--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
> BTW, the "ban" is in Serbian and Bulgarian old stories allways in
> relationship with Romanians, I am wrong here?
Yes, I think you are wrong.
There is evident some confusion about who and when used the title of
ban. First documented use of that title in Balkan area was by Croats
in X. century. Some parts of Croatia had been ruled by ban which was
person second to king. Later the title was introduced to Bosnia
probably when it was incorporated in Croatia. Serbs never used it.
When Croatia entered personal union with Hungary in 1102. the title
of ban was used only with connection to croatian lands where bans
ruled as viceroys (very often they where Hungarian royal princes,
but not always, sometimes they were of local croatian noble families
or even zagreb bishops)
Expansion of the title into other parts of Hungary, was slow and was
usually closely connected with the property interests of individual
croatian bans.
I prefer opinion that Banat have no connection with bans, but rather
with bulgarian use of "ban" meaning "mountain", because in slavic
the term would be then "Banovina" and not "Banat".
>
> As for the another meaning of "ban"= money, I have had with Piotr
one
> discution about regarding the german pfening, english pence, polish
> pieniadz, and so on. It waas a discution regarding a time where
people
> payd with texture and such stuff, maybe he will remember what
about. The
> rom. word for "ban"= money is given with an unknown etymology.
Croatian bans made coins begining from XIII. century, which name
was "moneta banalis" or "denarii banales", because bans had had the
right for coinage. First known ban who used that right was Slavonian
ban Stjepan Guthkeled (1248.-1260). Coinary was in Pakrac. Later it
was moved to Zagreb and that Zagreb coins where called "denarii
zagrabienses".
Moneta banalis was widely used in whole of Hungary because of his
value.