Talk:Petar of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial discussion

There was a discussion started on my talk page where User:Crna Gora and User:PaxEquilibrium have laid out various arguments about this historical person.

---

by CG

Archont Petar was of Croatian origin. This is proven in the legend on the Duklja article, which says he had a brother, Krešimir.

Where did you get the idea that Archont Petar was a decendant of the Višeslav of Serbia? --Crna Gora 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, please see: http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/chapter5.htm --Joy [shallot] 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Read this,it's from the link you gave me, under the The Serbs during the fighting between Byzantium and the Second Bulgarian Empire section. Then tell me if Petar was of Croatian or Serbian origin.

During their rule in Rasa the Bulgarians completely exterminated the old Serbian royal family. From 1036 to 1042 Dobroslav, called Stjepan Vojislav, member of an old Croatian family from Duklja, revolted and liberated Duklja and Rasa. --Crna Gora 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true. The entire Vojislavljević family were of Croat origin too and that Duklja was a Croatian state, not Serbian. Please protect me in this case. I have proof off that site.

Yes, I know that is there too. But there is no established lineage other than the one at the top. It's all rather confusing, to be honest. --Joy [shallot] 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The proof:

From 1036 to 1042 Dobroslav, called Stjepan Vojislav, member of an old Croatian family from Duklja, revolted and liberated Duklja and Rasa. - This statement shows that Stjepan Dobroslav I Vojislav was of Croatian origin, meaning that his distant ancestor, Archont Petar, was of Croatian, not Serbian, origin.

Bodin (1081 – 1101), king of medieval Croatian Duklja, ushered in a new political era in Serbia. At the outset of his reign Bodin liberated Rasa from Byzantium and installed as its princes his two palatines Vukan and Marko, both Croats from Duklja born in Ribnica near modern Titograd. - This statement shows that Duklja was actually Croatian, rather than Serbian, which I agree. This statement also shows that the House of Nemanjić is of Croat origin as Vukan is of the Nemanjić's ancestors (Nemanja's great-great uncle or great-grandfather).

On August 3rd, 1189 he ruled over all of Duklja when Dezislava, wife of the last Croatian prince of Duklja, fled with her court to Dubrovnik. - This statement shows that Prince Mihailo III was of Croatian ethnicity.

So, please, help prove my case. Thanks again. --Crna Gora 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You should not be so intent on trying to prove a case that they were solely Croatian. It serves little practical point, and it will only invoke flamewars.

The early medieval history of Croats and Serbs is riddled with historical omissions, inaccuracies, contradictions, and indeed I have come to the conclusion that a huge chunk of it is based on conjecture.

You should instead try to find as many historical sources as possible, and present them in a neutral manner. Contribute content and context. :) --Joy [shallot] 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will. (At least, I'll try) Thanks again. --Crna Gora 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Archont Petar and Petar Gojniković are two different people. Archont Petar was born in ca. 930. Petar Gojniković was born much earlier. Read this line from the House of Vlastimirović article: "Knez Petar Gojniković (son of Gojnik, grandson of Vlastimir), born ca. 870, ruled 892/3-917/8, captured by Bulgarians, died in captivity. " Those dates are nowhere close to of Archont Petar's. All I know for a fact is that Archont Petar died either during or after the 970s. So, please, don't put false facts in an article unless you do some research. Also, Archont Petar is also called Predimir and in some sources, I am finding the use of Predimir rather than Petar for Archont Petar. This should help. --Crna Gora 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

by PE

Here, I'll try to be as brief as I can.

Goynik's son is none other than Peter Goynikovic, he is of the House of Vlastimirovic (Viseslavic?) and that alone is solely the fact itself. The argument that he was AFAIC Predimir are nothing but a theory, that I myself (from a professional Original Research) do not approve - and it is very possibly false. The only outlying fact is that Doclea and Rascia literally shared almost no border and function as a single state - but Rascian rulers were always descendants (in many cases even subjected to) of Doclea's monarchs. It is known that every Princess (ahem, "Queen" - Predimir's wife Prechvala for example) of Doclea is rascian. I do not think that that is sourced from DAI - as I understand byzantine chronicler John Scylitzes (and he is popular for making funny non-intentional mistakes) mentioned the Doclean rulers frequently (including Predimir/Petar) as rulers of a larger unified Serbia (possibly emphasizing the fact that the main Serb dynasty in Rascia died-out, while that in the coastlands survived). Aside from that - the Croatian origin legend also remains a myth - just as it is said, that's a legend, expressed through a tale-ish work. No where is it ever said that Petar is the son of Trpimir - however, he is brother to the Croatian ruler Cresimir. Historians mostly explained this by the plain fact that the Arhcbishop of Antivari often in his Chronicles referred to Croatia (Dalmatia?) and Serbia (Rascia?) as brotherlands, and any ruler of one realm is the "brother" of the ruler of the other. However, the (must admit, small) serbo-croat school to which you referred, relies itself on the research that Petar Goynikovich spent his life in the Croatian Kingdom and that the Croatian Army brought him to power in Rascia as Grand Prince, with the new Serb confederate state being subjected to Croatia, but in truth, independent (because the two countries functioned as America and Canada today). It is also known that prince Peter Goynikovic pobratimio with the Croatian ruler (which was typical for noble Serbs impressed by the much more advanced and superior Croat state back then in the early Medieval Ages - Prince Ceslav became the "brother" of the great King Tomislav). This is supported by the thing that Grand Prince Peter of Goynik ruled, among all the other southern dalmatian realms, Doclea...

Did I help? If you have any specific question, any at all, please don't be a stranger. Cheers. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please repeat all that at Talk:Archont Petar? :)

Also add some paragraph breaks to help readability. --Joy [shallot] 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

---

That discussion should continue here. --Joy [shallot] 11:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea speaks, aside from historical facts, about legends a lot (in many cases the father being born after the son, or living & ruling for over 200 years), but that's not the point. The point is that it claims that "Predimir" (in official historiography simply as "Petar") ruled/lived somewhere in the second half of the 10th century. However, the seal of Archont Peter (discovered long ago) that even stands in this article is professionally valuated - and it dates from the 9th century, and not afterwards. --PaxEquilibrium 15:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Pax. He was from the 9th century, not the 10th. If he existed in the 10th century, he'd have probably seen Knez Vladimir Dukljanski (Jovan Vladimir). Besides, I found out that on the Geneaology of the rulers of Montenegro at montenegrina.net, Archont Petar is listed to have ruled during the 9th century, opening up a possibility that Archont Petar is indeed Petar Gojniković. --Crna Gora 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that that's just a theory and all will be well. --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What the...???

Actually, I've found that this Petar is son of Gojnik...it appears that it was the truth after all...--PaxEquilibrium 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronicle of Priest of Duklja

unfortunatley we should not read too much into the supposed genealogy of the Dukljan rulers, as alleged by the CPD. The accounts in this work are largely legendary, and have been dismissed by most western scholars. Hxseek (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just Western - but every scholar. It is fully accepted only by a minority of extremist Croatian historians and those of the modern (likewise) Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Needed?

Shakespeare used "petar", currently indexed in an article petard. Victor Engel (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul, Peter and Symeon ...

The last section mentions these names, but I believe they should be rendered as Pavle, Petar and Simeon. --95.87.250.215 (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)