as myself) that know bugger all about the period, a hook on which to hang there interested further reading about the subject (research), and (possibly) contribute further to your thread in a structured and positive way.
Sorry - I have had a sniff of the fire water in my library, and I tend to resent (no - not resent) I tend to enjoy those questions that send me to my books with a renewed vigour to do the research to contribute to a thread.
So how can I contribute after the above diatribe? (I now feel I have to!!!)
1, look at the family tree of the principle contributors to the period/region. I find that all sorts of possibilities come from reading the (potted) history of the characters involved.
2, post your question in the framework of the period - know your subject in at least a small degree (I admit I do not know what you know about this "question" - maybe you have framed you post to "draw" comments from others in the know)
3, Find a point of divergence (personally, I hate acronyms) that made you interested enough to post your question, and frame your statements to garner either criticism or comment that will contribute to your needs. I have found that if you know your subject too well,you leave little room for criticism! I would love to have my posts picked apart, but perhaps I bore people with my postings? So my advise is to leave room for others to contribute! (Maybe that's what you did!)

Ah, sorry, you're right, I didn't specify my question well enough. I meant what were the varied Germanic and Italian opinions on Croatia (so the Bavarian opinion, the Brandenburger opinion, and the Venetian, Genoan, and other such opinions). I understand perfectly that Germany and Italian were not united; there were huge numbers of decentralized fiefdoms all over the Holy Roman Empire. What I would like to know is how they treated Croatia, and how they would treat the Croats if a foreigner took over Croatia.

I have indeed framed my questions to draw knowledge from those in the know; I only speak English (so I can't use the Latin or Croatian language sources unless they are translated), and I'm unsure of where to look besides a healthy amount of googling. So I'm trying to draw upon the knowledge of the AH.commers who know their stuff when it comes to this period; I'll be honest, besides Wikipedia and about an hour of googling, most of what I know about Medieval Croatia comes from Crusader Kings 2.

I have looked at the family trees of the contributors to the region; or at least the Croat rulers and notable families and a few of the Italian, Byzantine, and Hungarian rulers. And I think I've got a suitable PoD that could work for what I'm planning (I'm being vague about it because I don't want to just give it away).

 

[Zioneer]

Side note, I'll reveal my idea for a PoD because me keeping it secret seems to be hampering my intent more than my intended purpose of trying not to reveal too much about my plans for the TL.

The major PoD is thus: Bohemond (the son of Robert Guiscard) deciding to take advantage of chaos in Croatia (perhaps a result of a second PoD), and instead of going all the way to Antioch (since the First Crusade hasn't even been declared yet), he pulls a William the Conqueror, and invades Croatia. He conquers Croatia (or at least a piece of it), and a Norman-Croat kingdom/culture begins.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Side note, I'll reveal my idea for a PoD because me keeping it secret seems to be hampering my intent more than my intended purpose of trying not to reveal too much about my plans for the TL.

The major PoD is thus: Bohemond (the son of Robert Guiscard) deciding to take advantage of chaos in Croatia (perhaps a result of a second PoD), and instead of going all the way to Antioch (since the First Crusade hasn't even been declared yet), he pulls a William the Conqueror, and invades Croatia. He conquers Croatia (or at least a piece of it), and a Norman-Croat kingdom/culture begins.

Which most likely means continued hostilities with Venice, as he's going to go through Dalmatia, I'd think. OTL Venice and Constantinople allied to fight Guiscard. Perhaps this will happen again against Bohemond? How will Hungary go, I wonder?
Sounds like an interesting POD!

 

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

will this help/prompt?

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Croatia[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Main article: Name of Croatia[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Etymology uncertain. From Medieval Latin Croātia, from Cruati ("Croatians") attested in the Šopot Inscription, from North-West Slavic Xrovat-, by liquid metathesis from proposed Common Slavic *Xorvat-, from proposed Proto-Slavic *Xarwāt- (*Xъrvatъ)[179] or *Xŭrvatŭ (*xъrvatъ).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The most common theory[179] derives it from Harahvat-, the Old Persian name for the Arachosia or Helmand River, or from Harahuvatiš, the land surrounding it. This is cognate with the Vedic Sarasvatī and Avestan Haraxvaitī.[180] This derivation seems to be supported by a 3rd century Scythian form Xoroathos (ΧΟΡΟΑΘΟΣ) appearing in the Tanais Tablets.[citation needed][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alternate theories include Zbigniew Gołąb's proposal that it is a borrowing from Proto-Germanic *C(h)rovati, presumed to mean "warriors clad with horn-armor"[181] or chrawat, "mountaineers".[51][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]see also_[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Croatia-in-english.com

 

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

croatia-in english.com for maps of the era!

 

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

I sort of guessed a Norman slant on the events!

 

[Herzen's love-child]

What will happen to the Norman conquest of Sicily? Deferred, butterflied away, or OTL?

 

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

What will happen to the Norman conquest of Sicily? Deferred, butterflied away, or OTL?

I doubt it, as Sicily was already Norman by the 1080's: Wikipedia:
In 1096, Bohemond, along with his uncle Roger I of Sicily the great count of Sicily, was attacking Amalfi, which had revolted against Duke Roger, when bands of crusaders began to pass, on their way through Italy to Constantinople. The zeal of the crusader came upon Bohemond; it is possible, however, that he saw in the First Crusade nothing more than a chance to carve for himself an eastern principality. Geoffrey Malaterra bluntly states that Bohemond took the Cross with the intention of plundering and conquering Greek lands.
He gathered a Norman army, perhaps one of the finest in the crusading host, at the head of which he crossed the Adriatic Sea, and penetrated to Constantinople along the route he had tried to follow in 1082–1084. He was careful to observe a "correct" attitude towards Alexius, and when he arrived at Constantinople in April 1097 he did homage to the emperor. He may have negotiated with Alexius about a principality at Antioch; if he did so, he had little encouragement. From Constantinople to Antioch, Bohemond was the real leader of the First Crusade; and it says much for his leadership that the First Crusade succeeded in crossing Asia Minor, which the Crusade of 1101, the Second Crusade in 1147, and the Third Crusade in 1189 failed to accomplish.
The Emperor's daughter, Anna Comnena, leaves a good portrait of him in her Alexiad; she met him for the first time when she was fourteen, and was quite fascinated by him. She left no similar portrait of any other Crusader prince. Of Bohemond, she wrote:

Now [Bohemond] was such as, to put it briefly, had never before been seen in the land of the Romans [that is, Greeks], be he either of the barbarians or of the Greeks (for he was a marvel for the eyes to behold, and his reputation was terrifying). Let me describe the barbarian's appearance more particularly -- he was so tall in stature that he overtopped the tallest by nearly one cubit, narrow in the waist and loins, with broad shoulders and a deep chest and powerful arms. And in the whole build of the body he was neither too slender nor overweighted with flesh, but perfectly proportioned and, one might say, built in conformity with the canon of Polycleitus... His skin all over his body was very white, and in his face the white was tempered with red. His hair was yellowish, but did not hang down to his waist like that of the other barbarians; for the man was not inordinately vain of his hair, but had it cut short to the ears. Whether his beard was reddish, or any other colour I cannot say, for the razor had passed over it very closely and left a surface smoother than chalk... His blue eyes indicated both a high spirit and dignity; and his nose and nostrils breathed in the air freely; his chest corresponded to his nostrils and by his nostrils...the breadth of his chest. For by his nostrils nature had given free passage for the high spirit which bubbled up from his heart. A certain charm hung about this man but was partly marred by a general air of the horrible... He was so made in mind and body that both courage and passion reared their crests within him and both inclined to war. His wit was manifold and crafty and able to find a way of escape in every emergency. In conversation he was well informed, and the answers he gave were quite irrefutable. This man who was of such a size and such a character was inferior to the Emperor alone in fortune and eloquence and in other gifts of nature.
​

A politique, Bohemond was resolved to engineer the enthusiasm of the crusaders to his own ends; and when his nephew Tancred left the main army at Heraclea Cybistra, and attempted to establish a footing in Cilicia, the movement may have been already intended as a preparation for Bohemond's eastern principality. Bohemond was the first to get into position before Antioch (October 1097), and he took a great part in the siege of the city, beating off the Muslim attempts at relief from the east, and connecting the besiegers on the west with the port of St Simeon and the Genoese ships which lay there.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The taking of Noto (which finished the conquest of the island) wasn't until 1091. Many parts of Sicily weren't conquered until well in the 80's. Since the Author's POD is intended to be in the 1080's, this has relevance.