Pacta conventa (Croatia) - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SmackBot (talk | contribs) at 16:22, 16 February 2009 (Date maintenance tags and general fixes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:22, 16 February 2009 by SmackBot (talk | contribs) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Pacta conventa (Lat. agreed accords) was an agreement between King Coloman of Hungary and the Croatian nobility in 1102. It started the Union of Croatia with Hungary that would last until 1918. The dynastic strife that followed the catastrophe at Mohacs field 1526 did not change the legal nature of the pacta after the throne was occupied by Ferdinand I.

In Hungarian historiography it is generally accepted that the document is a forgery while Croatian historiography generally accepts it as authentic; a Croatian proponent of the forgery view is Nada Klaić. Oldest surviving version of Pacta conventa is from 14 century and today this version is in Budapest museum.

Circumstances of the agreement

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

After Petar Svačić, the last Croatian king of Croat descent, was killed on the battlefield in 1097, the Croats had refused to surrender. To end this war an idea of agreement was born so that, in 1102, the Croatian nobles decided to conclude the Pacta conventa with King Coloman of Hungary before his crowning as the Croatian king in Biograd.

The Hungarian king offered "an agreement as pleases them" to the greatest Croatian nobles from the families of Kačić, Kukar, Šubić, Svačić, Plečić, Mogorović, Gušić, Čudomirić, Karinjanin and Lapčan, Lačničić, Jamometić and Tugomirić.

Content of Pacta conventa

The agreement determined that Croatia and Hungary would be governed by the same ruler as two separate kingdoms. When he was crowned in Biograd na Moru, Coloman of Hungary promised all the public and state rights to the Kingdom of Croatia and some additional rights to the Croatian nobility. The Croats acknowledged Coloman of Hungary as the king of Croatia and Dalmatia and promised they would help him in war, at their cost on the Croatian side of Drava and at his cost on the Hungarian side.

The Kings of Hungary (Coloman and his successors) were invested with all the rights of kingship over the Kingdom of Croatia, which were the following:

to appoint the ban
to issue privileges and land grants
to certify the laws voted by the Sabor
to collect taxes and duties
to own the "royal land" (terra regalis) of the extinct Croat royal dynasty
to have supreme command over the Croatian army
to make foreign policy.

Dispute about the validity of the document

Since the 19th century, a number of historians have claimed that Pacta conventa was not a genuine document. Some claim that the document is a forgery found in the Zagreb diocese and published in 1960; Pacta Conventa was written with an idiom used three centuries after its supposed origin, i.e. in the 14th century; Hungarian sources do not mention any "personal union" between Hungary and Croatia.

According to Croatian historians, in 1102, Croatia entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary. After the 1526 Battle of Mohács, the "Reliquiae reliquiarum olim inclyti Regni Croatiae" (the remains of the Kingdom of Croatia) became a part of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1527. In 1918 Croatia became a part of the Kingdom of SHS which is later renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

The theory is quite disputed because of several reasons. First of all, the only document which would prove the personal union, called Pacta Conventa is regarded as a fake document by Hungarian historians and a Croatian as well, called Nada Klaic. In Pacta Conventa it is written, that Coloman of Hungary is the son of Ladislaus I of Hungary, but Coloman was the son of Geza I of Hungary, the Croatian leaders would know this, because Ladislaus I of Hungary had no son. Also, in Pacta Conventa the River Drava is mentioned as the border, but at this time Croatia didn't have any territory at River Drava. Western parts between Drava and Sava were parts of Slavonia (which was part of Hungary), eastern parts between the rivers were directy controlled by Hungary. Some Hungarian historians state, Pacta Conventa was made in the 14th century, because of the idiom of the text.

In Hungarian Chronicles or any other historical text nothing is mentioned about a personal union between Croatia and Hungary. Also, there are no facts that the Croatian nobles elected Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and joined the Habsburg dynasty, nor that in the Middle Ages there was a country, called "Hungary - Croatia" or "Kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia". Nothing is written about the Kingdom of Croatia as a separate state, only about the Kingdom of Hungary.

If there had been a personal union, the Kings of Hungary would have been crowned with the Croatian Crown as well. But the Croatian crown was sent by the Pope to Dmitar Zvonimir in 1075, and Croatia became a vassal of the Pope. If the King of Hungary had been crowned as King of Croatia, he would have accepted the suzerainty of the Pope. But none of the Kings of Hungary were a vassal of the Pope. Also, the Habsburg emperors were all named as "König von Ungarn", not "König von Ungarn und Kroatien".

According to Hungarian historians, Hungary conquered Croatia in 1091 . The same is written in medieval chronicles in the Holy Roman Empire, Rome and in the Kingdom of Hungary. Between 1091 and 1918 it became the part of the Kingdom of Hungary with autonomy, even after the 1868 Croatian - Hungarian Compromise, where it is stated (Article XXX. of 1868 in Hungary) that "Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity". The King of Hungary wore the title, but there was no more separate Kingdom of Croatia, King of Croatia neither. For example Louis I of Hungary wore the the title of "King of Jerusalem, and Sicily" but he truly wasn't a king of a state in neither Jerusalem, nor Sicily. Franz Josef I of Austria also only wore the title of King of Galicia, Lodomeria, etc. , although there were not separate Kingdoms named Kingdom of Galicia or Lodomeria, he was "Kaiser von Österreich und König von Ungarn" in "Österreich-Ungarn" , not "Kaiser von Österreich und König von Ungarn und Kroatien" in "Österreich-Ungarn-Kroatien". Croatia had always retained autonomy in the Hungarian Kingdom, since 1868, but remained the part of the Kingdom of Hungary since 1091, and its emperor was King of Hungary since 1091, although since 1526 they were only Habsburgs.

After all, between the two different statements historians can't agree.

References

Categories: