This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer, p. 42-43: "if the idea of developing a thema of Serbia existed briefly, it was swiftly abandoned and the title strategos passed to the local aristocracy. In a charter issued July 1039 the Slavic ruler of Zahumlje styled himself "Ljutovit, protospatharios epi tou Chrysotriklinou, hypatos, strategos of Serbia and Zahumlje." Ljutovid's claim to be strategos not only of Zahumlje, but all Serbia suggests that he had been courted by the emperor, and awarded nominal rights neighbouring lands, including Duklja, which was at the time at war with the empire. Moreover, if we can trust the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, our only narrative source, we must conclude that none of the Serbian lands was under direct Byzantine control in 1042. In that year, we are told, the ban of Bosnia, župan of Raška, and Slavic princeps of Zahumlje (Chelmana), Ljutovid, received Byzantine ambassadors offering piles of imperial silver and gold to support imperial efforts against the ruler of neighbouring Duklja, Stefan Vojislav. The use of Latin princeps, rather than iupanus or banus, to describe Ljutovid, supports the notion that he held the supreme authority among the Serbs at the time." Comment: Ban is a Slavic title, Zupan as well, Princeps is not, and therefore the author uses "Slavic princeps of Zahumlje" and "The use of Latin princeps, rather than iupanus or banus, to describe Ljutovid, supports the notion that he held the supreme authority among the Serbs at the time". I advice Kebeta to stop deleting facts of Zahumlje connected to Serbs.--Zoupan (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the sources used label him as Slavic ruler, that is the label we'll use. When either you or Kebeta find a source that labels him as Serb/Croat/Bosnian then the label should be changed. However, in the 11th century there wasn't much of a difference as these national identities were formed much later.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
