Talk:Zeta under the Balšići

History vs. Propaganda

It has been noted by readers and contributors of Wikipedia, that this particular historic article has been a subject of edit wars and politically-inspired vandalism. It has been, furthermore, noted, that there is a tendency to misrepresent and falsify historic facts about history of Montenegro in order to push forward a political, hegemonist, serbian agenda. These actions are both futile and naive, as historic facts, although open to interpretation, can be easily verified. All may contribute to "the free encyclopedia", of course, but this fact does not give way to historic revisionism. I believe major contributors to this page should be montenegrin, given the revisionist attitude of serbian colleagues. It is quite clear Zeta was a montenegrin state, not serbian in any possible way, and that present-day Republic of Montenegro is its most obvious heir. It is also quite clear the small state struggled to remain independent in the face of larger agressors, such as medieval Serbia, Venice and Turkey. I would like to appeal to sense of decency and honesty of serbian contribuors. I would also like to ask them to limit themselves to articles about history of Serbia proper, if they cannot restrain themselves from falsification. Wikipedia is not a place for POV's, or political activism.

Reply

Well, then, put sources. Register, sign your posts; and people will consider your edits. For now, they just seem unexplained POV-ised pushes and near-vandalism. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the edits

are the followin: 1. Zeta was created from Serbia; therefore it means Serbian territories; why change it to Montenegrin?

2. It notes that Duklja is the first Slavic state in that part of Europe (incorrect), also through essaying

3. The English Kings inheriting parts of French soil part makes no sence

4. It notes that the Rascian domination (a 600 year period) as a brief period

5. Deleting the Mrnjavcevic's name? Why?

6. the title adding reformulation is senless

7. Why add the some part next to the Serbian rulers?

8. Why delete "orthodox"?

9. The sentence added in Line 21 is essay-like and unapropriate, rather

10. Why delete the two Nemanjic rulers that ruled Zeta?

11. Why delete Stefan Lazarevic?

12. Why delete the "History of Serbs" category?

I suggest the annon to answer all these questions before making rash changes, and see an article of mine: Duklja for further information. Thank you in advance. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Data presented here by our Serbian contributors represents an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, vandalism and a rather shallow attempt to hijack history of other nations. Serbian contributors seem to have a real problem with this. See Nikola Tesla, Ivo Andric, Serbo-Croatian, and other articles related to history, culture and politics of fmr. Yugoslavia and nations that composed it. Wikipedia is NOT a place for nationalistic graffiti, but for sound facts and reasonable representation of those facts. Anyone who thinks or acts otherwise, probably misunderstood the purpose of this, or indeed any other, encyclopaedia. As a University of Durham historian, and a Montenegrin at that, I find this deeply disturbing. But, let us try to reason with them and answer questions:

1. Zeta was NOT created from Serbia, it was the rightful heir to Duklja (Dioclea). It was acquired and annexed by Serbia for a short period, but was never considered a part of Serbia proper (more insight into feudal system and, if I may add, English language grammar might be in order). It is an example of historic revisionism, undoubtedly politically motivated, to claim it as Serbian. And how, pray, might Zeta be "created" from Serbia - it was a princedom in its own right, although under formal Serbian rule for a time, as Croatia was under formal Hungarian rule.

2. Merely stating a fact is certainly not essaying. On the contrary. Duklja WAS the first Slavic state in SE Europe, founded in 9th century.

3. It is an easily understandable comparison, and it is my belief it should remain in order to illustrate the relationship

4. Rascia had very little political autonomy for most of its history. History of Rascia as an independent political entity is very brief indeed, as well as the history of medieval Serbia

5. Mentioning Mrnjavcevic in this context is scientifically unjustified and makes very little sense

6. I strongly disagree. To claim this is to claim the encyclopaedic style is senseless. One can do so, of course, but that raises the question of that person' motivation to contribute

7. Obviously, because it makes the sentence more accurate

8. Because it implied eastern orthodoxy was predominant, while at the same time, completely failing to mention Roman Catholic origins of Duklja, Zeta and modern-day Montenegro

9. I strongly disagree.

10. Because it is a factual error, not unlike many other parts of the original article. Logical fallacies abound as well. It is quite possible my corrected version missed many of them

11. See above. He was an important figure of Serbian states at the time, but certainly not one of great importance in Zeta. One gets the impression he was mentioned in the article for no other reason but in order to mention as many Serbian historic personalities as possible, or to make a false claim of kinship between medieval Serbs and Montenegrins. This is certainly below the standard of any encyclopaedia

12. Because Zeta was not a Serbian state, although it was under Serbian rule (nominal or factual) for a period of time. Northern Greece, Macedonia and Albania were all a part of Serbia for a brief period, but this would hardly justify placing articles concerning medieval history of Greece under "History of Serbs" category. One fails to see why should Zeta be an exception. I believe it to be not only intellectually dishonest, but highly politically incorrect as well. It certainly adds nothing of value to the article and implies wrongly that Montenegrins and Serbs are or were of same ethnicity in the medieval period

Since continuous correction of this article is most tiresome, I would like to recommend some basic reading in Montenegrin history: http://www.montenegro.org/history.html . I would also like to appeal to the basic sense of decency and honesty, as well as Wikipedia rules and netiquette. Every nation's history is rich enough. There is no need for this petty hijacking.

1. Duklja (see article) was annexed by the Serbian authorities in the 12th century. It is refered to as the land of Zeta by Stefan Nemanja. Since then, the Nemanjic rulers ruled Zeta before becoming Grand Princes/Kings. There is no "continuation". The Nemanjics made that... your comparison is unapplieable. I find interesting, how claiming it "Serbian" is politicly motivated - since Encyclopedia Britannica (a global enc.) considers Zeta Serbian. Besides, Zeta does share some territorial continuation of Duklja - and one might notice that Duklja has had a Serbian identity. :) (see that article)

2. If one readsDe Administrando Imperio and other historical evidence - he/she will notice that Duklja, Travunia, Rascia, Bosnia, Zahumlje, Pagania, Dalmatia and Pannonia were all founded in the first half of the 7th century. Hence - your claim?

3. Still - unencyclopedic.

4. History of Rascia as an independent political entity - brief? :D the history of Duklja as independent is even shorter... "as well as the history of medieval Serbia". You have to be joking. Serbia (with Duklja including) was independent in 927/931-950/960 under Prince Ceslav of Klonimir. Since Nemanja's reforms in 1166-1168 - Serbia was independent for over 200 years - and existed for almost 400. Zeta did not exist for the most of that period (other than a Serbian province).

5. What does that mean?

6. I agree on this one with you.

7. Now, on this question - you're vandalising the article! Deletion of impornant info is NOT recommended.

8. Because the Roman Catholic origin is irrelevant here: See Duklja article for that. Now on this one, you are pushing WP:POV. Serbian Orthodoxy indeed was predominant.

9. Arguements?

10. What are you trying to say?

11. He was a ruler of Zeta - that is sufficient - and indeed a great one - as Zeta advanced technologically during his rule, almost as much as it did during the Nemanjics. What you are doing is WP:POV (read, please)

12. I already explained this part.

I would ask you to stop near-vandalising this article, please; it goes like this:

• Duklja (7th century - 11th century) Slavic with Serbian orientation and (11th century - 12th century) Slavic
• Zeta (12th century - 14th century) Serbian and (14th century - 15th century) Slavic, but not denying Serbian.
• Montenegro (15th century - 20th century) Serbian and (20th century -) Montenegrin

I would ask you to stop adding illogical bits to the article and use international sources, like Enc. Britannica. Your edits will be reverted. Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]]

Name

Why "independent"? Why not just "Principality of Zeta"? Adam Bishop 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Deficiencies

There is more infor per monarch here than at their respective articles! Srnec 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbian principality???

Quote:Zeta was the Serbian independent principality that replaced the ancient Kingdom of Duklja (Latin: Doclea) for the Serbian territories roughly encompassing present-day Republic of Montenegro. It was named after the river of Zeta.

This is obvious vandalism..Zeta seceeded from Serbia and had its own rulers,the Balsic dynasty.It did not take Serbian territories but only restored territories that previously belonged to it,then known by the name Duklja(Doclea} Everyone knows that.Sideshow Bob 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Crnojevics are Serbs that do not originate from Zeta. Both the Crnojevics and Balsics expanded their territories at the expense of the Imperial territories out of which they forged tiny statelets (that became a Principality afterwards). --PaxEquilibrium 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You can not say certainly where Crnojevics were originally from.There are theories about their ancestry on Adriatic coast of Montenegro,near the Prevlaka monastery,even the Serb Orthodox Church supports that theory.I am not saying this assumption is true,just that you can't be sure about such issues because there is no sufficient evidence to substanciate either side's claims. Simply the fact that Zeta seceeded from Serbia and regained its statehood denies the claim that it was a Serbian state Document that supports my allegations- Stefan Lazarevic's epigraphSideshow Bob 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you could tell us when did the Balšić "secede (sic!)" from Serbia? This is 14th c. not present-day politics! It wasn't that easy to "secede". And "regained its statehood" is even more absurd? Please find just one source where any Balšić or Crnojević lord says that he "regained the statehood of Duklja"!

Anyway there are two major mistakes in the opening paragraph, which is BTW totally confusing. Firstly, Zeta didn’t succeed Duklja, and Montenegro didn’t succeed Zeta. Just because they emerged in the somewhat similar territories doesn’t mean that they „succeeded”. In that way we could say that Turkey succeeded Byzantium or Galatian kingdom…? Secondly, the territory of Zeta never encompassed more than on ¼ of Montenegro!

Oh, and one more thing – the link to Stefan Lazarevic’s epitaph is total bollocks! It’s a deduction of a two-year-old. The centuries of comparing the inscriptions, titles and their changes are discussed here in half a sentence. Bravo for the scientific method! --Dultz 11:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not pay a lot of intention to Montenegrina. I've talked myself with their founding fathers. They're mostly one of those quasti-historians like Jovan I. Deretic from Serbia... no worth paying a lot of attention - primarily because they can't even falsify properly - for instance, they source the Matica Srpska, giving scanned documents of it's alleged documents dating before its foundation. ;) There are several other occasions as well, like the words of Petar I Petrovic after his death or other things that simply make me hilarious. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct it yourself then. Be bold. --PaxEquilibrium 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First,I found a link from Montenegrina only randomly and thought it can be used to somewhat support my point. CrnaGora did a nice job editing top of the page,so I don't have to do anything because I agree with his changes.Also,I have a question:You claim that Montenegro didn't suceed Zeta-How come then that Zeta changed its name gradually during the rule of the same dynasty,the Crnojevics?During their rule it was the first time the name "Montenegro" is being used.Sideshow Bob 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is 100% true. After that the Vladikas took over and then in 1696, around 180 years later, the Petrović family takes over. Also, how is Zeta not the successor of the Kingdom of Duklja when it is. Well, during the time Duklja existed, it was beginning to be called Zeta in the mid-1100s and generally, why have been seing Zeta used a lot in the last few paragraphs in the history section in the Duklja article? Well? --Crna Gora 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim that - those were two states, but of course Montenegro inherited Zeta. It's plain fact. However, the current Republic of Montenegro cannot be the successor of the Principality of Montenegro for sure (just as the current Republic of Serbia isn't the successor of Rascia). --PaxEquilibrium 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the introductory passages of this article are a total mess, full of big phrases and confused thoughts, one of the worst I've seen on Wiki. If somebody would like to THOUROUGHLY clean it up we could then discuss it more properly. If I have the time, I'll do it. Until then would I can only ask you Sideshow or CrnaGora to explain what does "succeed" mean to you i.e. what do you think the meaning of this term (concerning statehood) implies?--Dultz 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro

It was succeeded by theocratic Montenegro (took most land) and Ottoman-ruled Montenegro (took some land but was later merged into theocratic Montenegro).

This part confused me, so I'd appreciate someone clarifying the sentence or explaining its meaning. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Principality was succeeded by a free Montenegro (as vassal to Venice, but de facto independent through the Serbian Church) and an Ottoman Montenegro, which was subsequently annexed to the Sanjak of Shkoder. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, try clarifying the sentence somehow, you can imagine how confusing it is for a regular reader when I couldn't understand it. Also, why do you insist on putting Serbian territories in the intro? Yes, before its statehood Zeta was a part of Serbia(conquered by Stefan Nemanja). But before that it was Duklja, so does that make Zeta Dioclean territory? I don't think so, but if we use your analogy, it would make more sense than the current version. So, I suggest we find some sort of compromise, since Zeta did secede from Rascia/Serbia, but roughly encompassed the same territory as Duklja. Sideshow Bob 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Duklja continued to exist well beyond Nemanya's intervention/annexation (conquest would be weird in this case). Do You know Vukan was a King of Diocleia and Dalmatia?

No, Zeta was only an insignificant tiny bit of Doclean territory.

After it seceded from Serbia it slowly expanded on the basis of Serbia's soil (and the expanded became the majority), before it was re-included into Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Principality?

Zeta was never a principality. Under the Balšići, it was a lordship. Under the Crnojevići, it was a dukedom. No where does it say that Zeta is a principality. --Montenegro 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the common name for all the little realms. Besides, see the Principality article. --PaxEquilibrium 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Table

The table is really wrong - in almost every single way. What we should do is create a "Principality of Montenegro" (to differ from the modern "Princedom of Montenegro") for the Crnojevics' realm and then put a state table in there a detailed table, it's really wrong for t'is one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Đurađ III?

Just out of curiosity, what happened to Đurađ III? There are Đurađ I, Đurađ II, Đurađ IV & Đurađ V.

JimCubb (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Serbia

Serbs try to retake back the coast of today montenegro and write history in their favor. Here is the link to croatian wikipedia, to see the other views on Zeta.

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zetska_dr%C5%BEava

--188.230.177.200 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital city

Various editors keep editing the wikipedia page to say that one of their capitals was Scutari/Shködra. The one source that both editors used only mention that the city was conquered by the Balšić dynasty. If you want to put Scutari as one of the capitals of this dynasty then at least provide a source which is valid. Petarrc13 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, I also want to add that the Balšić dynasty had no constant capital. They moved courts to favored residences or areas that needed their attention. The Balšić family spent more time around smaller villages around lake Scutari than they did in the cities. Petarrc13 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Both sources support it. Read them. I added a third source. Arguments based on WP:original research that contradict WP:reliable sources can't be used to remove WP:verified information. – Βατο (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)