Thank you for your answer, but this is not what I'm looking for. I'm rather interested in the counties or zupanias of medieval Croatia.
Yes, the medieval Banate of Croatia had counties. However, it is important to note that for while (from 1225 to the late 15th century) the Banate of Croatia was split in two: the Banate of Croatia and Dalmatia and Banate of Slavonia. The counties in Croatia-Dalmatia were administered by local nobles who inherited the position of count (župan). In Slavonia, though, the counties were administered by counts appointed directly by the king. It had to with the fact that Slavonia was subjected to a form of Hungarisation. Many Hungarian nobles settled in Slavonia, and the nobility of Slavonia was treated differently than the nobility of Croatia. Slavonia was also under church jurisdiction of Archidioecesis Colocensis in Hungary and the use of Glagolitic was scarce while in the territory of Croatia-Dalmatia it was widespread.Did the Banate of Croatia have counties in the Middle Ages, most notably in the 13th-14th centuries? If yes, could anyone help me find a map about it? Thanks for help in advance!
Thank you for your answer. Slavonia was a completely different entity, it had almost nothing to do with Croatia. I'm interested in the latter. Do you have a map of the zupanias?Yes, the medieval Banate of Croatia had counties. However, it is important to note that for while (from 1225 to the late 15th century) the Banate of Croatia was split in two: the Banate of Croatia and Dalmatia and Banate of Slavonia. The counties in Croatia-Dalmatia were administered by local nobles who inherited the position of count (župan). In Slavonia, though, the counties were administered by counts appointed directly by the king. It had to with the fact that Slavonia was subjected to a form of Hungarisation. Many Hungarian nobles settled in Slavonia, and the nobility of Slavonia was treated differently than the nobility of Croatia. Slavonia was also under church jurisdiction of Archidioecesis Colocensis in Hungary and the use of Glagolitic was scarce while in the territory of Croatia-Dalmatia it was widespread.
I wouldn't say that Slavonia had nothing to do with Croatia. It was created out of Croatia and eventually merged back together, and there were instances where ban of Croatia-Dalmatia and ban of Slavonia. For example Ivan Babonić was ban of Slavonia when he was appointed ban of Croatia after the defeat of Mladen II Šubić. Then we have the example of Stephen I Lackfi who also held both titles at the same time.Thank you for your answer. Slavonia was a completely different entity, it had almost nothing to do with Croatia. I'm interested in the latter. Do you have a map of the zupanias?
King of Castile, Leon, Aragon, both Sicilies, Jerusalem, Navarra, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, Majorca, Minorca, Sevilla, Sardinia, Cordova, Corsica, Murcia, Jaen, the Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, the Canary Islands, East & West Indias, the Islands & Mainland of the Ocean sea;
Archduke of Austria;
Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Milan;
Count of Habsburg, Flanders, Tyrol, Barcelona;
Lord of Biscay, Molina;
Or in short:@ Samples:
(June 1788) [26: tomo XVII (1850); p.132-133; Doc.# 4]
< Charles III (+1788), Duke of Parma [1731-1735], King of Naples & Sicily [1733-1759]; King of Spain 1759 >
Don Carlos por la gracia de Dios Rey de Castilla, de León, de Aragón, de las Dos Sicilias, de Jerusalen, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, de Menorca, de Sevilla, de Serdeña, de Córdoba, de Córcega, de Murcia, de Jaén, de los A1garbes, de Algecira, de Gibraltar, de las Islas de Canarias, de las Indias Orientales y Occidentales, islas y Tierra Firme del mar Océano,
Archiduque de Austria, Duque de Borgoña, de Brabante y de Milán,
Conde de Abspurg, Flándes, Tirol y Barcelona,
Señor de Vizcaya y de Molina etc.
http://eurulers.altervista.org/spain.htmlKing of Castile, Leon, Aragon, both Sicilies, Jerusalem, Navarra, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, Majorca, Minorca, Sevilla, Sardinia, Cordova, Corsica, Murcia, Jaen;
Lord of Biscay, Molina;
(Nov 1784) [26: tomo CVII (1893); p.425]
< Charles IV (+1819), King of Spain [1788-1808] >
Don Cárlos, por la gracia de Dios, Rey de Castilla, de Leon, de Aragon, de las Dos Sicilias, de Jeruaalem, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, < de Galicia, > de Mallorca, de Menorca, de Sevilla, de Cerdeña, de Córdoba, de Córcega, de Murcia, de Jaen;
Señor de Vizcaya y de Molina, etc.
http://eurulers.altervista.org/hungary.htmlMi Elsö Ferencz József Isten Kedvezö kegyelméböl Ausztriai Császár,
Magyar, Cseh, Dalmát, Horvát, Tót, Halics, Ladomér, Ráma, Szerb, Kun és Bolgár országok Apostoli, úgy Illyria, Jeruzsálem stb.
Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it, but I'm not necessarily aggreeing with. We could about about this, however, we are going offtrack of the original purpose of this, which is finding a reliable map of Croatian zupanias from the High or Late Middle Ages.I think that it is a little misleading to speak of the Banate of Croatia.
A banate is the area ruled by a ban appointed by a king. And it is certainly correct to write of the area ruled by a ban as a banate. But it can also be very misleading by giving the impression that the area is only a banate when sometimes it is much more than a banate.
A Hungarian banate can be considered to be roughly similar to a Spanish viceroyalty. But which type of Spanish viceroyalty? There were two types of Spanish viceroyalties created under two very different types of circumstances.
By about 1500 the King of Aragon was also the king of some kingdoms outside of the Iberian peninsula: the Balearic Islands, Sardinia, Sicily, the other Sicily.
Since a king of Aragon would rarely if ever visit those kingdoms he appointed viceroys to represent him in those kingdoms.
After 1492 the Monarch of Castile acquired colonies in the islands of the Caribbean and later on the mainland of the American continents, conquering tiny tribes and vast realms, and in few decades coming to rule a vast region that was the Kingdom of the East and the West Indias.
Of course in the 16th century the monarch of Castile was the same person as the monarch of Aragon. And so the king of Castile decided to copy the king of Aragon (himself) by appointing viceroys in the Kingdom of the Indias. but the Kingdom of the Indias was so vast that the King of Castile and the Indias did not appoint one viceroy for the entire kingdom of the East and the West Indias. Instead he appointed viceroys of New Spain (Mexico and the Caribbean) since 1535 and of Peru (South America) since 1540. The king of Castile and the Indias also created a viceroyalty of New Granada (northern South America) in 1717 and a Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata (Argentiia, Bolivia, etc.) in 1776.
The Spanish monarch listed his possessions in the New World as only one kingdom in his list of titles, as "King of the East and the West Indias" instead of using the titles of "King of New Spain, of Peru, of New Granada, of the Rio de la Plata,". Thus there were four viceroys governing four different viceroyalties in the single kingdom of The East and the West Indias.
The Spanish kingdoms in the Mediterranean had been kingdoms for varying lengths of time before the King of Aragon acquired them. Some of them had parliaments and they had their own laws and administrations. They remained separate kingdoms.
The Spanish royal title from 1783 to 1808, the period when there were four viceroyalties in the Kingdom of the East and West Indias, was:
Or in short:
Spain. Titles of European hereditary rulers
Because the kingdoms in the Mediterranean were preexisting kingdoms acquired by the King of Aragon, the Kings of Spain listed them as individual kingdoms in their lists of titles. But because the Kingdom of the East and West Indias was formed out of many realms conquered by the Castilians in the New World and governed in four viceroyalties created for administrative convenience, the King of Spain did not list the four viceroyalties separately in his list of titles but considered them to be parts of the single Kingdom of the East and West Indias.
So was the Banate of Croatia more like the Aragonese Mediterranean viceroyalties or the Castilian New World viceroyalties?
Croatia became a kingdom in 925 and in 1102 the King of Hungary became King of Croatia, thus beginning the eventually long list of kingdoms claimed by Kings of Hungary: "King of Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria, Rama, Serbia, Cumania, Bulgaria, Illyrai, jerusalem."
Hungary. Titles of European hereditary rulers
Thus it seems that the Banate of Croatia was more like the Aragonese viceroyalties of preexisting kingdoms in the Mediterranean than like the Castilian viceroyalties arbitrarily assigned to different regions of a single kingdom in the Americas.
And while it may be correct to speak of the Viceroyalty of Sicily as the area ruled by the Viceroy of Sicily, it is much more usual to speak of the Kingdom of Sicily, since it was a separate kingdom whose king was also the king of Spain and was represented by a viceroy in Sicily. And the same is true for the Kingdom and Banate of Croatia.
For centuries Croatian and Hungarian historians have debated how much the personal union of Croatia and Hungary was a peaceful one and how much it was a Hungarian conquest.
By referring to the Banate of Croatia instead of the Kingdom of Croatia despite the fact that Croatia was always a kingdom until 1918 the original post gives the appearance of taking sides in that controversy.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|More administrative subdivisions equals greater administrative efficiency?||Philosophy / Sociology|
|Looking at subdivisions versus countrys.||General History|