Talk:Ban (title)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ban (title). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Excellent! What a pleasure to read a Balkan entry where the facts are not being jostled by nationalist vanities. Wetman 22:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Err, that's probably because the term has existed before the region was called Balkan, or at least the negative connotations of the said term did not exist... --Joy [shallot]

I believe my version's better, so I reverted back to it. Here's why:

• It's less bottom heavy - a good intro doesn't just introduce the sections, it summarises them.

I may be amenable to accept this, but I think it's still bloated. It is not crucially relevant to the terms themselves how they were transformed over time into something different - this does not belong to the introduction. Besides, if you put everything in the intro, there isn't anything really left for the article. --Joy [shallot]

• "Banate" is the English word for banovina, following the same pattern as khanate and margravate.

I wasn't able to find it in any dictionaries when I originally searched for it, nor is it actually popular on Google (the first ten hits of "ban banate" search are either ours or not particularly known; the results of a "banate" search largely aren't about this at all), so I'm wary of introducing the neologism. --Joy [shallot]

Banate is far from neologism, IIRC, it's what Britannica 1911 uses. I was surprised not to find it in dictionaries, since it is fairly common in historical texts, at least those I've read. The medieval glossary at [1] (looks well researched and referenced) seems to agree. Zocky 16:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that removal - Wikipedia was being extra slow so I was still submitting my previous comment for the Nth time, when yours rolled in and mine stomped over it.

A neologism doesn't have to be all that neo to be a neologism :) Although I agree that it happens, it can't be a particularly common word (i.e., not that much more common than a raw transcription like banat or banovina), you'll notice how the NetSERF glossary also mentions banovina and the reference is dated 1994, so historians also seem to still be in the process of accepting this term. --Joy [shallot] 12:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Calling the section on banovinas "20th century" is wrong, as the "medieval" position of Croatin ban existed until 1918.

The section title is because these bans were introduced in the 20th century and the previous section was named after a historical period, it breaks the flow to name this one after a country. --Joy [shallot]

Still, the section headings make it sound like there were no bans between the middle ages and the 20th century.

That's a fair concern... --Joy [shallot]

• How is additional information, especially Banja Luka as the largest town to be named after bans, unnecessary factoids?

Oh yeah, who says Banja Luka is named after this? I see no proof for such an etymology. It makes some sense, but to claim it categorically? The other unneccessary factoid was that Yugoslav banovine were named after rivers - very much impertinent here. Leave something for that article, too :) --Joy [shallot]

I didn't know this was controversial. There's plenty of sources, many of them Croatian nationalists, so I'll just cite Lovrenovic [2], who is known to be anything but an extremist. As he says, "Banja" is clearly an adjective, so "spa" etymologies can't work. I'm not aware of any other explanations of what "Banja" might be an adjective of. Zocky 13:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's controversial, but if it wasn't certain enough to get mentioned before, how certain is it...? Look at the shaky explanation in our Banja Luka article, too. --Joy [shallot]

What does look like a factoid, though, is the resemblance of "ban" to "khan". Are there any sources for those words being cognates? Zocky 02:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but it was there before me and I left it as is. --Joy [shallot]

Hmm, the Online Etymology Dictionary (an english source, but nonetheless) gives the origin as the Persian ban "prince, lord, chief, governor" and related to Sanskrit pati "guards, protects". The Sarmatian bajan seems to fit with this. So the turkish/mongolian khan does seem to be a bit of a red herring. I say remove the 'khan' until someone can point out some source claiming a relationship. --BluePlatypus 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Wallachian bans were military governors who also coined their own money (the bani - which is nowadays the Romanian word for "money")

- very interesting... then the english word bank (were you keep your "ban"(plural bani)) must've come down from those 5500 Sarmatians displaced by Hadrian to defend Britain :) -- Criztu 21:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. English "bank" is from Italian "banca", meaning "bench". It comes from the benches of the money changers and lenders in mediaeval Florence and Venice. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which were those? I can't find any examples whatsoever in the linked article. --Joy [shallot] 20:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Because there were none. Ban was most usually a Croat or a Hungarian governing in Croatia and/or Bosnia.

Excuse me but thus article is ludacris, the title Ban is first used in Bosnia and then later on for a brief period in Croatia. Making the title ban purely Bosnian!. I will have to rewrite this article. Damir Mišić

Damir, the Croatian Bans existed between 1107 and 1919; and was relieved between 1939 and 1941 (see List of rulers of Croatia) How could you claim such a thing? HolyRomanEmperor 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The title was first used in croatia in the 1200th century, whereas it was used in Bosnia by native Bosnian bans from the 7th century. see List of rulers of Bosnia Article must be rewritten. Best Damir Mišić 12:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. But don't you have 500 years of Bosnian Bans and 800 years of Croatian Bans then? HolyRomanEmperor 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not true, but even if it was it does not change the fact that bans first existed in bosnia and then were "coppied" into croatian rule. Damir Mišić 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

800 years? Actually no, you are counting, on croatia's behalf, also those years of so called "banate" within hungary. This shouldn't be considered as real bans as this was more something of a romantic look back at history - compare it to when croat movements in the 19th century called croatians to be "illyrians". My point is: it is not important to the matter of how many years they had bans but rather in which way they had these bans, one cannot really call the croatian bans in the 18th century to be bans, they were perhaps bans to name but not in way of ruling. Bans existed in Bosnia all the way from 7th century to year 1463. Please you rewrite the article or I will do so. I am croatian myself and the public croatian historian view of the croatian usage of Bans is as following: croatian kings and knez's who adopted the name from local nativ ban rulers in Bosnia Damir Mišić 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

just looked at croatian rulers and bosnian rulers and it looks like you mixed up the years!, the bans where in bosnia for 800 years and in croatia for 500, by other words the other way around. Damir Mišić

Between 1102 and 1919 is... 817 years? Add to that 3 years in 1939-1941 = 870 years. And the Bosnian Bans existed from the 7th century all the way to 1377 (Kingdom) which is what... 600 - 700 years? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No the croatian "bans" are from 1107-1527, after 1527 Habsburgers ruled croatia and it was no longer a banate. Making it to be some 500 years + short periods later mainly in hungary-union, not making it more than 550 years at the most. But as said that has no meaning, did you not read what I wrote above. Damir Mišić 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dakle, Ivan Mažuranić nije bio hrvatski Ban... Jeste... a pogledaj koje su to godine. HolyRomanEmperor 22:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he was "acting ban" and was this for some few years, which is actually not changing the amount of years overall in a major way. Damir Mišić 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? If they were "acting Bans" as you say; how could they amass so much wealth; and successfully promote uniating of the (Serbian) Orthodox population? Not to mention the plan to convert all Muslims into Catholics... Not to mention the numerious edicts (like banning the use of cyrilic script in Croatia) and you say "acting"? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it says "acting" I just quoted the article. Damir Mišić 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that. Well, you can find the same thing on many articles; it litterally means that he was Ban of Croatia (and a talented writer, if may add). --HolyRomanEmperor 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, my mistake then. :) Damir Mišić 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Damir, either you are talking about Ludacris, or you misspelled the word ludicrous :-) Alexander 007 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The page http://www.hupi.hr/povijest/banovi.html notes that the term "ban" was quite often used in Croatia in the 970s with Pribina, while Google can find references to Pribina in 949. http://hr.wikisource.org/wiki/Ban_Ratimir talks of ban Ratimir in 827. The list of rulers of Bosnia doesn't name a single ban, oddly enough. I think we need a bit less grandstanding and a bit more fact in order to dismiss the idea that the title was common to the entire region (Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary - all adjacent), and replace it with a definitive notion that it must have been one single area where it originated. --Joy [shallot]

I moved this to the talk page, since the anonymous user posted that where it does not belong. Something of this could be incorporated into article. PANONIAN (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ban, as it occurs in the Croatian tradition and history, originates in the efforts of Ban Jelačic in the 19th century to make Croatia less dependent from Hungary. Croatia had been treated as a constituent part of Hungary since the 12th century, and this was a major achievement when it comes to the preservation of that Croatian identity and defining it as it is today. Croatia borders have been very much defined during that time, the borders of today’s Republic Croatia not being immune to it. The references to ban in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are linked to this tradition and do not have much in common with the titles of the medieval Bosnian rulers, which in fact predate them. However, the origin of the title ban, as in Kulin ban, may very well be indigenous to Bosnia, i.e. does not necessarily indicate a vassal position of the Bosnian rulers, as a matter of fact it would be hard to produce evidence to support that implication. It is a very bold statement at its best.

Illyrian origin? Not likely. The term exists in Chinese and Iranian :-)))))) Cf. Chinese Tai-Pan, Lo-Ban, and so on. Pan and Ban mean "leader" in Chinese, unless I'm mistaken. I go for an Asiatic origin. By the way, can we please have references for the Illyrian origin theory? Sorin Paliga, a historical linguist, has also proposed a Daco-Thracian origin for the term, but I doubt it is from Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians. Alexander 007 08:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

the word ban [...] bears a similarity to khan

?? You could have fooled me, guv! -- Picapica 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The title was first used in the lands of Bosnia, there is no discussion about that. Later it was incorporated into Croatian rule, due to Croatian occupation of Bosnian areal and rulers. So I repeat; The title was not used in Croatia first, but in Bosnia. I suppose you will change this or else there will be some complications. Damir Mišić

For Damir: I do not care where the title was used first, but you just reverted to an old version of the article destroying all changes and improvements that other users made in this article. That is not quite nice behaviour, you know. If you want to change something, please change, but in the CURRENT VERSION of the article (not in the one several months old), and please DO NOT DESTROY THE WORK OF OTHER USERS. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The title entered English from Croatian not Serbo-Croat. The latter is just an older name for Central-South Slavic diasystem (still in use somewhere though), dialectal continuum not a standard language.--Factanista 13:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the word is not Croatian by origin. Since there are several theories about its origin and since it was also used in medieval Bosnia (and medieval Bosnia was not a Croatian land no matter what some Croatian historins claim), the title is connected with Serbs as much as it is connected with Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets put it like this people. If there really were Bosnian bans before Croatian bans what was their religion? The religion of Bosnia, entire known world(except the Arabs, or the Orient, etc.) before 1054. A.D. really, was Catholic. The title of ban was used by the Hungarians but originated from the Croatian people, and historical Croatian regions of Lika, Krbava and Slavonija. If king Tomislav was a duke before he was a king, and fought the Bulgarians on the highlands of eastern Bosnia in 927, or something like that, wasn't he then the sovereign ruler of Bosnian land? That is a historical fact. There are no historical sources of Tomislav ever conquering Bosnia or enslaving, killing or whatever some Bosnian nation. Then the logical conclusion would be, let me guess, ah yes, Tomislav, and his people, the Croats, were already there. According to the Bosnian wikipedia, the first Bosnian ban was Boric ruling Bosnia in early/mid 1100s. The first known Croatian ban was Pribina ruling Lika, Gacka and Krbava in 970s. It is the ban title tradition that was kept by Croats as far to the 20th century.

       Pribina  	around 970.

Godemir around 1000. Gvarda around 1020. Božetjeh around 1030. Stjepan (protospatar) around 1040. Gojko 1059. - 1069. Dmitar Zvonimir 1070. - 1073. Petar 1074. Ugrin 1107. Klaudije 1116. - 1117. Aleksije around 1130. Beloš 1142. - 1157. Apa 1158. Beloš 1163. Ampud 1164. - 1176. Dionizije 1181. - 1183. Suban 1183. - 1185. Kálán 1190. - 1193. Dominik 1194. - 1195. Andrija 1198. Nikola 1199. - 1200. (Benedikt 1199. - 1200.) Martin Hontpázmán 1202. Hipolit 1204. Merkurije 1205. - 1206. Stjepan 1206. - 1207. Bank 1208. - 1209. Bertold Andechs - Meranski 1209. - 1211. Mihajlo 1212. Đula Šikloški 1213. Ohuz 1213. - 1214. Ivan 1215. Poža 1216. Bank (second time) 1217. - 1218. Đula (second time) 1219. Ohuz (second time) 1220. - 1222. Šalamon 1222. - 1224. Mihajlo 1224.

and so on....all the way to 1918. and then again for a short 1939.-1941. period. ban dr. Ivan Šubašić.

Croats are not a big nation, but are certainly a proud one. Even the Turkish 14th and 15th century writers testify that. An estimated number of a million Croats in the 4 centuries of the Turkish wars had to give their lives so that Europe would look as it looks today. And today Croats and this what Croatia is today is looked with suspicious eyes from the very Europe they defended for centuries, and some people, like Damir here, an obvious historical-fact-manipulator keeps trying to deny the Croatdom of BAN, which is, I allow myself to say obvious (bans didnt rule China, neither did they rule Sweden or whatever). They ruled Croatia and when they ruled anywhere else it was because they were either Croats or they liked to present themselves as Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.29.27 (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say it just in short: This title isn't 'South Slavic' and it wasn't used first in Bosnia. This title is purely croatian and is a part of their persian descent. First ban of Bosnia was Borič (Boricius) who was installed into that position in 1054 after croatian-hungarian king conquered Bosnia and deposed the native princely dinasty. First mention of the office ban was in the 9th century when byzantine emperor Constantine VII in his book "De administrando imperio" wrote that regions of Lika, Gacka and Krbava (today all 3 are called Lika) were administered by a ban unlike the rest of Croatian Kingdom wich was divided into shires(županije). Later another ban appeared wich administered the terittory of former Pannonian Croatian (later Slavonia). There in no evidence that any other southern Slavic nation (Slovenes, Serbes, Montenegrins, Bulgarians) have ever used the title ban.

• I haven't mentioned Bosniaks and Macedonians because Macedonians were made a seperate nation in 1945, and Bosniak under the name of Muslims in 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.221.108 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The term ban is clearly slavic. Its still found in polish as pan meaning mister. Its a contraction of the word gospodin meaning lord > gospan (diminutive of gospodin) and then just pan/ban. Bajan or bojan are also slavic as they derive from the word for battle, war or fighting - boj > bojan/bajan is an adjective meaning he who is belicosious and we still have a slavic name Bojan/Bojana (with many variations) which is without any contraversy or doubt a slavic name and of slavic origin. The persian term is a loanword from slavic as well as the turkic word. We had that title long before turks and persians ever came into contact with slavs. Also in Hetite there was a counsil of elders called panka (dont know the english spelling though "pan" is the root stem which can also denote lords or masters as those elders ruled/governed the Hetites)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.9.111 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Turkic/Iranian origin is sourced in 2 etymological dictionaries of Serbo-Croatian, and your ad-hoc "explanations" are supported by no one. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, you mean some pseudolinguist scribbled it down in his pseudolinguistic dictionary. Now that is very reliable. From a dimwitted, antislavic, parroting ignoramus such as yourself one cannot expect anything else. Oh yes, I forgot, this is wikipedia, "the nucleus of academic learning and serious and reliable information" - spare me. Oh, I also read that "great" article on Slavic tribes and their movement across Europe (forgot the name - not that it was worth remembering). I would suggest one improvement though; advise the article's author to make it even more degrading, pseudo-historical and antislavic to get the gist of it - and you would love it much, much more I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.9.111 (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Petar Skok (the author of Etimologijski rječnik SH jezika, the first reference) and Ranko Matasović (the author of the etymology in Enciklopedijski rječnik series, the second reference) are two most finest Yugoslavian etymologists ever. You, OTOH, are some insane Serb nationalist diaspora amateur who adds made-up words no one ever spoke (svetlokaz, jajinjak..), inventing "etymologies" that are so dumb a 6-year old would laugh. So please once and for all stop trolling talkpages unless you have some refs to back up your imaginative claims. This is not a place for original research. There is no "anti-Slavic" conspiracy anywhere but in your head. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Another assumption for the origin of the ban was a borrowing from a Turkic language,[2][3] from the Avar word bajan meaning "ruler of the horde", a derivation of the Proto-Turkic root *bāj- "rich, noble""

Occultism. The word "ban, pan" were always Slavic, which means "ruler". The same as Khan, which means "Great one". The same as Knez or Kniaz; which means "civilian ruler"(king). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.130.137 (talk • contribs) 26 October 2011